mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Take #2: The problem in the end, is that science is not about what you, I or anybody else can refute individually. That is not how science works. And there is even more to science that just that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Capitalism?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Take #2: The problem in the end, is that science is not about what you, I or anybody else can refute individually. That is not how science works. And there is even more to science that just that.
At best, it is a band-aid to cover the problem.
It doesn't itself grow the economy, but it can temporarily stop the blood flow.
A economy requires the creation of services and products. Without that, there is no growth.
So you can cover the wound but you are not really healing it.
In the end you are going to have to keep supplying bandages.
Bandages aren't free though. Someone has to make the bandage, someone has to supply the materials. So really you are subtracting from the economy. The only way you can really grow the economy, heal the wound, is by the creation of products and services that support the production of product.
Hopefully a government can do more than just supply bandages. Otherwise they are just hiding the blood and hoping folks will think everything is ok.
Also, why make them "dig holes and fill them"? Why not just give them the money?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but it is complex and only a part of how the world works.
The problem of how an economy works is not just the bold, because it happens in a society that is in part economy, but more than that.
Ok, lets take money out of the picture as money is just a tool to facilitate exchange.
How can an economy grow when you have nothing to exchange?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's what digging a hole and filling it back up is in this context! It's a "service" if the person is being paid to do it!
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes. But that is not all. If you limit as society to only growth, then there can be side-effects depending on how you understand growth.
Ok, but why make them do useless work. Wouldn't it be better to just give them the money, and give them more time to do or find something that is actually productive to do.
You are basically stealing their time/labor. Not only from them but also the economy.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but the problem is this. If the economy is getting smaller and they have no work and no money, then they use less products and then the economy gets even smaller.
And that an economy is busts and bursts is not really real, because it always goes upwards.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Reductionism is a ***** right?
Ok, what would you like to add?
Let me start very simple.
If you have a diverse work force and you and other employers can get the low end of workers to work for less pay, that results in what?
There are at least two factors.
Again: this flows from your decision to measure the economic pie based on currency and not utility. This is a decision you ought to reflect on if you want your position to be rational.
That's right. This is Econ 101 stuff: someone's 10th trip down the ski hill will have less utility for them than their 1st trip (which has interesting implications for how much usage and revenue you'll get depending on whether you charge by the trip or sell all-day passes). Likewise, someone's millionth dollar has less utility for them than their first dollar.
But it is determined by who's holding it... if we look at things in terms of measures like utility or well-being.
You're making some base-level assumptions that will have implications for all your other conclusions. Don't blindly choose one perspective just because you don't realize there are others to choose from. If you think through things thoroughly and still decide to use currency as your yardstick, fine... but at least have good reasons to back it up.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As long as they spend the money it still has the positive effect of stimulating economic growth.
You are contradicting yourself as it is not "stealing" if they're getting paid.
The service industry is a large part of any economy, thus a person digging a hole is doing much the same as a teacher in a school economically-- a service. Now, whether one's contributing much in other areas is a different point.
Yes but that fits my analogy doesn't it?
It's putting a bandage on a problem to temporarily stop the bleeding.
You are not improving the economy, you are just stealing from the current economy in the assumption that the future economy will be able to cover the cost of the theft.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, and it is an objective fact, that it is theft.
I mean, if that is your standard, then you are evil, because I say so.
As automation continues to take over, I suspect UBI will become a necessity.
Though at some point I imagine even the idea of money will become obsolete.
I certainly hope the government has given up on this idea of making folks dig and fill holes by then.
Ok, my definition of theft is taking something from someone without giving anything in return.
What is your definition of evil?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So all taxes are theft, or only some?
And no, you are not evil. That is a social construct just as theft. That was the point.
When we do this, we are talking about different social constructs in the end. That goes for us both, but if you treat yours in the end as a dogmatic fact, then can't be done differently, because that is universally wrong, we won't get anywhere.
Money is simply a method of resource allocation.
Even socialist countries use/used it. This is because
resources are always limited & always in demand.
Can't just give everyone everything they want due
to massive inefficiency.
So even if it's called "credits", "resource allocation",
or "quatloos", whatever functions as money is money.
If you read my definition, you should be able to answer this.
That's why I provided a definition, so when we have a discussion, you know what I am talking about.
So I'm not treating it as a dogmatic fact. I'm treating it as a definition so you understand when I say something what I mean.
I don't have a problem with you doing the same. How else can we have a productive discussion?
Last edited: