It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Just a quick question I would like answered for the benefit of all.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:01 PM


But if everyone is given as a bare minimum, from the natural resources readily available, adequate food, air, water, housing, education and medical care, all within our ability globally right now; and then everyone is encouraged to 'work' at what enthuses them, not an 8 hour a day job that's mind and body-numbingly boring (which mostly robots can do now) then, what would we accomplish? Certainly not obscene wealth for a very few and abject poverty for the masses like we have now with the worship of money and the accompanying slave labor that most of us tolerate, only we call it 'debt'.

You know what? I'd love nothing more than to believe what you appear (and I'm always willing to accept that I'm wrong) to be implying here. If I was given the opportunity to work at what enthuses me, I'd be creating music and drinking wine. I'm sure that a lot of other people would be doing the same. Let's be honest - who really wants to spend their days cleaning hospital wards? Who really wants to clear up other people's rubbish? Who wants to clean windows? Who wants to hand people towels and spray aftershave on them in a dodgy nightclub? I fear that functional society would simply break down.

There are enough people in my fair country who - despite being given every chance and opportunity - choose to do nothing. They choose to sponge off the state and taxpayers. I work damned hard. I get up early and go to bed late. I wish I saw more of my wife and kids. Why? Because I want to provide for them and give them the best life possible. I want to be able to take them places, show them the world, educate them. Does this yearning to provide the best for family make me a bad person? I don't think so. Then again, I work for a large multinational bank so perhaps I am in the eyes of some.

Although, to be honest with you, I don't see working for a bank as a necessarily bad thing. I'm not a trader - and I'm making that point clear as the traders are the ones who earn the big money, play about with everyone's future and drive the Ferrari's. The rest of us just get by - and I'm by no means on the bottom rung, either.

I'd love nothing more than for everyone to do what they love and no-one to be in hardship, however, that's not the way we are wired. Humans are - mostly - selfish beasts who want as much as they can get for as little as possible effort. It's sad but true.

Maybe I'm being controversial here on ATS - who knows. Just thought I'd throw some thoughts out there.


posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by cado angelus

that's pretty much the giant flaw in the entire zeitgeist movement idea. There are a lot of crappy jobs that no one would willingly do if they werent paid for it; if they didnt have to work for money, things just wouldnt get done.

The issue, IMO, is that there is a disconnect when people look at 'money' and the economy at a high level. The 'economy' is just the sum of all the choices we make as individuals. So we simply have to think about the choices that individuals would make if we didnt have to work for a living.

Let's take one example: science. There would be a lot of people who would love to research, experiment and try and figure out the nature of the world. That's great, and there would certainly be an expansion of this if money is eliminated. But science needs equipment; as much as we would love it, beakers, test tubes etc are not going to make themselves. We could automate it...great, who is going to build the robots to do so? Who will maintain them? Who will keep the labs clean, and maintain them? There are all these little issues that add up to one big problem: the scarcest resource we have is time, and if we are not compensated for doing work that we dont like then we are not going to do it. Scale it up as the collection of individuals behaving in this way and its clear that this wont work.

In terms of who is in debt and why; as the amount of money expands, the price of everything increases. The amount of money expands with debt. So essentially the increase of debt over time ensures that those who are issuing the debt are paid more and more interest over time, while those in debt have to service more and more debt over time. It is a giant wealth transfer mechanism. Inflation works a similar way (those who have first use of money benefit from inflation). Obviously at some point the weight of debt becomes too high and monetary collapse will happen. This result is inevitable, but the sequence of events and timing is uncertain.

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by NullVoid

I would have guessed that myself, and the Queenie. Throw them in jail and tear up all debts.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in