Jump to content
Othmane Dahi

world without money

Recommended Posts

Speaking of wish lists, your threshold between what is extravagant versus what is not seems rather arbitrary and based on your own personal subjective preferences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

Speaking of wish lists, your threshold between what is extravagant versus what is not seems rather arbitrary and based on your own personal subjective preferences. 

It is not clear to whom this is directed as it follows my post, yet seems more relevant to the OP's views. Would you clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's a difficult question...

While we have enough to eat, accomplishments are???

I am srry I don't rlly understand what do u want to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Area54 said:

It is not clear to whom this is directed

You

AND the OP

What's extravagant to one will not be to another. Why should we give a damn what either of you do or don't think is extravagant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Othmane Dahi said:

I am srry I don't rlly understand what do u want to say

Money (or lack there of) has no meaning if there's no food to buy. 😉

Our accomplishments'/economy is only possible because farmer's (a subset of humanity) produce enough food for everyone; therefore, logically they should be the richest (subset of humanity) in a sustainable economy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, everyone used to produce their own food.
Yet even those agrarian societies had a need for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Once upon a time, everyone used to produce their own food.
Yet even those agrarian societies had a need for money.

Indeed, how else did they exchange eggs for a slice of bacon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think most had their own pigs and chickens.
But may have needed to buy clay pots to cook in.

( then again, the pottery-maker may have needed to buy eggs/bacon )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would think most had their own pigs and chickens.
But may have needed to buy clay pots to cook in.

( then again, the pottery-maker may have needed to buy eggs/bacon )

Spoiler alert, the pottery-maker, dug clay... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Spoiler alert, the pottery-maker, dug clay... 

Or he had discovered Division of Labour and used the bacon and eggs to pay someone else to dig the clay, who used them to get a shovel, and the shovel maker used them to buy a pot...
 

"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" J-B Karr (1849)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 10:07 PM, iNow said:

What's extravagant to one will not be to another. Why should we give a damn what either of you do or don't think is extravagant?

You appear to accept the concept of extravagance. The OP was seemingly denying its existence. I provided examples that might be considered extravagant to counter the OP's denial. Contradiction of unsupported assertions typically lead to those interested in a discussion giving a damn, but if you prefer indifference go right ahead. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You appear to accept the concept of extravagance. The OP was seemingly denying its existence. I provided examples that might be considered extravagant to counter the OP's denial. Contradiction of unsupported assertions typically lead to those interested in a discussion giving a damn, but if you prefer indifference go right ahead. .

It's purely subjective, so why does it matter? As I tried to suggest with my "Diderot effect" link, you should read "The Bonfire of the Vanities".

14 hours ago, Dord said:

Or he had discovered Division of Labour and used the bacon and eggs to pay someone else to dig the clay, who used them to get a shovel, and the shovel maker used them to buy a pot...
 

"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" J-B Karr (1849)
 

When I was a child my village, and surrounding villages, were surrounded by perfectly viable,small working farms, all producing food.

Now, my district is populated by half a dozen large farms (which are barely viable and under constant pressure to cut prices), and a few small farms, that are viable because they no longer produce food. 

Which scenario do you think is more resistant to change, while providing enough food for everyone? 

It's literally so stupid to concentrate our food production, into ever bigger monoculture's, that are one bug away from disaster; that's why it's logical to keep every farmer suitably wealthy; it's also a suitable metaphore for the problem's/insanity of Wallstreet, banking, insurance etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's purely subjective, so why does it matter?

I am obviously doing a third rate job of making my point. I'll try again. If we accept that extravagance exists then the OP's thesis is invalidated.  I am not interested in where the boundaries of extravagance may lie, but simply as to whether or not it exists. Both you and iNow seem to agree that extravagance does exist, but note that what might be considered extravagant is a subjective view. I agree with that, but I don't agree with the charming, but naive hypothesis of the OP. His denial of the existence of extravagance is one of the points that invalidate his thesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as a concept, of course it exists. The challenge is that it's roughly equivalent to the concept of awesomeness or attractiveness. There's no there there... as you agree, it differs from one person to the next.

So, in a way, both you AND the OP are correct, but not as correct as me who's instead here saying... who cares? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I am obviously doing a third rate job of making my point. I'll try again. If we accept that extravagance exists then the OP's thesis is invalidated.

Of course it is, was that ever in doubt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Of course it is, was that ever in doubt?

Yes. That's his point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a really cheap internet package...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Of course it is, was that ever in doubt?

The OP doubted it, else he would not have offered such a flawed argument for a money free society.

 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes. That's his point.

Thank you. I was beginning to think the problem was me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 1:07 PM, dimreepr said:

Our accomplishments'/economy is only possible because farmer's (a subset of humanity) produce enough food for everyone; therefore, logically they should be the richest (subset of humanity) in a sustainable economy.

No there is no rich in this world. If they are making food, others make them shelter and others drive water to their home and others make electricity and others make a car for them ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Othmane Dahi said:

No there is no rich in this world. If they are making food, others make them shelter and others drive water to their home and others make electricity and others make a car for them ...

Surely being "rich" is somewhat subjective, and dependable on what is desirable or coveted by members of a particular socio-economic group.

Even without cold, hard cash one may be deemed to be rich by having more bacon and eggs than his neighbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 7:24 PM, Dord said:

 

Surely being "rich" is somewhat subjective, and dependable on what is desirable or coveted by members of a particular socio-economic group.

Even without cold, hard cash one may be deemed to be rich by having more bacon and eggs than his neighbour.

being rich means that you have more more money than average people

In this world rich will probably mean having more rights than average people 

because in this world you get more food than others if you weigh more than them or if you have to feed more people ( you have more children ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Othmane Dahi said:

being rich means that you have more more money than average people

How much more than the average 1%, 20%, 400%? Where you put the boundary is subjective, as @Dord suggests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Othmane Dahi said:

Being rich means that you have more more money than average people

By definition, that's half the planet, and always will be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Area54 said:

How much more than the average 1%, 20%, 400%? Where you put the boundary is subjective, as @Dord suggests.

The boundary begins and ends with food... That's not subjective unless we can choose when to starve... 

Wealth is just a number and money is just a measure, I hope I'm not around when the rich find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Othmane Dahi said:

In this world rich will probably mean having more rights than average people 

By definition, that's half the planet, and always will be :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.