A person who does something useful or worthwhile or creates something of the like should be rewarded. — Outlander
Nothing is given for free. — Outlander
It's called voluntary work, if you have not noticed.And a charity shop volunteer isn't contributing, but commercial shop worker is contributing? — unenlightened
I understand your point. My point is that "scratching each other's backs" is important as then the transfer of wealth, the payment, is voluntary. No nail polisher of football player will just come to your house and demand you pay part of their income. Yes, we don't have anymore 12 hour workdays six days a week. Heck, I can write to you in PF and do my work and still my boss is happy. A fitting mix of work & leisure is what we need.Can you just unmuddle this for me? I say that society doesn't need people to work very much because automation. So most employment is people scratching each other's backs and picking each other's nits. And if people do a bit less or a lot less of that, it needn't matter very much to anyone, as long as everyone still gets food and shelter. — unenlightened
Well, I do live in a welfare state where there is a) free education even to the university level, b) assistance to housing, c) perpetual unemployment benefits and d) universal free health care. When you have those, you already have been taken care of what universal basic income is for, especially with the unemployment benefit. Then for those who do have income and pay taxes, it is questionable if this is basic income is necessary as it's basically a payback of the taxes.You are saying:
1. society can well tolerate high unemployment - agreed.
2..there is a social stigma to unemployment - yes, but there needn't be.
3. welfare doesn't motivate employment - yes but that doesn't matter because 1.
So what is your argument against a basic income? — unenlightened
Well, I do live in a welfare state where there is a) free education even to the university level, b) assistance to housing, c) perpetual unemployment benefits and d) universal free health care. When you have those, you already have been taken care of what universal basic income is for, especially with the unemployment benefit. Then for those who do have income and pay taxes, it is questionable if this is basic income is necessary as it's basically a payback of the taxes. — ssu
You think that speculative bubbles happen in times when interest rates are high and banks don't lend or what? Tell me an example of a speculative bubble happening in that kind of environment. — ssu
For starters, not everything important has to do with the economy. The economy is first and foremost a tool, if it works well, then the prosperity should be used to preserve nature and make the environment a better place to live for every living creature.Wouldn't it have been better if we'd done it the other way - learned to speak mother earth, Gaia's language, perhaps requiring a getting in touch with our softer, mellow side that has a primeval connection to the Earth?
Something must be done about the so-called global economy. — TheMadFool
Then you are one of the people that understand reality and don't go with the hype as the majority will do. — ssu
For starters, not everything important has to do with the economy. The economy is first and foremost a tool, if it works well, then the prosperity should be used to preserve nature and make the environment a better place to live for every living creature.
The simple fact is that economy is important just up to a point, it isn't itself a reason. — ssu
That's the classic example how economics get's things wrong: if the mother stays at home, looks after the children and takes care of the house, that isn't seen in the GDP. A bigger problem is in Third World countries where a lot of people are subsistence farmers. Farmers that live off their land and have minimal amount of transactions again aren't counted in the economics statistics, which is the reason why some countries seem even poorer than they are.What you have said is kind of like figuring the value of a homemaker. Traditionally a man supports the woman, and we know his value by what he earns. The wife does not earn money, so her value is zero, right? — Athena
Some do that, but many just choose the fancy mathematical models that nobody else understands to make their findings "academic" or "professional" and are happy focusing on the mathematic models and equations. As long as everybody else is saying the same things, it doesn't matter if the World then develops totally differently as one has described. Just call it a black swan event.I lost any trust in economist when I realized they are not grounding their thoughts on economics with geological reality. — Athena
A person who does something useful or worthwhile or creates something of the like should be rewarded.
— Outlander
Why?I just created that worthwhile post; reward me.
Nothing is given for free.
— Outlander
Everything is given for free. We come into this world with nothing and helpless to even feed ourselves. — unenlightened
Economic history tells how to do it.Third world countries are not going have our standard of living, making shoes and clothing for wages that keep these jobs in third world countries. That is not good for them nor all the people in the developed countries needing jobs. — Athena
This is just partially correct. You need to also include the fact that speculators ignore the (necessary) market fundamentals responsible for the increase in an asset's value. What supports a continued increase in value besides crossing fingers? One could expect, understandably, the value of an asset to keep going up during the times of sustained profitability, demand, production, and other sound economic conditions. This is not speculative bubble -- this is called sound investing.If someone thinks that prices are ALWAYS going up, meaning real prices (not that the currency is losing value), that simply is by any means quite a risky, speculative approach to investing. — ssu
If someone thinks that prices are ALWAYS going up, meaning real prices (not that the currency is losing value), that simply is by any means quite a risky, speculative approach to investing. — ssu
It's not just risky, it's counter intuitive. Increased efficiency and specialisation in production should lead to lower prices. Rising prices are purely a result in increases in the money supply or debt leveraging. If those funds are directed at the "wrong" sector or causes a general glut it's going to collapse. — Benkei
Unfortunately, the way economies are run, perhaps its something inherent in its very nature, has, :smile: "costs" that can't be translated by economists or anyone else apparently into money. Stuff like pollution, environmental degradation, deforestation, global warming, etc. haven't been transliterated into dollars and dollars seem to be the only language people, especially the ones who call the shots, understand. It's as if mother earth, Gaia, hasn't been able to keep up with the way human language has evolved from Hindi, Chinese, English, German, Japanese, etc. into the now global language that's money. In the past, Gaia, could speak to us in moving verse and thought-provoking prose, of course at the cost of losing precious trees to make the paper on which they're written. Now, this simply fails as the language has changed into what to Gaia is unspeakable nevertheless "understandable" — TheMadFool
That is not exactly true. We can talk about the cost of pollution, environmental degradation, deforestation, global warming. Here is a google page that does that. — Athena
Well, I do live in a welfare state where there is a) free education even to the university level, b) assistance to housing, c) perpetual unemployment benefits and d) universal free health care. When you have those, you already have been taken care of what universal basic income is for, especially with the unemployment benefit. Then for those who do have income and pay taxes, it is questionable if this is basic income is necessary as it's basically a payback of the taxes. — ssu
True, but notice there are indicators as Price to earnings ration, the P/E. Usually with "normal" stocks this is something like 30, meaning that the company will pay in dividends it's stock price in 30 years. If a company grows and creates profits, that ratio could stay the same. If it anticipated to grow a lot, maybe the P/E would be 50 to 75. Now you have stocks in the P/E 100 - 1000. Now of course, the standard rhetoric is that these companies have a bright future, but now they aren't yet profitable, but will soon be. Amazon has an P/E of 98 now, is it this "small company destined to have far brighter future"? The company is over a quarter century old and is the leader in it's field, but I guess it will have to grow multiple times.One could expect, understandably, the value of an asset to keep going up during the times of sustained profitability, demand, production, and other sound economic conditions. This is not speculative bubble -- this is called sound investing. — Caldwell
True.It's not just risky, it's counter intuitive. Increased efficiency and specialisation in production should lead to lower prices. Rising prices are purely a result in increases in the money supply or debt leveraging. — Benkei
Yes, the "cost" which is a monetary term to my knowledge. I feel like a nonphysicalist with an environmental agenda, equally apalled by the materialistic reductionism as I am about the, coincidentally, "green" reductionism. Isn't it odd that the greenback is at odds with the greenbelt? I guess, we're a bit confused about the whole issue - both are green after all. — TheMadFool
The supernatural power is the God of Abraham, His son the Holy Ghost, all completely separate from nature. The religion prevented us from understanding Gia until just recently and there is still very strong resistance to accepting the science of Gia that was known to aborigine's for centuries. Especially in the US we are in the throws of culture war, and this is a serious, social, economic and political problem that could destroy our democracy.— the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena. 2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.
I think a better understanding of our economy might include a study of Christianity. Especially Protestantism, that is tied to Calvinism, a very materialistic/supernatural understanding of life justifying the exploitation of humans and earth — Athena
anthropocentric — TheMadFool
I think that for starters, we concentrate on how things change while something that has stayed the same for decades we simply take for granted. — ssu
A person who does something useful or worthwhile or creates something of the like should be rewarded.
— Outlander
Why?I just created that worthwhile post; reward me.
Nothing is given for free.
— Outlander
Everything is given for free. We come into this world with nothing and helpless to even feed ourselves. — unenlightened
Wouldn't it have been better if we'd done it the other way - learned to speak mother earth, Gaia's language, perhaps requiring a getting in touch with our softer, mellow side that has a primeval connection to the Earth?
Something must be done about the so-called global economy. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.