I generally like being disagreed with, so this was interesting. I don't blame anyone for not getting into my response, or even for getting angry from it. I hope I'll get some insightful responses, that help me think the subject through better. (@Juan, try more patience and depth - I think it will make you seem less aggressive and help you get the point across. This cheerleading is fun but less useful.) Truecost one or two dead 24 year old foxconn/Bangladeshi sweatshop
worker's body into that equation when you do that cost comparison.
Truecost being some unrealistic form of cost determination? We are in a real world situation when I buy something made in a sweatshop. Governments skew everything all over the place and cause grave injustice in doing so. Wealth imbalance is the other great evil, that could be limited by something like Basic Income, but it is hard to implement. Other than excessive coercion following wealth imbalance, and government unmarkets, the price I pay is the Truecost. The difference between "what I pay now", "what I pay later", "what I lose in opportunity" etc is very difficult to keep track of, and explains my desire for "advanced finance". In fact, this is so important that a hedge fund manager can often make a very big amount, just by fixing wrong pricing. It offends our natural understanding of things, and that is also why we suck at it. (And the insane earnings on the markets are also a direct result of us sucking at markets) The Zapatistas are a collectivist society and they've far from 'lost'.
Other example must exist but they're not coming to mind, and certainly 'scalability' IS a problem. The homeless in the US spontaneously form self-supporting collectives that are also highly individualistic.
Not sure what this is supposed to evidence. Collectives are still in the individual's advantage? I'm not sure that follows, humans act in bizarre ways and our power allows the absurdities to be reality.
The only real social structures are 'fuzzy'. The quest for purity, of thought, political structure, culture, drug, whatever, is a disease.
I disagree. The purer a system the greater our understanding, and a thing understood is exceedingly more useful. Fuzziness causes us to make mistakes, and for mistakes to stack atop mistakes.
But my basic stand is, by it's very design, Capitalism is murderous, and predatory. There is no such thing as 'kinder and gentler' capitalism and there never will be.
Capitalism is definitely murder. It's a natural system, with evolutionary effects. It kills the weak, flawed, unfit. We can make it kinder, but doing so makes it less effective. We've already made it a lot kinder. (note: less effective, but kinder. It's not clear which one would prefer. Truthfully I think Basic Income is the ideal way to guarantee kindness, but it's hard to implement.) Juan:
That sounds like true capitalism (savings) whereas the system Lodewijk is advertising is mercantilism/consumerism/fascism.
I argued that time expended readily outweighs cost saved. Not anything else. (I have fixed things for fun and cost savings, like Razer argued makes sense, but then it's entertainment - not economically wise choices) He's talking about mercantilism. By "advanced finance" he
actually means the banking mafia and government robbing everybody blind.
No. In my idealized model politics is quite a different game. There is most definitely still a "government mafia", that harasses everyone to 1. stay out of each other's hair and 2. invest in the advancement of the human race (think space travel, science). But, there is no nations. Interest groups are inevitable and should not be encouraged or discouraged, merely understood. That way no interest group can offend justice (meaning: fairness). But, the government *must not* thread into the financial services field. It will either reduce freedom, or be out-competed. Both are happening in the real world. That is to say, a mixed economy. Again.
mercantilism/fascim/state socialism/state communism.
I think some products are best rendered without competition, and some are best rendered with competition. So long as the drive to do best exists we do not really need to replicate effort. Eg: Patents are only good for preventing people from using the best available methods. It's a hack to make investments more worthwhile, and secrecy less important. If we didn't need a profit incentive there would be no need for patents. A similar argument is possible for shrewd advertising, why lie to people if you do not profit from it? One helps everyone most by providing correct information. (*this is not true, people regularly need to be coerced to act in their best interests. But coercion for the better is really not that bad.) In the real world we oft encounter duopolies. Basically a monopoly with a state-protected laggard. The monopolist ensures the laggard continues existing, for example by increasing it's own prices to a kind of unreasonable height. That ensures sales for the laggard, and maximum profit. Basically this whole system is then fucked, as there is no real drive for advancement (the laggard cannot overtake the monopolist, it has not the funds. But it also cannot fail, the monopolist prevents it. So why even put up a fight?) and humanity is helped no better than the laggard performs. It happens with all our huge markets, from shipping to silicon to telecom to food to housing to government to diamonds, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Lodewijk is just a run of the mill fascist who thinks he has the 'god given' right to 'design' 'society' according to his fuckingly retarded tastes.
Also, he likes to pretend that the bad outcomes of his fascist system are caused by innocent lambs who actually want to do the 'right' thing. Sick.
I'm too minarchist to be a facist, but otherwise you're spot on. Try not to confuse my designs with the current world. I am not a supporter of the status quo, but I will attempt to understand it, and I will say there's hardly an evil actor out there. We just collectively fuck up according to our fuckingly retarded tastes. You seem to be speaking from a position where it sounds like money is the
focal point, the most important factor. To me, it is the least important part of the equation.
Money is liquid value. Value is the game. It's not at all about money, money is useless. It's the value it denotes that's what it's all about. You seem to ignore how seriously amazing pure liquid value is. In an ideal world; when faced with two choices, the most profitable one is the one that's bottom line better for humanity. You make an egoistic choice, and improve the world. A more profitable solution is either more efficient or provides greater value. Error is introduced in judgement of value, and unmarket effects can distort the picture of efficiency. Other unmarket effects include excessive wealth (where more or less wealth simply doesn't matter), limited lifespans (who cares if you lose? You'll die anyway), extreme fuzziness of value, etc, etc. Ever heard of voluntary simplicity? I'm happy you're happy. I'm sad you'll not advance and will get your ass handed to you by an aggressor who does. Real life is competitive by nature. You may lose happily, and disappear. It doesn't really matter. The universe dies a heat death anyway. Not flying high is also a survival tactic though. Who knows, maybe things will work our okay for you. (probably still better to fly a little higher) You made some mention of thrift stores providing great value, and satisfaction/fun from repairs also being value. I agree. I bought things from thrift shops, and I repaired things for fun (and learning). You mentioned "true" fair trade. I believe in labor markets, and therefore do not think fair trade is a thing at all. "Fair trade" is mostly just stupid trade, unless we get something for it. And NO not just a good goddamn feeling. I mean "The Formula" like improvements, people causing less disturbance if they get paid more kind of things. (note: things can get extremely unfair in a sufficiently unbalanced situation, but so long as coercion is limited it's fine)
Buying local is even more meaningless. If transport costs do not outweigh
production costs, go ferry it in from Australia, China, Chile, etc. You're making the efficient choice by doing so.
So are you saying that you're okay with people working in slave labor
conditions & being paid subhuman wages, polluting the atmosphere by transporting this stuff for thousands of miles... instead of supporting the local businesses in your own community, if the price is right? I can't even answer this. Not without flaming. I can't.
Yes. I'm saying that the price tells me if it's more efficient or not. If a European person wants to live like a princess, or wouldn't work at all, then perhaps I'll just ignore him and have someone else do the work. Pollution is a difficult subject. It is easily solved: 1. All the earth is vested into a legal person 2. The legal person will auction destroyable earth - licenses to dump pollutants, manipulate land, cut rainforest, fish, hunt, etc. such that auction profit is maximized - yet earth preserved as per politically determined rules. (must support X panda's, Y biodiversity units, Z radioactivity level, etc) 3. The auction's profits are diverted to causes of common interest (donated to the world government) 3. ALTERNATIVELY The auctions profits are transferred into (a) fictive good(s) and destroyed - causing inflation/deflation to distribute the finances over the owners of the fictive good. The choice of fictive good is as important as the choice of a cause of common interest - it is merely a way to exclude government from the process. There is atm no suitable fictive good. There's some issues regarding compensation for those most affected. Chernobyl's responsible legal people (Russian gov, whatever exploitation company, etc) will be forced to buy the destroyable earth licenses, likely causing a massive bump to the price. It would have been dearly paid for. But it would make sense for people more affected by the nuclear fallout to see a bigger cut of that value. It's complex and political but can be done decently. Most importantly this preserves the real cost/risk/benefit relationships. It preserves the markets. It means that if anyone makes the cheapest choice, it is also the best choice. Drive a car if you think it's worth it! It all works out in the end. I don't "want any money", but I do want to travel here and there and
connect to the internet to type with you. At the moment I need certain amounts of money to facilitate achieving these things.
Obtain as much money as you can. Then, if you don't use it, donate it to causes you care about. Causes that help people. Not earning money is just sloth, really. Is the essence of your point to "be mindful" - whether travel, food,
things? It is remotely conceivable to me that being mindful might possibly contribute to a fuller and more meaningful and relaxed existence.
Meaningful? Idk what you mean by that. I think you mean "gives the feeling of living meaningfully and relaxed". Perhaps Yoga and drugs are your keys. Drugs to kill any suffering, perhaps heighten joy. Yoga because it apparently helps people find meaning.
I say money is not something a sane person should want or not want,
for itself. Money is a tool in our present "reality".
Sane...yes. Well that explains the Wall St vultures, then!
Perhaps not money, but the value it denotes. Perhaps a massage, an icecream, soylent, a solar panel, etc. I'm sure you want /something/ of value. The "Wall St vultures" may be greedy assholes (idk) but the reason they're effective is because our markets are not. The better our financial system works, the less money people in the business could make. Perhaps now it explains everything :P? (I think the obscurity, complexity, gravity of the subject matter and legal restrictions caused by the aforementioned is why the financial markets don't work better) We're all in the same damn boat. We sink or swim, together. Or not together, that's the problem. (Also, sometimes people don't care) Sorry for being verbose. It's very hard to get these arguments across. I'm quite sure we're all on the same side, it's just so damn hard to speak.