Ownership? lol even if the house is paid for you're still renting it by paying taxes for the land its on. Taxes equate to giving freedom away. The truth is that people don't own anything.
It's not a "DREAM" if you have to make payments on a home for 30 years of your fuckin' life... the "DREAM" exists in other nations like India and China where if you have cold cash, you buy a house, otherwise, you go on renting... which makes more sense in both reality and in theory... :-\
If it wasnt for your country borrowing shit from the rest of the world and sucking all the life from africa and the middle east that would've been the case 40 years ago.
Cardboard, plywood and two-by-fours - this is the American dream? C'mon. When I saw Arnold punching through the walls in Terminator I thought it was staged for effect. Now I know these walls are indeed like this. The only difference between American homes and say Mumbai shackles is that in America they have proper plumbing.
Profit incentive and efficiency or durability are not neccessarily mutually exclusive. Infact more times than not, you need efficiency and durability to make a profit.
Although, when examined a bit deeper; you need some amount of efficiency and durability to a certain extent which meets the product's predicted lifetime (usually within the warranty).
If you were to produce all items with the interest of maximum durability and efficiency, profits decrease substantially due to less repeat customers and/or less maintenance.
Then its a good thing all products aren't created by the same producers, and that producers compete to attract customers. If customers want to buy products with a longer warranty, with higher durability or more "efficiency" (what ever you mean by that, you didn't really operationalize the terms) then thats what consumers buy, and thats what producers make. Opportunity cost and consumer preferences driven product quality. This is just parroting venusite, boogeyman economics.
@ghostbuddy You forgot the fact that those products cost much more; which in turn also means less people buy them. And many different producers also means different designs with their own trademarks, thus you can not make the 'all around best' product of anything in that kind of system... nor will it be very profitable, if at all.
"This is just parroting venusite, boogeyman economics."
Where did you come up with those meaningless labels?
"You forgot the fact...." No I didn't. Hence opportunity cost. They don't arbitarly cost more either. Their higher cost tends to be associated with the increased inputs needed to produce higher quality outputs. The end of your paragraph is talking about intellectual property rights. An all around "best" product, is a subjective term, with a different meaning for different people. Ofcourse it wouldn't be profitable. Consumers don't like packaged deals.
@ghostbuddy The highest cost is associated with the increased inputs, to an extent.
Although some factors such as overpricing or undercutting for the sake of more profit or more sales/competition also artificially alters the value. It is not entirely based on the work required to make the product.
My definition of all around best product means using the best engineering and technology according to current scientific knowledge. Instead of cost-efficient material.
Thats not "artificial" at all. In a market all voluntary interactions are natural. If you have the flexibility to raise prices, thats a reflection of the fact that you have high utilization, low supply of alternative producers, or high demand (relative to supply). This simultaneously signals you and others to increase your production capacity, to meet that demand, and it signals potential competitors that this is a industry to invest in.
@ghostbuddy You did not mention the factor of greed for profit; and that's quite a major factor.
Do you believe people's behavior is not affected when they're raised in our type of education system (laughable would be an understatement for it), within a society having so much inequality of wealth?
I didn't have to mention it, because its irrelevant.. The fact is the market defines how people gain profit in the first place. That was implicit and explicitly stated in that argument. The fact people are greedy for profit, changes nothing. Even if they were altruistically following price signals, you get the same output.
Our education system, is one where our education is provided by a single producer, and all other producers are either heavly controlled and restricted, such that they have to produce an identical model. Inequality of wealth is an issue that I would rather avoid, lets stick to absolute wealth. I don't plan to be here all night.
I mean "absolute wealth" in the economic sense. The most accurate indicator of this would be purchasing power. Purchasing power of the average poor person has increased, despite decreases in equality of wealth. Just about everyone is getting wealthier, just not at the same rate. Again, I have my explanation for the growing inequality of wealth, - which is a relatively new thing for the free market.
Exactly. Your definition. Good thing we have a market, so other peoples preferences matter too, eh?The computer that uses the most advanced engineering and technology might take 8 months to make, weight 500 pounds, and use 15x the resources. Good thing we have opportunity cost, so that consumers can evaluate cost vs utility.
@ghostbuddy You once again give a definition based on a completely irrelevant example.
Such a computer you describe would not be practical, except for being in a static location for supercomputing; of course it won't be used as a PC or cellphone.. or did you assume people would really be stupid enough to try to make everyday items so large and heavy?
That example effectively illustrates why you need cost signals to allow for opportunity cost.. Your problem with that particular example is irrelevant to what it demonstrates.
The fact is, if it were possible to produce a higher quality good, with no increased costs on the side of production or distribution, and consumers were more likely to purchase a higher quality good, higher quality goods would be the status quo. And lower quality goods would generate less profit, because they would generate less consumer interest. The increased costs of producing higher qualitiy goods, creates a dichotomy in the economy, and consumers have to make decisions.
"Where did you come up with those meaningless labels"
Meaning is subjective, clearly it isn't meaningless to me. "Venusite" A noun used to describe a person who advocates the venus project. "Boogeyman economics" , a economic perspective that unrealistically villifies completely free voluntary economic transactions (the market).
Meaning is subjective. They absolutely have to do with the discussion at hand. We are discussing your ideas, inspired by the venus project, and the boogeyman economics at the heart of your argument. No. Human economics is a resource based economy already. No. Money evolved out of barter systems, dozens of times independantly. Money is no more or less a part of reality, than value itself. You are confusing "money" with "fiat currency"
Money can be pretty much anything, although its fundamental problem is the actual definition of what it's used for; a medium of exchange.
Using a medium of exchange can only be temporary for the fact that it can not be used as food or water (the necessities for life). You eventually run into limited resources and scarcity, regardless.
The 'idea' is not based on any specific 'thing' that you mention; simply based on life experience and adaptation.
Yes it is, but refering to characteristics of fiat currency specifically in an argument, inorder to argue against currency in general is dishonest. No. Money can only be what people will voluntarly, universally accept in exchange for goods. Food and water aren't the only important things in an economy, money allows for economic calculation, opportunity cost, subjective allocation,etc. Thats because limited resources and scarcity are a fact of reality.
@ghostbuddy "Money can only be what people will voluntarly, universally accept in exchange for goods."
Voluntarily? When everyone is raised and conditioned into the notion that currency can 'get you everything' and your brain becomes hard-wired with that notion. Do you believe that has no effect on people's behavior? Do you believe they may have chosen otherwise if given an option, instead?
Im not about to start a debate about the limitations of behaviouralism. Again, currencies have convergently emerged out of voluntary economic relationships dozens of times. I have explained some of the economic utility of currency, that it allows for economic calculation, indirect exchange, solves free rider problems,etc. The only reason you can't go try a moneyless economy, is legal tender laws, and property laws, thats the government, not the market.
@ghostbuddy Why not discuss behavior? Do you believe it does not affect economic relationships or the perception of how an economy works?
"The only reason you can't go try a moneyless economy, is legal tender laws, and property laws, thats the government, not the market."
Ah, the idea in question involves no laws. Although if you feel that having some laws would be for the betterment of society; you're welcome to offer suggestions.
No. I don't want to discuss behaviour, because if you believe what any of the venus project material on the subject has to say, you have a perspective more radical, than behaviouralism. A scientific approach to human psychology that focused on conditioning, but atleast accepted the existence of "unconditioned" (evolved) responses. Which has been rejected, and utterly discredited since then. I have other engagements planned, so im intentionally avoiding tangents.
@ghostbuddy Ah, so you believe because the establishment and the people raised within this society while heavily influenced by this establishment, having refused an idea, it must be 'invalid'?
Do you believe it's impossible that an idea can be refused if it does not serve someone's self-interest?
The idea you're speaking of, a moneyless economy, has been tried, and failed for all of human civilization. Litterally. Its invalid because there is no economic calculation, no way to represent the aggregate subjective interests of people in society, in a way that changes the way people behave, etc. Don't straw man me. I've litterally spent the last hour trying to explain to you why its invalid, and why it always fails. but you're hung up on your epistemology problems.
@ghostbuddy A "moneyless economy" is already used by every living being at a very basic level.
Are you sure that humans, the most evolved species, can not adopt such a system?
Most labor can be eliminated by machination; although, this creates the problem of fewer jobs which in turn requires more jobs to be invented just for the sake of making money, many of those jobs do not produce anything. What does this lead to?
You are seriously a confused individual. All through history, people have had the freedom to branch off, and try to create moneyless societies. They did, fairly frequently, although very few are known about, none of them succeed for very long, beyond a certain size. Today because of property tax, and legal tender (money) laws, you are effectively prevented from doing that. Unless you are religious, and can avoid paying property tax for religious reasons.
@ghostbuddy Also take into account the evolution of technology.
Today, most jobs can be obsolete (and are already becoming) due to machination; which is yet another "problem" created within a currency-based society because less people can have jobs due to machination.
Are you a neo-luddite? Thats what I call Boogeyman economics again. Thats not what has EVER happened in human history. When people created technology that made agriculture easier, you didn't have massive starvation, did you? Theres so many ways that logic is incoherent, that I don't know where to begin.
The market adapts in the truest sense of the word. Currency was a economic adapation, that convergently emerged out of voluntary exchange dozens of times. You are taking about an ad-hoc, centrally planned economy, that amounts to economic creationism. Not adaption. Its a good thing im not a retarded malthusian, and I understand how the long term availabilty of resources affect prices and investment. Or I would think the only economic system to ever work was unsustainable 2.
Selection pressures have a tremendous influence on everything. From the behaviour of particles, to the evolution of the universe. Theres never one sole direction of selection. Evolution of currencies are in response to a lack of information about supply/demand, alternative uses of the same inputs, subjective interests of the participants, etc.
"Yep", great way to select the one point, out of the handful I made, and the dozens I could of made. Interests are subjective. If you want an economy that organizes to reflect the interests of participants, it must neccessarly allow for subjectivity. Its incredibly telling that you thought "subjective interests of the participants" was something worth taking issue with.
Again, im not getting into psychology here. That question isn't the sort of thing you can anwser in 500 words or less. Im running out of time, and I have no intention of getting into tangents.
@ghostbuddy (cont) concept of human economics is a belief-based one. Money is not a part of reality and by itself has no value whatsoever; it was created by several humans and is now used because they have conditioned enough people believe that it "should be" used.
@ghostbuddy (cont) as for what you have been thought about 'unrealistic' economic models....
An economy using a belief-based currency created out of nothing and belief-based politics actually sounds to me quite a bit more unrealistic than one based on things that exist; resources and the best known scientific method.
You are constantly demonstrating how philisophically limited your perspective on epistemology are. I've already told you all economies are resource based economies. You continue to parrot venus project boogeyman economics, with ad-hoc theories of the origins of price.
@ghostbuddy The economy you're talking about is not resource based. It is currency based for the simple fact that currency can be anything; and thus it can be infinite. Change the fiat currency to gold... you get low on gold, then the establishment can easily declare an additional currency to be added to the 'standard' such as silver. Get low on silver; another new currency. Etc.
No. Currency cannot be anything. The only reason the establishment can declare anything when it comes to currency, is ad-hoc legal tender laws. Currency evolves out of voluntary economic relationships. "Establishment" fiat decrees about currency, swim against the current of economic evolution. So we have a common enemy.
No ofcourse they don't always follow the laws. How is that relevant? The context in which I brought up law, should be a clear indicator that im an anarchist by the way. "Absolute wealth" is a reflection of purchasing power, in the context, I was refering to the purchasing power of every participant increasing overtime. Well-being tends to be subjective too. Too ambigious for me to address in any meaningful way.
@ghostbuddy To have a society operating with the primary goal as the well-being of that society basically means always working towards improving the life of everyone in said society, with the core of such idea being providing everyone with the necessities for life.
I don't put much faith in labels so when you say 'anarchist' it gives me some idea but tells very little else; everyone is shaped by the experiences in their life so I don't hold a particular label to describe one's personality.
The neccessity of life are provided for the majority of people in OUR society right now. Where it isn't, I contend, for reasons related to some of the things i've said already, where this isn't true in OUR society, this is driven by government. Again, you're really getting on my nerves. You have failed to adequtely refute any of my claims about economic calculation, and thus you're begging the question. I obviously think your solution would fail at allocating resources.
"I don't put much fail in labels". We aren't talking about personality, and you don't need to be certain that you understand what I mean by anarchist absolutely for the word "anarchist" to have value in this discussion. The subjective nature of the word anarchist, equally applies to just about every other word also. Your gripe with labels, should logically apply to everything else also. Words are subjective. Not just labels.
Holy crap. So im going to summarise this real quick. You need currency for opportunity cost, and economic calculation. Learn what those term mean, then we can have a meaningful discussion about economics. Value, value judgements, words, are all subjective. Learn this and we might be able to have a meaningful discussion. Actually address arguments instead of ignoring them, don't go on irrelevant tangents every five seconds. And pay more attention to what people say.
What if you were raised in a society designed around resource management. If someone told you that you need currency and you need to learn X and Y terms that have been created by the inventors of this kind of economy, then ...?
Have you seen an attempt at a society without currency, while using modern technology?
@ghostbuddy (cont) Most labor can be eliminated by machination; although, this creates the problem of fewer jobs which in turn requires more jobs to be invented just for the sake of making money, many of those jobs do not produce anything. What does this lead to?
I've thought that for a long time if one can't buy a house outright then one is better off renting. Then again if one doesn't pay all the taxes on the property it seems that the property can be taken away anyway, even if one does own it outright.
@BlackFlagMuslim People want to live in BC and in Richmond (a suburb of Vancouver) people come from mainland China with a lot of money offering $100,000 over the asking price to ensure they get the house in the area they want. Canada has a lot of land but much of it is untouched (thank God!) People like to live in the bigger cities because that's where the jobs are, and that's where the people want to live
americans were not misled but failed to remember the importance of paying as you go like those who lived and survived through the great depression taught them...instead they allow themselves to be brainwashed that keeping up with the jones' is of more significance...its all about to come to a frightening end.
Dreams are dreams. They dont come true most of the time so keep on dreaming America while you are being fucked in the ass by your banks and government over and over again.
ask your bank to prove they own the home.. ..called produce the note.. until they show that you can stay in your home.. .. look up mortgage fraud.. you will be happy
cave man didn't cost him a penny and didn't pay any taxes , i guess we need stone age attitude towards housing what makes government say its their land ????
I am so disappointed that AJE focuses on the relatively-prosperous families like this. So he lost his job last year. POOR BABY, you still have UI. AND you were a manager, so you're getting a fat UI check.
What about the 99ers, most of them over 50 years of age, who lost their jobs back in 2008, and have no UI anymore, who have *nothing* now. What about those of us who were working for minimum wage *before* we got laid off?
And I thought in Singapore housing was a big issue with a 5room apartment costing $500,000 for a loan of 30years. But wait each public issued by the government has a lease of 99yrs. So if by then you die, you kids probably has to pay extra to keep the house or the government kicks u out.
viva la revolution. you guys are allowed to have guns, that is a head start over almost every other country. Stop being a slave to your economy with only the corporations getting richer while every one slides into hole of debt and poverty.
The way I look at it that we are all poor no matter what ! Meaning soul & mind wise cuz money can never buy love or feel love, we are all sick & need time heal & work together as a family.
All american wealth has been given to the bank cartel and the FED by the US government. If you want to keep your home, you have to buy weapons and make a revolution. You can also become a slave if this is what you want.
Sorry, but there's no such thing as home ownership in America. Your bank and local government bureaucrats your home, and once you pay off the mortgage, your government owns it. This system is designed to keep the average American sheeple enslaved via debt, and this is why so many folks are losing what never belonged to them in the first place. Even the deed states you're a TENANT. Home ownership doesn't truly exist.
@nadoop so fucking true dude... so fucking true... there is a stipulation in my contract with the water company that states if I stop paying my irrigation bill for over two years the city has the right the confiscate my house... what type of bullshit is that? the worst thing is I don't even get irrigation water where I live... but yet I still have to pay for it....
@Alpinex105 the government can take your home if you don't pay a bunch of worthless taxes that don't benefit your community. but it takes the average person about 30 years to pay a mortgage, anyway. my mother pays 1600 a month for her mortgage and taxes in florida, and only a hundred bucks goes toward the principal. the rest is interest and taxes.
ha AlJazeera needs to do a report on BC, Canada's housing crisis. In my city the cheapest house is close to $700 000, while most are over a million dollars. the city north of me is even more expensive and the city south of me is slightly less expensive but still unbuyable unless you are a drug dealer or chinese business man
stop looking at expensive houses around vancouver then.
You can get town houses or condos all around the lower mainland for under 300k
if you go up north to prince george, 100 mile and areas around there you can get a house with a couple yards of land for so cheap.
I was thinking of moving out to mission a little while ago because houses are so cheap there but I like being in the city. Bare in mind I'm 20 and a construction worker and have no problem affording my apartment.
@LCIsinclair Yes I'm aware of all this I'm talking about housing prices in my area. In BC housing prices are still inflated even in Prince George which is far, isolated and not the safest city to live in. In Southern Ontario you can get a nice 2 level home with 3 beds and 2 baths for $100, 000, never would that be possible in BC
dumb people who got subprime mortgages and didn't even bothered to find out what it was....soon there wont be a middle class
shadowromeo22 4 months ago
This is not the land of the free, if they could they'd tax the air we breath
sethious1 5 months ago
you never Own anything in America its all Rented out
jamil316 6 months ago
Ownership? lol even if the house is paid for you're still renting it by paying taxes for the land its on. Taxes equate to giving freedom away. The truth is that people don't own anything.
eternalperchedbird 6 months ago
@eternalperchedbird
Wrong. Taxes are the price you pay for living in a society.
geffel 6 months ago
@geffel -pay 100% of your income to taxes and let me know if you're free
eternalperchedbird 6 months ago
these are housing projects. dont be fooled the middle class was a government intiative created for "none colored americans".
MySkiesAreBlue24 6 months ago
Watch the Money Masters. USA, biggest cult in the world.
ChrizstianC 6 months ago
why do Americans want such huge houses?
marklosextremus 6 months ago
@marklosextremus obesity epidemic?
ChrizstianC 6 months ago
@marklosextremus Why do American have big empty vast land?
aznguymetal 6 months ago
@aznguymetal
To get to the other side.
geffel 6 months ago
Well then.
Wants can be subjective, although not necessarily all of them.
What about needs?
Food, water and shelter; are these subjective?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
No they're basic necessities. Like health care. They should all be free.
geffel 6 months ago
ideals including racism and discrimination against non-whites.
dreicemoney 6 months ago
It's not a "DREAM" if you have to make payments on a home for 30 years of your fuckin' life... the "DREAM" exists in other nations like India and China where if you have cold cash, you buy a house, otherwise, you go on renting... which makes more sense in both reality and in theory... :-\
TheEsotericDesi 6 months ago
Fuck Levittown! They had racist housing practices that forbid Asians, Blacks, and Latinos from buying homes in their suburbs in the 1950s-1960s.
AyitaZuleikaReyes 6 months ago
$300,000 for that fuckin' "Home" the size of an average studio apt... that's fucked up... even idiot would call it a "BUBBLE"...
TheEsotericDesi 6 months ago
This was soo sad... I almost cried seeing how stressed and embarrassed that young gentleman was... :( We're fast becoming a 3rd world country..
ShaktipatSeer2 6 months ago
@ShaktipatSeer2
If it wasnt for your country borrowing shit from the rest of the world and sucking all the life from africa and the middle east that would've been the case 40 years ago.
Get used to it buddy.
agpoe 6 months ago
Cardboard, plywood and two-by-fours - this is the American dream? C'mon. When I saw Arnold punching through the walls in Terminator I thought it was staged for effect. Now I know these walls are indeed like this. The only difference between American homes and say Mumbai shackles is that in America they have proper plumbing.
LeadHammer 6 months ago
@LeadHammer Yep, that's actually how many houses and apartments are built in the US.
Remember, to them it's about money; people after profit don't care about efficiency or durability, it hinders their profit.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Profit incentive and efficiency or durability are not neccessarily mutually exclusive. Infact more times than not, you need efficiency and durability to make a profit.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy True within a general sense.
Although, when examined a bit deeper; you need some amount of efficiency and durability to a certain extent which meets the product's predicted lifetime (usually within the warranty).
If you were to produce all items with the interest of maximum durability and efficiency, profits decrease substantially due to less repeat customers and/or less maintenance.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Then its a good thing all products aren't created by the same producers, and that producers compete to attract customers. If customers want to buy products with a longer warranty, with higher durability or more "efficiency" (what ever you mean by that, you didn't really operationalize the terms) then thats what consumers buy, and thats what producers make. Opportunity cost and consumer preferences driven product quality. This is just parroting venusite, boogeyman economics.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy You forgot the fact that those products cost much more; which in turn also means less people buy them. And many different producers also means different designs with their own trademarks, thus you can not make the 'all around best' product of anything in that kind of system... nor will it be very profitable, if at all.
"This is just parroting venusite, boogeyman economics."
Where did you come up with those meaningless labels?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
"You forgot the fact...." No I didn't. Hence opportunity cost. They don't arbitarly cost more either. Their higher cost tends to be associated with the increased inputs needed to produce higher quality outputs. The end of your paragraph is talking about intellectual property rights. An all around "best" product, is a subjective term, with a different meaning for different people. Ofcourse it wouldn't be profitable. Consumers don't like packaged deals.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy The highest cost is associated with the increased inputs, to an extent.
Although some factors such as overpricing or undercutting for the sake of more profit or more sales/competition also artificially alters the value. It is not entirely based on the work required to make the product.
My definition of all around best product means using the best engineering and technology according to current scientific knowledge. Instead of cost-efficient material.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Thats not "artificial" at all. In a market all voluntary interactions are natural. If you have the flexibility to raise prices, thats a reflection of the fact that you have high utilization, low supply of alternative producers, or high demand (relative to supply). This simultaneously signals you and others to increase your production capacity, to meet that demand, and it signals potential competitors that this is a industry to invest in.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy You did not mention the factor of greed for profit; and that's quite a major factor.
Do you believe people's behavior is not affected when they're raised in our type of education system (laughable would be an understatement for it), within a society having so much inequality of wealth?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
I didn't have to mention it, because its irrelevant.. The fact is the market defines how people gain profit in the first place. That was implicit and explicitly stated in that argument. The fact people are greedy for profit, changes nothing. Even if they were altruistically following price signals, you get the same output.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Our education system, is one where our education is provided by a single producer, and all other producers are either heavly controlled and restricted, such that they have to produce an identical model. Inequality of wealth is an issue that I would rather avoid, lets stick to absolute wealth. I don't plan to be here all night.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy What is your definition of "absolute wealth"?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
I mean "absolute wealth" in the economic sense. The most accurate indicator of this would be purchasing power. Purchasing power of the average poor person has increased, despite decreases in equality of wealth. Just about everyone is getting wealthier, just not at the same rate. Again, I have my explanation for the growing inequality of wealth, - which is a relatively new thing for the free market.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Does "absolute wealth" take into account the well-being of society as a whole?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
"My definition"
Exactly. Your definition. Good thing we have a market, so other peoples preferences matter too, eh?The computer that uses the most advanced engineering and technology might take 8 months to make, weight 500 pounds, and use 15x the resources. Good thing we have opportunity cost, so that consumers can evaluate cost vs utility.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy You once again give a definition based on a completely irrelevant example.
Such a computer you describe would not be practical, except for being in a static location for supercomputing; of course it won't be used as a PC or cellphone.. or did you assume people would really be stupid enough to try to make everyday items so large and heavy?
Think carefully.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
That example effectively illustrates why you need cost signals to allow for opportunity cost.. Your problem with that particular example is irrelevant to what it demonstrates.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy It demonstrates running society based on opinion; and that choice is imposed on all of society to use whatever 'currency' is declared.
The way our current society works.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
The fact is, if it were possible to produce a higher quality good, with no increased costs on the side of production or distribution, and consumers were more likely to purchase a higher quality good, higher quality goods would be the status quo. And lower quality goods would generate less profit, because they would generate less consumer interest. The increased costs of producing higher qualitiy goods, creates a dichotomy in the economy, and consumers have to make decisions.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Yes.
While currency still exists, that problem will as well.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy
"Where did you come up with those meaningless labels"
Meaning is subjective, clearly it isn't meaningless to me. "Venusite" A noun used to describe a person who advocates the venus project. "Boogeyman economics" , a economic perspective that unrealistically villifies completely free voluntary economic transactions (the market).
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy The labels are meaningless because they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
We are discussing an idea. The idea being how things would work when based on resources rather than currency.
That which you mention, "Venus Project" is just one particular suggestion that overlaps with some of the ideas I have communicated thus far.
In reality, every living organism since the existence of life has been using some sort of resource-based system.
The concept of
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Meaning is subjective. They absolutely have to do with the discussion at hand. We are discussing your ideas, inspired by the venus project, and the boogeyman economics at the heart of your argument. No. Human economics is a resource based economy already. No. Money evolved out of barter systems, dozens of times independantly. Money is no more or less a part of reality, than value itself. You are confusing "money" with "fiat currency"
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Fiat currency is a form of money.
Money can be pretty much anything, although its fundamental problem is the actual definition of what it's used for; a medium of exchange.
Using a medium of exchange can only be temporary for the fact that it can not be used as food or water (the necessities for life). You eventually run into limited resources and scarcity, regardless.
The 'idea' is not based on any specific 'thing' that you mention; simply based on life experience and adaptation.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Yes it is, but refering to characteristics of fiat currency specifically in an argument, inorder to argue against currency in general is dishonest. No. Money can only be what people will voluntarly, universally accept in exchange for goods. Food and water aren't the only important things in an economy, money allows for economic calculation, opportunity cost, subjective allocation,etc. Thats because limited resources and scarcity are a fact of reality.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy "Money can only be what people will voluntarly, universally accept in exchange for goods."
Voluntarily? When everyone is raised and conditioned into the notion that currency can 'get you everything' and your brain becomes hard-wired with that notion. Do you believe that has no effect on people's behavior? Do you believe they may have chosen otherwise if given an option, instead?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Im not about to start a debate about the limitations of behaviouralism. Again, currencies have convergently emerged out of voluntary economic relationships dozens of times. I have explained some of the economic utility of currency, that it allows for economic calculation, indirect exchange, solves free rider problems,etc. The only reason you can't go try a moneyless economy, is legal tender laws, and property laws, thats the government, not the market.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Why not discuss behavior? Do you believe it does not affect economic relationships or the perception of how an economy works?
"The only reason you can't go try a moneyless economy, is legal tender laws, and property laws, thats the government, not the market."
Ah, the idea in question involves no laws. Although if you feel that having some laws would be for the betterment of society; you're welcome to offer suggestions.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
No. I don't want to discuss behaviour, because if you believe what any of the venus project material on the subject has to say, you have a perspective more radical, than behaviouralism. A scientific approach to human psychology that focused on conditioning, but atleast accepted the existence of "unconditioned" (evolved) responses. Which has been rejected, and utterly discredited since then. I have other engagements planned, so im intentionally avoiding tangents.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Ah, so you believe because the establishment and the people raised within this society while heavily influenced by this establishment, having refused an idea, it must be 'invalid'?
Do you believe it's impossible that an idea can be refused if it does not serve someone's self-interest?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
The idea you're speaking of, a moneyless economy, has been tried, and failed for all of human civilization. Litterally. Its invalid because there is no economic calculation, no way to represent the aggregate subjective interests of people in society, in a way that changes the way people behave, etc. Don't straw man me. I've litterally spent the last hour trying to explain to you why its invalid, and why it always fails. but you're hung up on your epistemology problems.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy A "moneyless economy" is already used by every living being at a very basic level.
Are you sure that humans, the most evolved species, can not adopt such a system?
Most labor can be eliminated by machination; although, this creates the problem of fewer jobs which in turn requires more jobs to be invented just for the sake of making money, many of those jobs do not produce anything. What does this lead to?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
You are seriously a confused individual. All through history, people have had the freedom to branch off, and try to create moneyless societies. They did, fairly frequently, although very few are known about, none of them succeed for very long, beyond a certain size. Today because of property tax, and legal tender (money) laws, you are effectively prevented from doing that. Unless you are religious, and can avoid paying property tax for religious reasons.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Also take into account the evolution of technology.
Today, most jobs can be obsolete (and are already becoming) due to machination; which is yet another "problem" created within a currency-based society because less people can have jobs due to machination.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Are you a neo-luddite? Thats what I call Boogeyman economics again. Thats not what has EVER happened in human history. When people created technology that made agriculture easier, you didn't have massive starvation, did you? Theres so many ways that logic is incoherent, that I don't know where to begin.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy When technology made agriculture easier, what was the goal?
Reducing starvation with such technology? Or profit?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Profit.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy When technology made agriculture easier, what was the goal?
Reducing starvation with such technology? Or profit?
"Profit"
Correct.
Do you believe this kind of society has the interest for the well-being of its own people?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Although, if you completely disregard the well-being of society; yes, you can have a somewhat 'sustainable' society based on currency.
As long as you kill enough of the population to delay the resource wall as long as possible.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
The market adapts in the truest sense of the word. Currency was a economic adapation, that convergently emerged out of voluntary exchange dozens of times. You are taking about an ad-hoc, centrally planned economy, that amounts to economic creationism. Not adaption. Its a good thing im not a retarded malthusian, and I understand how the long term availabilty of resources affect prices and investment. Or I would think the only economic system to ever work was unsustainable 2.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy You actually believe our world operates on the truest sense of adaptation?
Adaptation to what? What is this adaptation driven by?
Monetary profit?
Or the well-being of society?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Selection pressures have a tremendous influence on everything. From the behaviour of particles, to the evolution of the universe. Theres never one sole direction of selection. Evolution of currencies are in response to a lack of information about supply/demand, alternative uses of the same inputs, subjective interests of the participants, etc.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy "subjective interests of the participants"
Yep.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
"Yep", great way to select the one point, out of the handful I made, and the dozens I could of made. Interests are subjective. If you want an economy that organizes to reflect the interests of participants, it must neccessarly allow for subjectivity. Its incredibly telling that you thought "subjective interests of the participants" was something worth taking issue with.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy ""Yep", great way to select the one point, out of the handful I made"
That was to point out behavior as being a major factor.
What is behavior and how is it developed?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
What is behavior and how is it developed"
Again, im not getting into psychology here. That question isn't the sort of thing you can anwser in 500 words or less. Im running out of time, and I have no intention of getting into tangents.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy (cont) concept of human economics is a belief-based one. Money is not a part of reality and by itself has no value whatsoever; it was created by several humans and is now used because they have conditioned enough people believe that it "should be" used.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy (cont) as for what you have been thought about 'unrealistic' economic models....
An economy using a belief-based currency created out of nothing and belief-based politics actually sounds to me quite a bit more unrealistic than one based on things that exist; resources and the best known scientific method.
How is our current one working out?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
You are constantly demonstrating how philisophically limited your perspective on epistemology are. I've already told you all economies are resource based economies. You continue to parrot venus project boogeyman economics, with ad-hoc theories of the origins of price.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy The economy you're talking about is not resource based. It is currency based for the simple fact that currency can be anything; and thus it can be infinite. Change the fiat currency to gold... you get low on gold, then the establishment can easily declare an additional currency to be added to the 'standard' such as silver. Get low on silver; another new currency. Etc.
Belief-based system.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
No. Currency cannot be anything. The only reason the establishment can declare anything when it comes to currency, is ad-hoc legal tender laws. Currency evolves out of voluntary economic relationships. "Establishment" fiat decrees about currency, swim against the current of economic evolution. So we have a common enemy.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Economic relationships are formed by what? Do you think the way people are raised has an effect on this?
Do you trust laws to be followed? Do the law makers and corporations always follow their own laws that they create?
"So we have a common enemy."
The enemy is common; what about the allies?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
No ofcourse they don't always follow the laws. How is that relevant? The context in which I brought up law, should be a clear indicator that im an anarchist by the way. "Absolute wealth" is a reflection of purchasing power, in the context, I was refering to the purchasing power of every participant increasing overtime. Well-being tends to be subjective too. Too ambigious for me to address in any meaningful way.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy To have a society operating with the primary goal as the well-being of that society basically means always working towards improving the life of everyone in said society, with the core of such idea being providing everyone with the necessities for life.
I don't put much faith in labels so when you say 'anarchist' it gives me some idea but tells very little else; everyone is shaped by the experiences in their life so I don't hold a particular label to describe one's personality.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
The neccessity of life are provided for the majority of people in OUR society right now. Where it isn't, I contend, for reasons related to some of the things i've said already, where this isn't true in OUR society, this is driven by government. Again, you're really getting on my nerves. You have failed to adequtely refute any of my claims about economic calculation, and thus you're begging the question. I obviously think your solution would fail at allocating resources.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy What is my solution?
Is it really "my" solution or simply a course of evolution?
Do you think behavior can affect governments, or the existence of government itself?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
"I don't put much fail in labels". We aren't talking about personality, and you don't need to be certain that you understand what I mean by anarchist absolutely for the word "anarchist" to have value in this discussion. The subjective nature of the word anarchist, equally applies to just about every other word also. Your gripe with labels, should logically apply to everything else also. Words are subjective. Not just labels.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy "We aren't talking about personality"?
We aren't?
What is a personality and how is it developed? Does it affect the perception of the idea being discussed?
somebungholio 6 months ago
@somebungholio
Holy crap. So im going to summarise this real quick. You need currency for opportunity cost, and economic calculation. Learn what those term mean, then we can have a meaningful discussion about economics. Value, value judgements, words, are all subjective. Learn this and we might be able to have a meaningful discussion. Actually address arguments instead of ignoring them, don't go on irrelevant tangents every five seconds. And pay more attention to what people say.
ghostbuddy 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy Do you really need currency?
What if you were raised in a society designed around resource management. If someone told you that you need currency and you need to learn X and Y terms that have been created by the inventors of this kind of economy, then ...?
Have you seen an attempt at a society without currency, while using modern technology?
Also, my below question:
somebungholio 6 months ago
@ghostbuddy (cont) Most labor can be eliminated by machination; although, this creates the problem of fewer jobs which in turn requires more jobs to be invented just for the sake of making money, many of those jobs do not produce anything. What does this lead to?
somebungholio 6 months ago
I've thought that for a long time if one can't buy a house outright then one is better off renting. Then again if one doesn't pay all the taxes on the property it seems that the property can be taken away anyway, even if one does own it outright.
chiyerano 6 months ago
@BlackFlagMuslim People want to live in BC and in Richmond (a suburb of Vancouver) people come from mainland China with a lot of money offering $100,000 over the asking price to ensure they get the house in the area they want. Canada has a lot of land but much of it is untouched (thank God!) People like to live in the bigger cities because that's where the jobs are, and that's where the people want to live
jbags84 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Enemy of Greece, Europe, & America ---- Jew
1. Goldman Sachs CEO, Lyold Blankfein is Jew
2. IMF Deputy CEO, John Lisky is Jew
3. Ex IMF CEO, Dominic Strauss is Jew
4. World Bank CEO, Robert Zoellick is Jew
5. Ex World Bank CEO, James Woolfesen is Jew
6. Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke is Jew
7. Ex Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan is Jew
8. Obama Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner is Jew
9. George Bush Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson is Jew
Stevie68000 6 months ago
When I was a kid, my dad made $10K a year and his 3 bedroom house cost $27K
That same house is now $375K and my income is about a tenth of that. The cost vs income ratio and greed of developers has killed the American dream
agelessrocker 6 months ago
americans were not misled but failed to remember the importance of paying as you go like those who lived and survived through the great depression taught them...instead they allow themselves to be brainwashed that keeping up with the jones' is of more significance...its all about to come to a frightening end.
chingon711 6 months ago
Dreams are dreams. They dont come true most of the time so keep on dreaming America while you are being fucked in the ass by your banks and government over and over again.
agpoe 6 months ago
@agpoe well said. The American Drean is as you said just a dream. It's time to wake up and face the brutal reality.
MTTT1234 6 months ago
ask your bank to prove they own the home.. ..called produce the note.. until they show that you can stay in your home.. .. look up mortgage fraud.. you will be happy
superbeauthy 6 months ago
cave man didn't cost him a penny and didn't pay any taxes , i guess we need stone age attitude towards housing what makes government say its their land ????
Cage71 6 months ago
I am so disappointed that AJE focuses on the relatively-prosperous families like this. So he lost his job last year. POOR BABY, you still have UI. AND you were a manager, so you're getting a fat UI check.
What about the 99ers, most of them over 50 years of age, who lost their jobs back in 2008, and have no UI anymore, who have *nothing* now. What about those of us who were working for minimum wage *before* we got laid off?
WTF, Al Jazeera?
R3dp055um 6 months ago
@R3dp055um you hit the nail on the head my friend.
chingon711 6 months ago
And I thought in Singapore housing was a big issue with a 5room apartment costing $500,000 for a loan of 30years. But wait each public issued by the government has a lease of 99yrs. So if by then you die, you kids probably has to pay extra to keep the house or the government kicks u out.
Zakaria90 6 months ago
viva la revolution. you guys are allowed to have guns, that is a head start over almost every other country. Stop being a slave to your economy with only the corporations getting richer while every one slides into hole of debt and poverty.
FuckYeahBra 6 months ago
There's no reason why everyone on this planet cannot have the security of a decent home.
The scarcity of the present age is a function of paper-economics and politics, NOT actual scarcity or lack of man-power and technology.
RemoveYourChains 6 months ago
The way I look at it that we are all poor no matter what ! Meaning soul & mind wise cuz money can never buy love or feel love, we are all sick & need time heal & work together as a family.
CHITOWNGANGSTA1981 6 months ago
property tax in levittown for a house worth $330k: over 10k a year.
redrock7171 6 months ago
All american wealth has been given to the bank cartel and the FED by the US government. If you want to keep your home, you have to buy weapons and make a revolution. You can also become a slave if this is what you want.
jb0433628 6 months ago
Sorry, but there's no such thing as home ownership in America. Your bank and local government bureaucrats your home, and once you pay off the mortgage, your government owns it. This system is designed to keep the average American sheeple enslaved via debt, and this is why so many folks are losing what never belonged to them in the first place. Even the deed states you're a TENANT. Home ownership doesn't truly exist.
nadoop 6 months ago 31
@nadoop Sadly your words are very true.
guitardude1230 6 months ago
@nadoop so fucking true dude... so fucking true... there is a stipulation in my contract with the water company that states if I stop paying my irrigation bill for over two years the city has the right the confiscate my house... what type of bullshit is that? the worst thing is I don't even get irrigation water where I live... but yet I still have to pay for it....
Hellhound30x 6 months ago
@nadoop I don't understand what you mean when you say after you pay your mortgage, could you elaborate?
Alpinex105 6 months ago
@Alpinex105 the government can take your home if you don't pay a bunch of worthless taxes that don't benefit your community. but it takes the average person about 30 years to pay a mortgage, anyway. my mother pays 1600 a month for her mortgage and taxes in florida, and only a hundred bucks goes toward the principal. the rest is interest and taxes.
nadoop 6 months ago
@nadoop i pay 800 bucks a month in real estate tax. wtf is the point of owning a house when u have to pay real estate tax??
mrzack888 6 months ago
@nadoop Finally, someone who knows how the system works and how corrupt it is.
Vr4z1el 6 months ago
ha AlJazeera needs to do a report on BC, Canada's housing crisis. In my city the cheapest house is close to $700 000, while most are over a million dollars. the city north of me is even more expensive and the city south of me is slightly less expensive but still unbuyable unless you are a drug dealer or chinese business man
jbags84 6 months ago 15
@jbags84 you're crazy
stop looking at expensive houses around vancouver then.
You can get town houses or condos all around the lower mainland for under 300k
if you go up north to prince george, 100 mile and areas around there you can get a house with a couple yards of land for so cheap.
I was thinking of moving out to mission a little while ago because houses are so cheap there but I like being in the city. Bare in mind I'm 20 and a construction worker and have no problem affording my apartment.
LCIsinclair 6 months ago
@LCIsinclair Yes I'm aware of all this I'm talking about housing prices in my area. In BC housing prices are still inflated even in Prince George which is far, isolated and not the safest city to live in. In Southern Ontario you can get a nice 2 level home with 3 beds and 2 baths for $100, 000, never would that be possible in BC
jbags84 6 months ago
@jbags84 That has to do with the market. It will eventually even out if there isn't a demand for such houses,
Alpinex105 6 months ago
@Alpinex105 I'm eagerly waiting for that day
jbags84 6 months ago
The American Dream ....Designed to enslave and control.
thegroove2000 6 months ago
@thegroove2000 Im not enslaved!
stephmm2004 6 months ago
@stephmm2004 Your off the Grid?
thegroove2000 6 months ago