I'm a Prisoner of the State Yet I Have Done Nothing Wrong

reply to post by michael1983l


And that is because, as you said, we are slaves.

When this dying system falls, we will have chance to take back what was always ours.
Lets not let it slip past, or worse, reinstate what we used to have out of fear of change.
Tweaking the system to get it to work better has never changed anything. But it's easier, because people are frightened of the unknown.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


A wage slave is still a slave. Just because your form of slavery gives you a somewhat better quality of life than other slaves, you're still one.

reply to post by Trustfund


So what are we, upper class slaves with benefits? I guess I'm okay with that terminology.

------
A lot of people here seem to be blaming the money system...what I don't understand is what the alternative would be. Shouldn't we place numerical values on goods and services, as a way to facilitate economic exchange?

Are we upset with how the monetary system is administrated? I could see that, can't see doing away with money completely tho.

And having money backed by gold doesn't make sense...The total value of all the gold in the world is a very small portion of the total economy.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


When you buy something with money, lets say for example 45% goes to the supplier, 10% goes to the shipment and 45% goes to the retailer. So we losing 55% each time and giving it to somebody else.

When we exchange say for example a sheep for 6 hens, you lose nothing on your transaction.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


The problem is not actually money as such, it's any exchange based economy in general. Monetarism is just one form that an exchange-based economy can take.

Because an exchange-based economy demands that in order to access ressouces, one must "own" something to exchange for said ressources, this means that the access to said ressources must be "earned". This is absurd for several reasons, the main one being that in this day and age, technological advancement has created enough ressources to go around.

Back when ressources were rare, and far more succeptible to the whims of nature, exchange-based economies were relevant because very often, there was not enough to go around. If you had a bad harvest, exchange allowed for some to have enough, while those who did not died off. While harsh, this acted as an efficient rationing system, allowing the species as a whole to survive.

Today, this way of functionning is outdated, and the effets of the system's obsolescence are deadly. People in Africa are dying, not because of a lack of ressources, but because they do not possess enough to exchange for food. Same goes for disease. No-one dies of malaria because we don't know how to cure it, people die of malaria because they can't purchase medecine.

So you see, the problem isn't money (although dematerialisation of the means of exchange does emphasize the negative effets), it's the fact that we are living in an outdated system which is still bent on rationing ressources even though they are now abundant. Our cultures emerged from the exchange economy, leading to the widespread belief that one must "earn" the right to live. While this idea was probably still valid a century ago, it has ceased to be today, and by perpetuating this outdated belief system, we are only going to succeed in causing sufficient damage to our environement to compromise human survival as a whole.

We need to start managing our ressources instead of blindly exploiting them, and we need to start colloborating instead of competing.

reply to post by michael1983l


The flaws you present are the result of large scale economic transactions, which generally need to be mediated by a third party to create fairness and open markets. Not a money issue in itself...

For example, let's say you have four thousand extra hens and you want 800 goats but noone near by has that type of supply...a banker of sorts shows up and says they can find someone with the goats if you allow him to keep 500 of your hens.

You take the deal of 4000 hens for 800 goats, because otherwise you'd be selling 6 hens for a goat and it would take 4800 hens to get your goats...The banks and large financial institutions exist to broker large scale deals more than anything else but in the process have gained a stranglehold on the whole economy.

reply to post by Ismail


This is a very well thought out post and makes some sense...But no matter what there will be some goods that are more valuable and more scarce than other. So, it makes sense to have some system of exchange.

Say there is a chef in town that makes better food than anyone else. This guy can only cook for 50 people a night, and everyone wants to eat his stuff. How do we determine who eats the best food and who doesn't..

And shouldn't the best chef get rewarded by being able to buy the best tailors suit..who can only make enough clothes for a small percentage of the town?

I agree that we have enough to eliminate poverty, but an exchange economy would still make sense. The problem is simply that people aren't living to a high virtue...It is the ethic of people that needs to change more than the system.

rent is too damn high

reply to post by Artistic

and lived well for centuries

I hate historic revisionists. The Amerindians did not live well, they survived and I would agree with you in a more sustainable way but they also suffered from much of the same problems of any other human society.

If you look down south we could even examine how native civilizations got almost to the same level of those in other continents (except Europe, China and Japan). They had currency and extremely advanced technologies especially in irrigation and planting, and complex social structures beyond the simpler tribalism up north.

They were exploited and expropriated by a technical superior civilization but I wouldn't start to make moral comparisons, human nature is the same everywhere.

It is interesting to note that the reverse has also happened at least once with the Mongols invasions, they were technologically behind in most aspects to the Europeans and Asian nations they invaded and plundered..

Maybe we could put all the homeless people in the countless empty homes....ya know, instead of trying to charge people 200% for them?

This is what happens when you put scrupulous people in charge of the banks and monetary supply, as well as the politicians.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by michael1983l

 

May I ask, "What do you think of Nigel Farage and Lord Monkton? They really seem to want to get England back on track and away from the Eurozone garbage....

Nigel Farage as got my vote. I hate to say it but he's an honest politician, and he seems to know what he's talking about. When he had that plane crash i think that was orchestrated to make it look like an accident. I think he trod on a few peoples toes.

Your a prisoner of yourself.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Thank you for your comment.

Well I'd say that on the contrary, if some ressources are scarcer, and hence more valuable, then entrusting them to the logic of exchange would be the worst thing to do with them. Because instead of using them in an intelligent way for the benifit of all, they would instead only be made available to the highest bidder. Take lithium today. It's a really interesting mineral we are only just figuring out to use effeciently, we don't really know how much there is, but it's not that abundant, and the main use of it today is creating batteries for the priviledged few who can afford I-Phones or laptop computers, that get thrown out after five years use. In other words, a waste.

Now for your second point. Firstly, the logic of your chef example is still based in an exchange-based economy. And i'll go to the end of your post to illustrate that. You say that it's peoples ethics that need to change. But where do ethics come from ? If you believe as I and many socio-ethonologists do that our moral code is the product of our culture, which in turn is the product of our environnement, then it's logical to assume that our ethics cannot change until our culture does. In an exchange-based environnement, our ethics will not change. Our ethics today are already conditionned by such a system. You need to change the system to change the ethics.

So let's take a look at your chef, or your tailor in a "distributive" economy, where there are no conditions to accessing ressources as long as they are abundant enough to go around. Well, since "jobs" (as in remuneration for activity) no longer exist, this great chef/tailor has the freedom to decide how many people he wants to cook for. Now remember that despite his great skills, no one "owns" anything that can be exchanged for the service. The problem is no longer economic, it's become simple carrying capaicty of his "restaurant/tailor-place-thingy" and how much work he wants to put in. Maybe he decides he wants to service 50 people everyday, so he sets up a system were you reserve in advance on a day of his convenience. In this type of system, the chef's/tailor's "reward" is his value to the community. He is admired and reputed for his great skills. But that's it. And because ethics will have changed to fit this reward system (I'm not saying this happens over night mind you), this social appreciation will naturally become the measure of "success". Sure, there will be people who won't be able to get into the restaurant, or get a set of the specific clothes that they "wanted", but is this such a big deal ?

In such a system, the concept of property would also rapidly decline. Why waste space accumulating stuff that you could just go and use ? For example, if you need a car, why own one ? We all ready have a rental system that exists. Take the money out of that, and you have the base for an efficient distribution system. Who in their right mind would want to clutter up their street with a car, if they could access one at will ? Same goes for a fishing rod, or a golfing club. This would lead to a far less wastefull society. You need far less "total" cars if they are managed efficiently as a global ressource, rather than sitting around in parking lots and not being usefull to anyone.

Another good point in a distributive economy is the end of programmed obsolescence. Since there would be no economical imperative to meet, we would focus on building the best, most efficient goods we possibly could. Add to that a extensive recycling system, and upgradable objects insead of throwaway ones, and the abundance we have today would be decoupled.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

In my country the price of property is obscene,but there seems to be a lot of people buying still.Then they barricade themselves behind security doors,burglar bars,high devil's fork/razorwire fences,with security systems and dogs that would make Cerberus look like a mellow ol'hound.Because since 1994,the ANC government refuses to get tough on crime, as mostly the fatalities from violent forms of crime here,are white people.While the government cannot be seen to instigate straight-up Rwanda-style genocide,they turn a blind eye to the slow insidious form-violent crimes and farm murders-special targeting of a certain race,and refusal by government to address the issue shows the situation either serves them,or even pleases them.We will never be able to afford a house,not even a minute l'il bachelor apartment when my husband retires,and thats ok with us,we plan on getting a used caravan(small mobile home)anyway,once the hubby has to retire.But yes,i do know what you mean by, a prisoner though you've done no crime.Here we have the actual bars on doors+windows,to remind us every day.

reply to post by pacifier2012

Hey there,Pacifier 2012,not picking an argument here,i Genuinely want to know-just how do people manage that? My understanding is:when you enter a country to live there,should you not have to provide proof of employment/ability to selfsustain through a certain minimum amount of money you have to bring in with you? And that is not a few hundred bucks we're talking about here! When we went years ago,to an emigration assistance presentation,that's what we were told,and my husband has a useful trade.Im always seeing the problems the UK and others have with immigrants causing trouble,being a burden,taking the jobs of locals,etc-and these people did'nt have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of-yet they get accepted by the hundreds and thousands.Im seriously wanting to know-if my husband with a useful trade cannot get into another country to live,without considerable financial means or pre-organised employment-HOW IN GOD'S NAME do people much poorer,and less qualified for employment,how do they get it right? To just flounce around the world and settle where ever they want? Is there some info we overlooked?I dont want to leave my country,just curious.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by michael1983l

 

May I ask, "What do you think of Nigel Farage and Lord Monkton? They really seem to want to get England back on track and away from the Eurozone garbage....

One trick ponies.

Farage's and Monckton's politics have no bearing on what the OP is complaining about here. Both Farage and Monckton are on the right of the political spectrum and much of what he complains about are due to right wing policies:

the selling of council houses
the refusal to build new council houses
the removal of the obligation for councils to provide housing at all

The overall drift to the right in British policies (including New Labour, who were left wing in name only) has coincided with the end of social mobility in this country. Privatisation policies during the last 30 years, sold under the myth of competition, have seen utilities on the edge of affordability for most people. Buses and trains have gone the same way. PFI schemes where part privatisation has now lead to most hospitals being built and run by private firms has created massive problems within the NHS (to the point where many Trust hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy), schools and prisons.

Whilst that Eurozone garbage certainly does have problems, the alternative is that Britain will climb even further up America's arse and considering that, during the last 30 years of near ruination, Tories have been looking to America for policy leads and ideas it looks like an even more disastrous course. There's American lobbiests and equity firms behind half of what this Tory-lead government are doing.

reply to post by Merriman Weir




You beat me to it and took the words out of my mouth.

The Tories introduced the right to buy, which in itself wasn't necesarily a bad thing, but the failure to build new council housing and provide cheap and affordable housing for people with average to low earnings to replace those sold off forced people who couldn't really afford it to seek private housing accomodation.

The Tories pushed the mortgage myth which primarily caters to the interests of the lenders etc who make enormous amounts of money with relatively little risk.

This all contributed to spiralling private house prices and the boom in the housing market - for which we are paying a heavy price for today.

Those who weren't 'allowed' mortgages were / are forced to pay exorbitant and private rent.

But of course when it all went tits up and the lenders needed bailing out due to their own incompetence, and that of other financial systems and organisations, WE were forced to provide that help - now that things are allegedly 'on the up' and WE are paying debt off the lenders are refusing to 'lend' us money, (mortgages are nothing more than legalised extortianism) forcing people to pay even greater private rents.

The policies that instigated this were introduced during Thatcher's rule, they were continued under Major and much to 'New Labours' shame they did absolutely nothing about it and even compunded the problem.
Cameron has set about making the situation even worse with his complete disregard for the problems faced by common, every day people and his determination to drag the UK backwards to something akin to a modern Victorianesque society.

Originally posted by Ismail
We are all slaves of the monetary system, mate, it's not just the UK, it's worldwide.
No-one can live without money.

This is the very nature of any exchange based system. You either have something to exchange, or you die. Most people choose to exchange the time and effort that they put into work. This is nothing less than slavery. Work or die. Any monetary system, in fact, any exchange based system will always boil down to this.

We need to stop changing the rules and the players, we need to change the game.

This is the best post in the thread so far, and in my opinion, one of the best of the last few months on ATS

The truth is that the exchange of your time, health and mind (only things that are yours) for their bank notes is NOT
A FAIR TRADE TO YOU.

However, a large amount of propaganda exists to make sure that you do in fact think that it is a fair trade.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

You beat me to it and took the words out of my mouth.

Well, great minds and all that...

one point we've both missed with regards to housing is housing benefits. It takes up a massive chunk up of the welfare bill and is claimed by both working poor as well as the disabled and unemployed, and is also a consequence of a whole chain of housing policies. Handily, it's also another stick to beat the poor with, too.

Remove council stock; have nothing to replace it; place 'social housing' in the hands of housing authorities; encourage masses of buy to let landlords; force, by law, social landlords to match their rents to that of the private landlords; remove obligations for developers to create 'affordable houses'; and just watch rents rise out of the reach of most people at the bottom of society (as well as home ownership). Then sit back and watch your voting base complain about the welfare bill and getting angry about the lazy scroungers who need housing benefit.

In the meantime, housing developers are sitting on approx 7 years worth of already rubber-stamped, ready-to-go worth of developments and just watching the hands on their watches go round as property and land prices spiral upwards.

Why are we still voting then ?

You don't have to be genius to understand that economic imperatives always trump the well being of the public, and left wing as right wing governements alike are subjected to the same economic constraints. Why then are we so surprised when parties change but policies don't ?

If you have an economic system were mathematically, a few will end up being rich, and if being rich is being powerfull, and if the powerfull write the laws as they always have, then why is it not self-evident that the circle cannot be broken by reform or new laws. While this economic system stands, nothing will ever change.

So again, why do we continue to validate a system that doesn't work by giving it our vote ? And why aren't we adressing the motivation behind governement policy for what it is : economics ?

Originally posted by Ismail
Why are we still voting then ?

You don't have to be genius to understand that economic imperatives always trump the well being of the public, and left wing as right wing governements alike are subjected to the same economic constraints. Why then are we so surprised when parties change but policies don't ?

If you have an economic system were mathematically, a few will end up being rich, and if being rich is being powerfull, and if the powerfull write the laws as they always have, then why is it not self-evident that the circle cannot be broken by reform or new laws. While this economic system stands, nothing will ever change.

So again, why do we continue to validate a system that doesn't work by giving it our vote ? And why aren't we adressing the motivation behind governement policy for what it is : economics ?

edit on 28-11-2012 by Ismail because: (no reason given)

Largely because, despite internet heroics, most people don't really have the stomach for the realities of a revolution. Also, it's easy to question the legitimacy of revolutions.

Voting and democracy is still a useful tool but we're not using it properly. With enough people, it's possible to change the nature of parties. For example, if enough people became party members, there'd be enough internal pressure to drag New Labour back to being a left wing party who would go against the economic paradigms of the last 30 years. A reinstating and implementation of Clause IV in Labour's constitution would be a massive changer and create a new/old system.

I do appreciate what you're saying though, I make a similar argument regarding foreign aid. It's basically exporting a broken political/economic model to countries that would be better off without the strings that come with 'development' aid.