PDA

View Full Version : How is money created?



firegoat7
01-03-2004, 11:08 AM
Found this interesting, thought it might amuse.

We generally assume that governments create money by printing it. And,in fact, when money was linked to gold, there was a limit on how much money could be printed. However, with the lifting of these restrictions, most money is now created by banks and other lending institutions through debt. We generally assume also, that the money the banks lend is money that others have deposited. However that is not the case; only a fraction of the money that banks lend needs to be deposits. In effect, whenever a bank lends money, or whenever a product or a service is purchased on credit, money has been created. In effect, then, there is virtually no limit on the amount of money that lending institutions can create; furthermore, the interest on the loan payements creates yet more money. To get an idea of what this means, in the United Kingdom in 1997 the total money stock - coins,note,deposits,loans etc- amounted to 680 billion pounds (it was 14 billion pound in 1963). Yet there was actually only 26 billion pounds in actual coins and notes (Rowbotham:1998:12-13).Thus 97% of the money has been created by banks and other lending institutions. (Robbins:2002)

Any opinions
Cheers FG7

ursogr8
01-03-2004, 11:50 AM
Found this interesting, thought it might amuse.

We generally assume that governments create money by printing it. And,in fact, when money was linked to gold, there was a limit on how much money could be printed. However, with the lifting of these restrictions, most money is now created by banks and other lending institutions through debt. We generally assume also, that the money the banks lend is money that others have deposited. However that is not the case; only a fraction of the money that banks lend needs to be deposits. In effect, whenever a bank lends money, or whenever a product or a service is purchased on credit, money has been created. In effect, then, there is virtually no limit on the amount of money that lending institutions can create; furthermore, the interest on the loan payements creates yet more money. To get an idea of what this means, in the United Kingdom in 1997 the total money stock - coins,note,deposits,loans etc- amounted to 680 billion pounds (it was 14 billion pound in 1963). Yet there was actually only 26 billion pounds in actual coins and notes (Rowbotham:1998:12-13).Thus 97% of the money has been created by banks and other lending institutions. (Robbins:2002)

Any opinions
Cheers FG7

All a bit too smoke-and-mirrors for my brain to comprehend.
I tried sort of relating it to something on a smaller scale, but that didn't help much.
I mused that your painting of the innards of the Melbourne Chess Club did not produce any money based on the definition that you have printed above. Although it undoubtedly produced a lot of goodwill, and probably even a future benefit.
On the other hand if you had allowed the MCC to 'purchase' your labour on credit then money would have been created. And if you had donated this money back to the club then you and the Club would be all square (with where you are now) and yet society better off because money was created. :hmm:

So, there is hard-money, and there is credit-money, and there is volunteer-goodwill.
No wonder I didn't attempt ECONOMICS 101.

arosar
01-03-2004, 12:00 PM
On the other hand if you had allowed the MCC to 'purchase' your labour on credit then money would have been created. And if you had donated this money back to the club then you and the Club would be all square (with where you are now) and yet society better off because money was created. :hmm:

So, there is hard-money, and there is credit-money, and there is volunteer-goodwill.
No wonder I didn't attempt ECONOMICS 101.

F**k! you're a genius! Love that.

AR

PHAT
01-03-2004, 04:12 PM
First, the ammount of physic money (notes and coins) need not be equil to the amount of wealth. For example, IF there was equil $ for wealth, there would be a mountain of notes at the bank or under the matress. We could shovel most of it into the incinerater as long as a record of who had what, is retained. There for the coinage Vs wealth argument is not valid.

However, it is true that banks "create" money. They do this by agreeing to, for example, issue a morgage on X and agreeing with orditers/estimators on a market value of X. That morage market value, becomes money that the bank may lend. Thus, "created money" is a measure not of real value of the economy, but of an agreed value of the economy. The crunch comes when the market finds that the real values are less than the agreed values - it is called a share market crash.

Banks, then, create money and thereby accelerate demand, generally leading to inflation. However, if the infrastraucture and industry have a latent capacity to produce more, without increasing production costs, inflation will not occur.

Where, then, does government fit in. Governments can create money by "printing it". It has the same effect of accelerating demand but has the benefit of never having to be accounted for as representing "market value". Thus, governments can stimulate the economy free of charge. There is one problem with this. Because of the increased demand, net imports rise, and the value of our dollar may be effected. As current account worsens, the currency's value decreases. The interest payable on that debt becomes higher, and thus investment capital is sucked out of our economy.

But back to the banks. These evil institutions have no loyality to there country or the citizens in it. They have a real asset value of ~$0. Their whole sharemarket value comes from being an organisation that can charge "customers" a fee that has no bearing on the acual value of the service. The service costs are less than 10% of the shareholder dividends. Their profits are about half a percent of the GDP. PARACITES

Shareholders are thieves.

ursogr8
01-03-2004, 06:32 PM
But back to the banks. These evil institutions have no loyality to there country or the citizens in it. They have a real asset value of ~$0. Their whole sharemarket value comes from being an organisation that can charge "customers" a fee that has no bearing on the acual value of the service. The service costs are less than 10% of the shareholder dividends. Their profits are about half a percent of the GDP. PARACITES

Shareholders are thieves.

hey Matt,
Were you the one who coined UNEARNED INCOME as a phrase for Bob Hawke to trot out to describe dividends from shares?

You know, you don't have to buy services from the companies that CL and I have shares in. There are plenty of unlisted companies.

starter

arosar
01-03-2004, 06:48 PM
Shareholders are thieves.

C'mon mate...so u anti-capitalism too? Private ownership, etc, etc?

AR

skip to my lou
01-03-2004, 06:49 PM
As you put more money into circulation im guessing the value per dollar will decrease.

paulb
01-03-2004, 08:36 PM
What I want to know is ... if money's all smoke and mirrors, hot air and bulldust, how come I can't get more of it?

PHAT
01-03-2004, 09:20 PM
C'mon mate...so u anti-capitalism too? Private ownership, etc, etc?

AR

I am not so much anti-capitalism as pro-socialism. Private ownership is fine. But how much can a person actually produce in a lifetime? The "system" is not designed to reward those who do stuff and make stuff. It is designed for thieves to take stuff from those who are deserving but not receiving. Read some Marx. It was out of fasion for a while, but hey, look at where we are heading with the capitalists' maps - monopolies and fiefdoms. The rich are becoming paracites and the ultra rich are becoming lords. If you think that that is good for you and your children, think again. The last half of the 1900s was a golden era, it is slipping away because of unchecked capitalism. We need to put a break on capitalism with death duties of 100% over ~$10mil.

PHAT
01-03-2004, 09:24 PM
As you put more money into circulation im guessing the value per dollar will decrease.

This is the sought of tripe that economists with physics envy trot out when they try to make us thick they know what they are on about. Most economists are as blindly faithful to their text books as fundies are to the OT. Kill them all.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2004, 09:45 PM
We need to put a break on capitalism with death duties of 100% over ~$10mil.

I like the theory but I doubt it will ever work in practice. The rich will rort around this as easily as they rort around income tax.

PHAT
02-03-2004, 06:34 AM
I like the theory but I doubt it will ever work in practice. The rich will rort around this as easily as they rort around income tax.

They cannot rort a bullit :eek: but more practically, you only have to put a few thousand in gaol for "hiding" whealth, and the message sinks in. The trouble is that the scum in parliament are the same scum who would be effected by such laws. Politically, 100% death duties will never get up. However, nationalisation before they die ....... :D

ursogr8
02-03-2004, 07:34 AM
I am not so much anti-capitalism as pro-socialism. Private ownership is fine. But how much can a person actually produce in a lifetime? The "system" is not designed to reward those who do stuff and make stuff. It is designed for thieves to take stuff from those who are deserving but not receiving. Read some Marx. It was out of fasion for a while, but hey, look at where we are heading with the capitalists' maps - monopolies and fiefdoms. The rich are becoming paracites and the ultra rich are becoming lords. If you think that that is good for you and your children, think again. The last half of the 1900s was a golden era, it is slipping away because of unchecked capitalism. We need to put a break on capitalism with death duties of 100% over ~$10mil.

hi Matt
If the 'system' (as you call it) does not allow sufficient return on capital then those that make the decisions on the allocation of capital simply look to other parts of the globe.
Sure, there can be big gaps between 'sufficient return' and 'super-profits'. And you think you have found a lever that reduces the gap via death duties. Well, if the idea is good for Australia then it is probably good for Woolongong on its own, or even NSW.
Just don't bring it south of the border, mate, we already have the world's most liveable city. And we have understood from the gold rush times on that profits (and the concomitant excesses) are the engine of growth. Just go steady with your hand on the levers. Please restrict your lobbying to State politicians.
starter

arosar
02-03-2004, 07:54 AM
The "system" is not designed to reward those who do stuff and make stuff.

So why are you against IP laws then?

AR

PHAT
02-03-2004, 03:12 PM
So why are you against IP laws then?

AR

Beacuse the IP is not "stuff". It is etheral, it is the escence of culture. None of us own the culture our culture, therefore IP cannot be property. "IP" is an oxymoron.

PHAT
02-03-2004, 03:18 PM
hi Matt
If the 'system' (as you call it) does not allow sufficient return on capital then those that make the decisions on the allocation of capital simply look to other parts of the globe.


So? It just means we have to ensure world socialism so the filthy capitalist pigs have nowhere to run. ;)

arosar
02-03-2004, 03:44 PM
Beacuse the IP is not "stuff". It is etheral, it is the escence of culture. None of us own the culture our culture, therefore IP cannot be property. "IP" is an oxymoron.

Including hammers, Hills Hoists, orbital engine, etc, etc?

AR

ursogr8
02-03-2004, 03:49 PM
So? It just means we have to ensure world socialism so the filthy capitalist pigs have nowhere to run. ;)
Sometimes one-liners are the best jokes. Well done, you made me laugh.

PHAT
02-03-2004, 04:06 PM
Including hammers, Hills Hoists, orbital engine, etc, etc?

AR

These are not ideas - these are not IP. These are things. Those who make those "things" should be paid for their time/effort in making them. Those who invented them should be paid for their time/effort in designing them.

A person who finds that the sap the yaboosuks bush adds 20 IQ points, should be paid for the amount of time/effort that went into finding it. If, however, they patent the relavent molecules as IP, they get "paid" [read, steal] infinity dollars.

In escence, reward should be for time/effort, not serrendipity. That serendipity can be anything from lead molecules, to hit pop songs. IP is a mechanism for accumulation of unearned great wealth in the hands of a few. Hence it is naughty.

arosar
02-03-2004, 04:19 PM
A person who finds that the sap the yaboosuks bush adds 20 IQ points, should be paid for the amount of time/effort that went into finding it. If, however, they patent the relavent molecules as IP, they get "paid" [read, steal] infinity dollars.

Aahh...on this I agree. 'Things' in nature, such as molecules, shouldn't be IP protected. So you see, it is really on the application of IP laws over which I have a prob. Another good example are genes - of anything.

AR

PHAT
02-03-2004, 04:42 PM
'Things' in nature, such as molecules, shouldn't be IP protected.

Is an idea a "thing in nature"? Or is it a thing outside of nature - ie. is an "idea" supernatural?

firegoat7
02-03-2004, 05:01 PM
One important question that needs to be investigated is the concept that money is an imaginary institution. It only has value because people accept the value, this is despite obvious examples that institutions like banks are able to manufacture money out of thin air. Remember what Marx said about those who control the means of production. Now obviously Marx was talking about industrialists but nevertheless his ideas stand the test of time because the basic model of his thinking can be applied to our society, the consumer society.

In a consumer society banks and financial institutions monopolise credit which is necessary for this particular society to function correctly. Furthermore a mind set is developed where we borrow from the future to pay for what we need now. We then place ourselves in servitude to institutions who promise us rewards for investing in markets, whilst we actively sell our labor in these marketplaces because we have no real choice in a consumer society, especially if we want to consume. Like a massive cycle the patterns keep repeating and repeating.

The problem is markets actually do not decide value. They decide commercial value.Take for example a forrest or an endangered species of animal, once they are gone they are gone forever, no longer of any value(commercial or otherwise) to humans, since they cannot be experienced anymore by human beings.

Experience then would appear to be something that would be of importance to human beings. When i am talking about experience I am talking about one thing- the ability of your senses to interpret the world and allow you to interact with that world (whatever that is for you). Obviously then anything that reduces your senses and ability to experience has to be suspect.

So can anybody really explain to me a number of observations about our culture? Why do we have footpaths? How come producing smog is legal? Why is classical music supported by government? Why don't poor children have free books? How come people are starving in the world? Why does a civilised society charge people for medicene? Why would anybody watch neighbours?

Lets face it, most of us don't really understand what is going on here. All we seem to be getting is a mixed bunch of messages designed to confuse our senses, that prevent us from really facing up to the fact that we are human beings. Because we are human beings we all deserve alot more then just what markets have to offer us. We all deserve the whole of civilisation because we exist now, not in the future.

regards FG7

B1llyG0at
02-03-2004, 06:14 PM
Firegoat, you seem like a very confused person. It appears that you enjoy being confused and you enjoy confusing others even more.

Just look at the way this thread went off-topic. I don't think anyone really tried to answer your question, but ask yourself - do you honestly want an answer? Don't you enjoy being baffled and marvel at the complexities of life? Could it be that you still cling to the memories of an innocent little child who is in awe of the world of adults but isn't yet compelled to enter it? Text books call this the Peter Pan Syndrome, or PPS.

PHAT
02-03-2004, 09:51 PM
My wife accused me of PPS. So, I'm like 'talk to the hand' :hand: and she goes like total Jehad. Well hell-o! I'm like 'don't dis me - I didn't ask to be born y'know'. :cool:

skip to my lou
03-03-2004, 12:28 AM
My wife accused me of PPS. So, I'm like 'talk to the hand' :hand: and she goes like total Jehad. Well hell-o! I'm like 'don't dis me - I didn't ask to be born y'know'. :cool:

And your wife was like what EVERRRRRRRR :hand:

and then, she was like "I'll take the house, the car, the kids and 80% of your income" :hand: :hand: :hand:

and then, you were like ":mad:"

arosar
03-03-2004, 08:26 AM
One important question that needs to be investigated is the concept that money is an imaginary institution. It only has value because people accept the value, this is despite obvious examples that institutions like banks are able to manufacture money out of thin air. Remember what Marx said about those who control the means of production. Now obviously Marx was talking about industrialists but nevertheless his ideas stand the test of time because the basic model of his thinking can be applied to our society, the consumer society.

In a consumer society banks and financial institutions monopolise credit which is necessary for this particular society to function correctly. Furthermore a mind set is developed where we borrow from the future to pay for what we need now. We then place ourselves in servitude to institutions who promise us rewards for investing in markets, whilst we actively sell our labor in these marketplaces because we have no real choice in a consumer society, especially if we want to consume. Like a massive cycle the patterns keep repeating and repeating.

The problem is markets actually do not decide value. They decide commercial value.Take for example a forrest or an endangered species of animal, once they are gone they are gone forever, no longer of any value(commercial or otherwise) to humans, since they cannot be experienced anymore by human beings.

Experience then would appear to be something that would be of importance to human beings. When i am talking about experience I am talking about one thing- the ability of your senses to interpret the world and allow you to interact with that world (whatever that is for you). Obviously then anything that reduces your senses and ability to experience has to be suspect.

So can anybody really explain to me a number of observations about our culture? Why do we have footpaths? How come producing smog is legal? Why is classical music supported by government? Why don't poor children have free books? How come people are starving in the world? Why does a civilised society charge people for medicene? Why would anybody watch neighbours?

Lets face it, most of us don't really understand what is going on here. All we seem to be getting is a mixed bunch of messages designed to confuse our senses, that prevent us from really facing up to the fact that we are human beings. Because we are human beings we all deserve alot more then just what markets have to offer us. We all deserve the whole of civilisation because we exist now, not in the future.

regards FG7

FMD!! I'm nearly always all for you mate, but this is just so freaking' incoherent. Maybe you read too much sociology mate.

AR

firegoat7
03-03-2004, 12:25 PM
Hello again,

B1llyG0at reacted with:

Firegoat, you seem like a very confused person. It appears that you enjoy being confused and you enjoy confusing others even more.

Well, Firstly I looked up your post count and it appears as if you have 0 posts on the members list. This makes me wonder if your a new member of an administrator posting under a pseudonym. Alternatively the post counter may not work properly on chesskit. Maybe someone else knows what is going on here. It does seem that you know what a thread is, so maybe that suggests that you are in reality not a newbie.


I am going to presume you are a newbie, this might be right or wrong I'm unsure at this moment in time, maybe you could clarify your current status on this bulletin board

If you are a newbie, may I ask a few questions to help clarify your post. Is this post anything more then a personal reaction against me? One would initially presume that even your name is a personal reaction against myself. If this is the case then may I suggest in a football analogy, that you play the ball and not the man, that way we can actually find out if there is any substance in what your saying.



Just look at the way this thread went off-topic. I don't think anyone really tried to answer your question, but ask yourself - do you honestly want an answer? Don't you enjoy being baffled and marvel at the complexities of life? Could it be that you still cling to the memories of an innocent little child who is in awe of the world of adults but isn't yet compelled to enter it? Text books call this the Peter Pan Syndrome, or PPS.

Maybe you could clarify these three points for me so that I can answer your questions. 1.Could you actually clarify what the question is that I supposedly asked? 2. What do you actually mean by world, because I am unsure how you equate that adults and children live in seperate ones? and 3. Since I have never heard of PPS could you enlighten me with a reference as to where I can read something about it?

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
03-03-2004, 12:37 PM
arosar wrote:
FMD!! I'm nearly always all for you mate, but this is just so freaking' incoherent. Maybe you read too much sociology mate.

Yeah thanks for telling me its incoherent. I actually did presume readers would know something about what I am talking about. Your comments are helpful to me here on this post because logically their is no need to alienate people from the discussion. I am sorry about that.

If you want to understand where I am coming from with this post ask me any question about any specific point and I may be able to clarify what I actually mean.

Of cource if we cannot communicate a mutual exchange of ideas, then I suppose the blame can be either attributed to me or society. I will let you take your pick on who is the culprit.

Cheers FG7
P.S Have you come across the term "alienation" in your travels through life Arosar?

arosar
03-03-2004, 04:36 PM
P.S Have you come across the term "alienation" in your travels through life Arosar?

Yeah...from some third-rate economist from the 19th century. Can you explain it to me mate?

Say, are you a student of sociology then fg7?

AR

B1llyG0at
03-03-2004, 06:31 PM
This makes me wonder if your a new member of an administrator posting under a pseudonym...
...If this is the case then may I suggest in a football analogy, that you play the ball and not the man.
1. What is a hypocrite?
2. You overuse analogies in your posts.
3. A bit of paranoia there. Fear of authority figures as well.



1.Could you actually clarify what the question is that I supposedly asked?
"Supposedly"? Maybe I'm the only one who noticed what this thread is titled.



3. Since I have never heard of PPS could you enlighten me with a reference as to where I can read something about it?
You practically wrote the book.

Could we all stop raving and answer the initial question. I think it's an interesting topic. To get the ball rolling...



In effect, whenever a bank lends money, or whenever a product or a service is purchased on credit, money has been created.
The above statement is false.



In effect, then, there is virtually no limit on the amount of money that lending institutions can create
The above statement is inaccurate.

Comparing physical money in circulation against "total money stock" is a bit pointless and mainly seeks to dramatise the author's argument. Did the author use the terms goodwill and depreciation in that piece you read?

Cheers big ears

PHAT
03-03-2004, 11:01 PM
Did the author use the terms goodwill and depreciation in that piece you read?


You know as well as I do that "goodwill" is a not a means of production nor a product nor a service. Its true net worth in the economy is zero. However, it is still used as as if it was a tangable beast. As for "depreciation", we also both know that is is a cost of production.



It appears to me that you are not on the right wave length here. Both FG7 and I are simply pointing out that banks create money by assuming that plant/realestate/tullips that they use as security on loans (creadit) have a market value higher than its real value.

Now, show this to be wrong and I will be very impressed. If you cannot show it to be wrong, FO.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2004, 11:24 PM
Experience then would appear to be something that would be of importance to human beings. When i am talking about experience I am talking about one thing- the ability of your senses to interpret the world and allow you to interact with that world (whatever that is for you). Obviously then anything that reduces your senses and ability to experience has to be suspect.

What you should be talking about I think is short-termism vs long-termism. If you're talking about experience, then some people like capitalism (or nearest modern approximation) precisely because they can easily accumulate wealth by means of effort and use that wealth to make other people provide the experiences they desire in the present or near future - whatever these may be. If this is at the expense of "nature" then they're sacrificing long-term potential for "experiences" in order to gain experiences in the short term.

arosar
04-03-2004, 01:13 PM
Is an idea a "thing in nature"? Or is it a thing outside of nature - ie. is an "idea" supernatural?

No and no.

If I could protect my idea, say - some new technique to break down molecules - then does it not encourage research? If I, as an individual researcher, am allowed to protect my own discovery - does it not set me free from the shackles of a large pharmaco? Thus, your mate fg7 could say that I, the labourer, would no longer be 'alienated' from the fruits of my intellect?

AR

PHAT
04-03-2004, 07:43 PM
No and no.

If I could protect my idea, say - some new technique to break down molecules - then does it not encourage research? If I, as an individual researcher, am allowed to protect my own discovery - does it not set me free from the shackles of a large pharmaco?

If you are you refering to the present IP law situation, yes.

However, on an ideal world, where there were no IP laws, there would not be any monster pharmacos - only middle and small ones like the one you will be setting up with the new "Molecule Masher".

firegoat7
07-03-2004, 07:35 PM
KB wrote:
If you're talking about experience, then some people like capitalism (or nearest modern approximation) precisely because they can easily accumulate wealth by means of effort and use that wealth to make other people provide the experiences they desire in the present or near future - whatever these may be.

people- In this context means bougeoisie pigs!
effort- owning the means of production
other people- the masses, most workers, ordinary people

Problem is why should the masses have to earn what their forefathers have already accumulated as a species?

firegoat7
07-03-2004, 08:00 PM
AR wrote:
If I could protect my idea

It is of course quite possible that there is no such thing as an original thought. Since all spontaneity appears within a cultural framework that pre-supposes knowledge of such things.

Furthermore,
If I, as an individual researcher, am allowed to protect my own discovery - does it not set me free from the shackles of a large pharmaco? Firstly, your discovery is never your own, especially if a) you share it with other people and b) You live in a society that gave you the tools to actually discover anything. Secondly, to be set free from the shackles of a large pharmaco only adds weight to the fact that you're a slave before the event. While it might be fine for you as a human being who overachieves with orignal thought(sic) ,what happens to the other slaves. Are they freed by your individual discovery or have you just changed sides?

Again Ar stated:
I, the labourer, would no longer be 'alienated' from the fruits of my intellect? Some individuals will not be alienated that is correct AR. However, most people are simply incapable of reaching their true potential at anything, because they have to perform duties and fulfil roles that mean absolutely nothing, just to exist in a capitalist society.

I mean honestly do you think Indonesian women workers want to actually work in factories that ruin their eyesight within 3-5 years?

If we were actually civilised as a species we would say : Existence comes first, free food, education, health care, shelter etc etc. Commodities come second!

arosar
08-03-2004, 09:55 AM
It is of course quite possible that there is no such thing as an original thought. Since all spontaneity appears within a cultural framework that pre-supposes knowledge of such things.

I'm telling you mate, you read too much sociology I reckon; all this fancy phraseology. What does that fancy second sentence mean dude - that what you know in your head just sorta popped in there spontaneously?

Lemme asked you this question mate. When that dang pear fell on that poor fella's head, whatshisname, to whom did he owe the idea of gravity?


Furthermore, Firstly, your discovery is never your own, especially if a) you share it with other people ....

OK . . . I'll share it with the whole research team then. Sheesh!


. . . and b) You live in a society that gave you the tools to actually discover anything.

Fine, you're clearly a bit of bloody Marxist. You like to share everything for FREE! Good luck to that kinda society that has zero innovation.


. . . you're a slave before the event. While it might be fine for you as a human being who overachieves with orignal thought(sic) ,what happens to the other slaves. Are they freed by your individual discovery or have you just changed sides?

Slaves? Slaves? Get your head outta your textbook and get a job!

[QUOTE=firegoat7]However, most people are simply incapable of reaching their true potential at anything, because they have to perform duties and fulfil roles that mean absolutely nothing, just to exist in a capitalist society.

Oh you sooo have issues mate. Capitalism sets us free!


I mean honestly do you think Indonesian women workers want to actually work in factories that ruin their eyesight within 3-5 years?

Hhhmmm...prolly not. They should improve their OH&S procedures then. Set up a compo claim system. What's so hard about that?


If we were actually civilised as a species we would say : Existence comes first, free food, education, health care, shelter etc etc. Commodities come second!

FREE everything eh? And the point of life would be . . . ?

AR

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 12:26 PM
people- In this context means bougeoisie pigs!

No it doesn't, unless you're just using this as Marxist slang for pretty much anyone who has more money than you.


effort- owning the means of production

Not necessarily. Some people make quite a lot of money without owning any "means of production", unless you class mental talent as a means of production. Your class analysis, in this case, a tad obsolete. I'm not talking about mega-rich people who might like "capitalism", I'm talking about (roughly) middle-income earners.


Problem is why should the masses have to earn what their forefathers have already accumulated as a species?

Why should it be assumed that what is earned/accumulated by one member of any species belongs pretty much entirely to the whole species? Can you name me any other species that follows this principle or construct any philosophical argument that preferences absolute sharing over a degree of competition without assuming its own result?

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 12:38 PM
It is of course quite possible that there is no such thing as an original thought. Since all spontaneity appears within a cultural framework that pre-supposes knowledge of such things.

Incorrect. An original thought can certainly occur when a person encounters information (eg in the natural world) that no person has encountered before.


Furthermore, Firstly, your discovery is never your own, especially if a) you share it with other people

That's circular, since the whole point of IP is that a person elects not to share their discovery freely in the public domain until a contract is constructed granting them rights over it.


and b) You live in a society that gave you the tools to actually discover anything.

See Windows source code thread. Only an argument for society having some stake in the IP, not necessarily for society owning it all.


If we were actually civilised as a species we would say : Existence comes first, free food, education, health care, shelter etc etc. Commodities come second!

I have sympathies in this direction - I like the idea of everyone in need of it being able to access a certain minimum living income, more or less unconditionally. (Perhaps they should lose it if they refuse a reasonable work offer, but not otherwise). However you don't need to be anti-IP or anti-business to support such an idea, you just have to fiddle around with the tax levels and the priorities of government spending. It is still compatible with a society that is largely private-ownership based.

firegoat7
10-03-2004, 12:03 PM
KB wrote:
Incorrect. An original thought can certainly occur when a person encounters information (eg in the natural world) that no person has encountered before. Which is an error. What he should have written was- Incorrect according to my a-social way of viewing the world ,in which I am an individual and nobody else exists.

Since you still don't get it.Here is my advice on what you can do with your original thoughts KB, keep them to yourself!

KB then harped on about:
That's circular, since the whole point of IP is that a person elects not to share their discovery freely in the public domain until a contract is constructed granting them rights over it. Its like family feud Joyce, dddddddd dddddddddd, wrong again. What you should probably say is The rules of Capitalism require that we adhere to personal contracts, thus increasing our own security/insecurity.

More dribble with:
See Windows source code thread. Only an argument for society having some stake in the IP, not necessarily for society owning it all. Again just so wrong. Who owns intellectual property? people. Who are people? OMFG its you and me and them and us etc etc. Honestly is it that hard to understand.

And then KB topped the lot with this babble of gobblygook.
(Perhaps they should lose it if they refuse a reasonable work offer, but not otherwise). However you don't need to be anti-IP or anti-business to support such an idea, you just have to fiddle around with the tax levels and the priorities of government spending. It is still compatible with a society that is largely private-ownership based. All you are portraying is your own ignorance and inability to break through your middle class values. All this rubbish about linking human experience with work and tax breaks, simply sounds like Marxist propaganda! Ironically!

So maybe this will help you to understand.

When me sons go to work as chimney sweeps at the age of five instead of attending school gov'ner, Does that make em able to grow into the intellectual gurus that huuumanity ad in store for dem. Since Dad and mum got frown out on them their streets for not wooorking duz dat mean that me and sis aft to live in a car guv?

If people fail will they be allowed citizenship to your clown utopia?

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
10-03-2004, 12:13 PM
KB cried:
Some people make quite a lot of money without owning any "means of production", unless you class mental talent as a means of production.

Stupid ignorant fool!!

KB goes to university,an institution established by society, then claims. I'm talented, my mental talents are unique, I, me, my ego, creates the world. I am so gifted. Me is special. Aint ego great.

To bad Jane Smith still works as Safeway, she had more talent in her little finger then your whole body. Man could she dance!!!

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
10-03-2004, 12:28 PM
AR wrote:
When that dang pear fell on that poor fella's head, whatshisname, to whom did he owe the idea of gravity?

If I throw an apple at your head AR, you may have the ability to rediscover the theory of gravity by yourself.

If you did it would not be an original thought since it has already been discovered by humans.

Mr Newton would probably turn in his grave if you claimed that :You discovered the theory of gravity.

Nevertheless, Your claim would be true to some extent because you discovered it for yourself.

Meanwhile, if you never learn mathematics AR what do you think the chances would be for you to discover "the laws of gravity"?

So how can anybody actually say that bit of knowledge is mine and try and put a patent on it? Surely anybody should be allowed to discover any sort of knowledge themselves.

Luckily in a civilised society we do not have to rediscover the "theory of gravity' WE can simply look it up in a book,have a discussion,find it on the internet, buy the video etc etc

Knowledge is shared or it dies!

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2004, 12:51 PM
KB wrote: Which is an error. What he should have written was- Incorrect according to my a-social way of viewing the world ,in which I am an individual and nobody else exists.

No, you are making a nonsensical strawman out of my position because you either cannot handle an intelligent debate or choose not to. There is nothing in my comments that denotes an a-social world view, I am simply stating empirical facts about the process of discovery.


Since you still don't get it.Here is my advice on what you can do with your original thoughts KB, keep them to yourself!

No, you don't get it. That an original thought is later shared does not in any way affect its originality at the time it was conceived. We do know that science is riddled with "original" thoughts that were not in fact original (they were later discovered to have been pre-empted or even plagiarised) and in philosophy many thoughts are just the first prominent expression of something that has been chewed over many times before, but none of these things make original thought impossible. Discovery is one example, where the original thought involves the analysis of previously unknown data. Whether the methods of analysis are ever truly "original" I'm not so sure, but it really doesn't matter for the purposes of this debate.


What you should probably say is The rules of Capitalism require that we adhere to personal contracts, thus increasing our own security/insecurity.

Only if we choose to, ever heard of freeware?


More dribble with: Again just so wrong. Who owns intellectual property? people. Who are people? OMFG its you and me and them and us etc etc. Honestly is it that hard to understand.

The dribble is yours as usual. When you ask "Who owns intellectual property? People.", there are two possibilities. If "people" you mean "all people", you're assuming the result you're trying to argue. If by "people" you mean "some particular people", you need an extra argument to get you from those people to "you and me and them and us" - because some people will not have a significant "original" thought, or put any effort into intellectual or technical progress, in their lives, while others will contribute much in these areas.


And then KB topped the lot with this babble of gobblygook. All you are portraying is your own ignorance and inability to break through your middle class values. All this rubbish about linking human experience with work and tax breaks, simply sounds like Marxist propaganda! Ironically!

No it doesn't, your diehard Marxist would maintain that even a system with tax and welfare would eventually collapse if dominated by private property. Incidentally if you think my position (which actually links work with human experience much less strongly than most people do) is in any way derived from Marxism you're barking entirely up the wrong tree. Hint: Where does property originally come from?


When me sons go to work as chimney sweeps at the age of five instead of attending school gov'ner, Does that make em able to grow into the intellectual gurus that huuumanity ad in store for dem. Since Dad and mum got frown out on them their streets for not wooorking duz dat mean that me and sis aft to live in a car guv?

If people fail will they be allowed citizenship to your clown utopia?

Yes firegoat, even abject failures like you who never learn to read or argue properly will be allowed and well supported. Obviously you were paying no attention when I said that I supported "a certain minimum living income, more or less unconditionally" for all people - subject only perhaps to accepting reasonable offers of work. Obviously sweeping chimneys at age five is not a "reasonable" offer and does not enable people to grow into intellectual gurus. So when did you start? Three? Sorry, I have to throw back one cheapo for every ten of yours. :lol:

Incidentally I'm vigorously opposed to the excessive value placed on work in society generally. But the position that you seem to be getting at - that a person should be entitled to an income even when they are made a reasonable job offer and refuse it - is rather ironic coming from you. Why? Because while it might sound like an expression of ultimate social obligation, it's got a very atomistic flip-side - the individual who is entitled to take a living from society with return obligations only being conditional on having something to give back. You may find that your philosophy and that of capitalism are far far closer than you think. Ditto for your philosophy and mine. :eek:

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2004, 01:01 PM
KB goes to university,an institution established by society, then claims. I'm talented, my mental talents are unique, I, me, my ego, creates the world. I am so gifted. Me is special. Aint ego great.

Not true, goat. Most of my intellectual talents have little if any commercial application and are things I developed because they interested me, probably greatly damaging my future earnings potential in the process. Some of them I developed outside an academic context as an amateur or as work and then turned into easy degrees later. Trying to deconstruct (sens. strict.) my ideas in this way is really going to make an idiot of you. I am simply stating an empirical fact, that ownership of the means of production as classically conceived is not necessary to become wealthy. This does not mean I intend to become wealthy through mental talent myself.


To bad Jane Smith still works as Safeway, she had more talent in her little finger then your whole body. Man could she dance!!!

A world class dancing talent would hardly need to work at Safeway if that talent was recognised. If you're complaining that talents are not recognised and nurtured enough, you're hardly telling me the news. If you're suggesting a person who wants to enough cannot both work and develop a talent, you're (in many cases at least) wrong.

arosar
10-03-2004, 01:43 PM
If you did it (gravity) would not be an original thought since it has already been discovered by humans.

Make up your friggin' mind man. One minute you're questioning 'original thought' - next minute you're validating it. What's the story man?


Surely anybody should be allowed to discover any sort of knowledge themselves.

Of course! IP laws do not stop this process and indeed, not all 'knowledge' can be patented. The issue is the degree of application of IP laws. Understand? I do appreciate that you, OTOH, want IP laws to be abolished completely. (Well, that is what I infer from you anyways).


Knowledge is shared or it dies!

No dispute here. You can use my knowledge, ideas, inventions, etc. You can manipulate them, extend them and so on. I'm just gonna charge your pants off - that's all. I mean, I gotta have something right? But, I know, I know - I owe it all to my ancestors....Mate, I am sooo glad youse socialist blokes are just good for a laugh.

AR

PHAT
10-03-2004, 02:28 PM
Why should it be assumed that what is earned/accumulated by one member of any species belongs pretty much entirely to the whole species? Can you name me any other species that follows this principle or construct any philosophical argument that preferences absolute sharing over a degree of competition without assuming its own result?


Any superorganism - bees, ants,

The individuals who comprise the modern technological state fit the definition of a superorganism quite well.

I wonder why you asked the question when the answer is so devestating to your argument. :lol:

PHAT
10-03-2004, 02:37 PM
I like the idea of everyone in need of it being able to access a certain minimum living income, more or less unconditionally. (Perhaps they should lose it if they refuse a reasonable work offer, but not otherwise). However you don't need to be anti-IP or anti-business to support such an idea, you just have to fiddle around with the tax levels and the priorities of government spending. It is still compatible with a society that is largely private-ownership based.


Unfortunately, IP and business facilitates the accumulation of wealth. This tends to monopolies and despotism. Thus, to place faith in the taxation system - a system run by the best governments money can buy - is a recepy for lords and serfs. A dumb move for a prole to endorse.

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2004, 03:55 PM
Any superorganism - bees, ants,

Bzzt. These critters work for the hive, not the species. Haven't you ever heard of bees fighting bees from other hives? Jeez, I knew this stuff in kindergarten. :rolleyes:


I wonder why you asked the question when the answer is so devestating to your argument. :lol:

Or maybe not. Come back when your understanding of actual on-ground sociobiology is more informed.

(There may be an example of creatures that work for all members of their species - but if so, I reckon it will be a very small minority.)

PHAT
10-03-2004, 04:46 PM
Bzzt. These critters work for the hive, not the species. Haven't you ever heard of bees fighting bees from other hives? Jeez, I knew this stuff in kindergarten. :rolleyes:


Bzzt, yourself. The analogy is of the modern industral state being like a superorganism. With the growth of globalisation we could concider the first world as a single superorganism. Given the relatively tiny proportion of genetic mixing, the rest of the world could be classied as a phenotypical sub-species, leaving the first world as a superorganism that contains all members of the species. :p

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2004, 06:16 PM
Bzzt, yourself.

More like Bzzzz in your case. :p


The analogy is of the modern industral state being like a superorganism. With the growth of globalisation we could concider the first world as a single superorganism.

That's a very loose analogy, to say the least. You certainly could not classify humans easily into recognisable and discrete "colonies" as you might do with hive animals - too much overlap and migration for starters.

It's an uphill battle you're facing here because to argue from analogy that it would make sense for humans to be hive animals you have to prove that humans already more or less are hive animals, in which case no great change to existing practice necessarily follows. Oh well, if you will try to justify morality these things will happen. :hand:


Given the relatively tiny proportion of genetic mixing, the rest of the world could be classied as a phenotypical sub-species, leaving the first world as a superorganism that contains all members of the species. :p

A sub-species isn't a species. And I'm no expert, but I don't think you'll find any credible taxonomists who would really divide modern humans into sub-species. I think that's best left to the 19th century style racists.

PHAT
10-03-2004, 07:13 PM
More like Bzzzz in your case. :p

A sub-species isn't a species. And I'm no expert, but I don't think you'll find any credible taxonomists who would really divide modern humans into sub-species. I think that's best left to the 19th century style racists.

Bzzz Bzzz Bzzz Bzzz Bzzz Bzzz

Get that PC bum off the stage.

A sub-species is a subdivision of a species that can be distiguished from other sub-species on the basis of set ot charactarists and a distinctive geographical range. Sub-species do, however, normally interbread to some extrent. Thus, we humans are members of subspecies. [and drop the "racists" card, dude :hand: ]



It's an uphill battle you're facing here because to argue from analogy that it would make sense for humans to be hive animals you have to prove that humans already more or less are hive animals, in which case no great change to existing practice necessarily follows.


It took one Google to find this:
http://www.complexsystems.org/abstracts/superorg.html

firegoat7
10-03-2004, 10:42 PM
Greetings Matt,

Congratulations on back row mating Mr Bonham. I would be interested to know if you intend to annotate this game as it did seem like an effortless win.

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 04:02 AM
A sub-species is a subdivision of a species that can be distiguished from other sub-species on the basis of set ot charactarists and a distinctive geographical range. Sub-species do, however, normally interbread to some extrent. Thus, we humans are members of subspecies.

Distinctive geographical range is rubbish for starters; there is no shortage of places where substantial numbers of different so-called subspecies of human co-exist and interbreed (whereas subspecies are generally blocked from interbreeding, except in rare cases, by geographical inability to interact). I've just done a quick refresher read-about on this - human variation is considered predominantly clinal, and the concept of more or less distinct races or subspecies is taxonomically dead. It's true that there are areas where one "race" is overwhelmingly dominant and "pure", but that doesn't mean that race is confined to that area, nor that it fails to integrade with others. How many of these human "subspecies" are you going to recognise? I really do think it is appropriate to point out that this concept is one that no longer has much support outside those racists who find it convenient - not to suggest that you are a racist, but to make you wonder: if there are subspecies of modern human why aren't they considered taxonomically valid? Going to write that off as just political correctness? :eek:


It took one Google to find this:
http://www.complexsystems.org/abstracts/superorg.html

Excellent. Political science and natural history. :lol: I may be in my elements on this one.

Remember that my original question to firegoose was:


Why should it be assumed that what is earned/accumulated by one member of any species belongs pretty much entirely to the whole species? Can you name me any other species that follows this principle or construct any philosophical argument that preferences absolute sharing over a degree of competition without assuming its own result?

The paper you link to (read the full thing or just the abstract? I read most of the full thing, though I skimmed a few bits) discusses synergy - ie individuals of a species in a certain region banding together to help each other - and relates this to politics, specifically analytical frameworks for political science. But the animal examples given demonstrates only that individuals sometimes-to-extensively display synergy (ie that individuals of these species are not exclusively isolated or self-favouring), not that individual welfare is completely subsumed to the species or even to the local group. Furthermore, in many of these cases a clear self-interest to every individual engaging in the co-operation described is evident, and the paper is quite explicit that many of these cases are therefore not true "altruism". So obviously synergy does not go anywhere near answering the question I asked young Beaumont, which was a question about total altruism.

I would hazard a guess that purely altruistic species are rare because pure altruism (if it exists at all) would effectively dampen natural selection within a species, unless those specimens most effective at helping their fellows were favoured by greater reproductive success. If anyone can give an example of a very altruistic/synergistic species (even at "hive" level) in which reproductive chances for all individuals are more or less equal that would be interesting. Can't think of one offhand.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 04:17 AM
Congratulations on back row mating Mr[sic] Bonham. I would be interested to know if you intend to annotate this game as it did seem like an effortless win.

Is this your shoddy attempt to demonstrate synergy at work? More like sycophancy, or something else beginning with s. :hmm: So how does this mesh with your reliance on "conflict theory" to justify your obnoxious conduct on other threads?

As Matt moves his rook from c1 to c8 and slurs a drunken "chuuuuurrkkk", firegoat jumps for joy, 1/8 would be the best result his team had managed all season. The arbiter calls for the padded jacket and reminds Mr Sweeney that he cannot play Rc8 as he is already in check from two of Bonham's pieces and Rc8 would expose him to check from a third. Dr Bonham is awarded two extra minutes, but as Mr Sweeney is already three knights down, Dr Bonham can find no chess related use for his two minutes when his move again arrives.

Therefore he spends them doing this:

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

firegoat7
12-03-2004, 05:38 PM
Bonham picks up the football and threads the pigskin through the posts, pity the siren went five minutes ago, still it seems to be the only way Bonham can kick goals. Final scores Socialist Alliances 6 Billion defeated The A-Social Liberal Bonham 1

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2004, 06:59 PM
Bonham picks up the football and threads the pigskin through the posts, pity the siren went five minutes ago, still it seems to be the only way Bonham can kick goals. Final scores Socialist Alliances 6 Billion defeated The A-Social Liberal Bonham 1

Changing the game are we now, well I'll do that too, the football's round. The siren went on your credibility rather longer ago than that, and you've had so many red cards that I already won by that prescribed automatic forfeit margin you talked about on another thread. :clap:

I don't know what's stupider - that you tried to tie me to the Libs when my utter contempt for them and true voting tendencies (ALP by default unless there's a good Independent or Democrat) have both already been discussed here often enough, or that you tried to tie the entire world's population to the concept of Socialist Alliances, when the Australian version cannot even poll 0.5% nationwide.

The more I read from you the more you sound like just another sad bitter Resistance type loser with a penchant for fossilized revolutionary froth and dogma but no real understanding of political issues. How does it feel to be a walking free advertisement for capitalism?

arosar
12-03-2004, 07:10 PM
If there's one thing I hate, it's these undergrad uni types who wear those t-shirts with the famous Guevara pic on it - as if they really understand what it was all about. At least some of us have actually lived thru a real live revolt!

AR

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2004, 07:25 PM
If there's one thing I hate, it's these undergrad uni types who wear those t-shirts with the famous Guevara pic on it

Yes, they are sad. Just troll them by lecturing them about Che's excellent chess career and how his death was a sad waste for chess. Works every time given their narrow passions and chronic lack of SOH.

The inner workings of Resistance are fascinating. Some of those guys are as brainwashed as an al-Q suicide bomber.


- as if they really understand what it was all about. At least some of us have actually lived thru a real live revolt!

Let me guess, you were in the country when Marcos got the boot?

arosar
12-03-2004, 07:30 PM
Let me guess, you were in the country when Marcos got the boot?

Yup....I remember it like it was freakin' yesterday. How exciting those times were man....listening to the radio, jumping on our jeep and drivin' around town, all over the place, honking like there was no tomorrow. Then before I flew over here, we made sure to stop over at Malacanang Palace - that's our White House - and FMD(!), we saw all these 3000 pairs of shoes and fur coats. What's a freaking idiot need fur coats in a tropical country?

Man...now I'm bloody reminiscing!

AR

Cat
12-03-2004, 09:14 PM
In considering Intellectual Property Rights I'd make the following obervations;

1. Many of the ideas are not original at all. It's often very difficult to determine where an idea emerged, it may not be novel at all. The patent is often lodged by avaricious, audacious individuals, who simply realise a patent opportunity.

2. Even when there is some originality and usefulness involved, the individual often doesn't have the means to either develop the idea, or indeed lodge the patents. The ideas are sold to entrepreneurs who either know nothing of, have really contributed very little to the area of interest.

3. Eventually there will be conflict between the interests of humanity and the patent holder in many instances.

4. In medicine we are seeing bogus medical therapies being promoted through apparently-plausible, pseudo-scientific presentations to an unsuspecting public simply because there is a commercial interest in a IP patent.

Drug companies recieve patents that expire after 10 years, thereafter any company is able to produce a generic equivalent. All IP issues should really have this kind of structure, allowing enough time for reward for genuine effort but an expiry point in the interests of wider human concern.

firegoat7
13-03-2004, 06:20 PM
Conceptualisation is such a wonderful thing, often when you think you understand something, that something changes into something else. This is pretty much what is happening with this debate which has turned into a weird form of Tag team wrestling.

Bonham kicked of the game with this lame attempt that proved nothing except his inability to move the politcal discussion out of the domestic sphere into current praxis. He begins with....
I don't know what's stupider - that you tried to tie me to the Libs when my utter contempt for them and true voting tendencies (ALP by default unless there's a good Independent or Democrat) have both already been discussed here often enough, or that you tried to tie the entire world's population to the concept of Socialist Alliances, when the Australian version cannot even poll 0.5% nationwide. So lets contextualise where this comes from it is in response to...
Final scores Socialist Alliances 6 Billion defeated The A-Social Liberal Bonham 1 Yeah Bonham's head still looking in the mirror identifies the word "Liberal" with Australian Domestic politics. What a joke!! Furthermore, He then presumes again that "Socialist Alliance" means some reactionary form of Socialism that like he says is connected with a minority of people.

Now let us re-conceptualise. The word A-social is connected with liberalism- A form of individual philosophy. Something that is also connected with Socialism, namely the idea of human rights beyond the market place. Now when I use Socialist Alliance I am talking about Christians, Jews, Hindus,Muslims etc etc, Workers, Part-time workers, Unemployed, Students,etc etc, Feminists,Gays,Trans genders, Bi-sexuals etc etc Palestinians,Basques,Indigenous peoples, Americans, Navaho etc etc. In fact basically any group of people who feel that their right to existence is simply not determinable by dominant hegemonic Capitalistic Imperial powers and values. I accept the right to be different. I also would like to think that being different we have one thing in commen, we are human beings, who ought to spend more time recognising that we are similar in our base demands and seperate in our wants.

All of these ideas are far removed from Bonhams idea of Political Socialist Alliances. We are not talking about the same thing.

Obviously to quote your words Bonham, since you cannot appear to seperate local politics from global politics you actually may be nothing more then a
loser with a penchant for fossilized revolutionary froth and dogma but no real understanding of political issues.

AR then kicked in with...
one thing I hate, it's these undergrad uni types who wear those t-shirts with the famous Guevara pic on it

As if somebody dying in the Congo over 30 years ago was the last word in Socialism. Next you will be telling me that life used to be simpler and wearing slippers!!

Lets face it. Socialism still exists. Furthermore it might actually be able to be advanced know that it has learnt some brutal lessons from the 20th century. Maybe you should think about the term Socialism, like an Aeroplane. When the Wright brothers invented an aeroplane, what they invented bares little resembalance to the jets that we traverse around the globe in now. No doubt eiroplane manufactures learnt their lessons well.

Let us not forget that when Zapatistas challenge the legitimacy of NAFTA, or when Christian churches march for aboriginal reconciliation, differences between the human condition can be overcome when people unite. The last word on Socialism has yet to be written!

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2004, 07:59 PM
Conceptualisation is such a wonderful thing, often when you think you understand something, that something changes into something else. This is pretty much what is happening with this debate which has turned into a weird form of Tag team wrestling.

Indeed ... because of your habit of expressing yourself badly and then reinventing what you wrote into something quite different that still doesn't make a lot of sense.


Bonham kicked of the game with this lame attempt that proved nothing except his inability to move the politcal discussion out of the domestic sphere into current praxis.

Rubbish, I can discuss internationalism with you until the cows come home and dribble milk all over your underperceptive cranium. Should it become relevant I will do so.


Yeah Bonham's head still looking in the mirror identifies the word "Liberal" with Australian Domestic politics. What a joke!!

Not at all, had you meant "Liberal" in any other sense you would have or at least should have expressed yourself more clearly, ideally without the use of a capital L which is more or less invariably tied to a party. Indeed if you had any broad understanding of politics you'd realise that "A-Social Liberal" in the broad (small l) sense of the term "liberal" is a contradiction. The broad "liberalism" (eg that in the USA) is actually very socially concerned, and has little to do with classical liberalism, and quite a tenuous relationship with individualism generally.


The word A-social is connected with liberalism- A form of individual philosophy. Something that is also connected with Socialism, namely the idea of human rights beyond the market place. Now when I use Socialist Alliance I am talking about Christians, Jews, Hindus,Muslims etc etc, Workers, Part-time workers, Unemployed, Students,etc etc, Feminists,Gays,Trans genders, Bi-sexuals etc etc Palestinians,Basques,Indigenous peoples, Americans, Navaho etc etc.

Tosh. Many of these groups are not necessarily "socialist" or even "anti-capitalist" in any way. Jews as a movement outside capitalism when their success within capitalism is one of the most common sources of conspiracy theories against both? :rolleyes: "Christians" as a socialist movement? Well, don't mention that to the Calvinists.

Socialism is not a legitimate blanket term for all forms of opposition to capitalism or espousal of rights not directly relevant to it (as you would have it); rather it is a specific economic alternative that many members of the groups above would vigorously oppose. It's especially lame that you portray me as the side in opposition to these groups when I am the one here who has done things in the public domain for gay rights (for instance) whereas you are the one who stoops to homophobic jokes to tar an opponent. :wall:

Meanwhile you are sounding more and more like a Resistance type because this bizarre fantasy of a broad coalition of anti-capitalist interest is one of their favourite hobby horses too. This is because they suffer from the delusion that all social ills can be attributed to a single source.


In fact basically any group of people who feel that their right to existence is simply not determinable by dominant hegemonic Capitalistic Imperial powers and values.

I don't think you could name too many groups of people who feel that their right to existence is determinable by that. And in any case, isn't "corporatist" a more accurate term than "capitalist" these days?


Obviously to quote your words Bonham, since you cannot appear to seperate local politics from global politics you actually may be nothing more then a

Moi? Revolutionary? What a joke. A while back you were calling me conservative. Make up your mind. :rolleyes: And here you're doing your usual trick of writing badly then attacking the reader for failing to anticipate your later reinventions of whatever you wrote.


As if somebody dying in the Congo over 30 years ago was the last word in Socialism. Next you will be telling me that life used to be simpler and wearing slippers!!

Ha-ha. Paint yourself as the big expert on socialism and the big globalist and you still don't know where Che Guevara died. A little hint for you, you're on the wrong continent. :D :D :D And nice to see you missing AR's points as totally as you miss mine. Nice to know your stupidity towards me is generic and not personal. :owned:


Lets face it. Socialism still exists. Furthermore it might actually be able to be advanced know that it has learnt some brutal lessons from the 20th century.

I doubt it. The hard left almost never learns anything. :hmm:

PHAT
13-03-2004, 11:48 PM
Drug companies recieve patents that expire after 10 years, thereafter any company is able to produce a generic equivalent. All IP issues should really have this kind of structure, allowing enough time for reward for genuine effort but an expiry point in the interests of wider human concern.


10 years! Me, with a dieing grandmother. Are you trying to insult me? This worth 50 if it's worth a century.

Now we are into compomise. I'll give you 1 year and that's my final offer.

PHAT
14-03-2004, 12:22 AM
The hard left almost never learns anything. :hmm:

Oh! So they are the same as the hard right, and the neocons and the Christians and the pin heads and the proles and ...

Slagging off the left for being less than "scientific" is a cheap shot. I acknowledge that there is a problem called pragmatic application to much of the left's agenda. However, the right has held the riens for some three decades (world wide) and I ask, has it been a net pragmatic success? Not really, eh.

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1389-4978

Kevin Bonham
14-03-2004, 12:50 AM
Oh! So they are the same as the hard right, and the neocons and the Christians and the pin heads and the proles and ...

Aspects of the hard Right do learn things when it comes to political effectiveness. More's the pity. (I'm not talking about undisciplined rabble like One Nation here though, I mean the moral and economic conservatives.) Even the moralist Christians come up with new tricks. Mainly finding ways to dress up old intolerances (strict sense) in new "socially-concerned" clothes.


Slagging off the left for being less than "scientific" is a cheap shot. I acknowledge that there is a problem called pragmatic application to much of the left's agenda.

It's really only the hard left, say the leftmost 1-2% I'm applying these criticisms to. And yes, those are the main problems - inability to understand political reality, and inability to change it anyway, both stemming from too much reliance on ideology whether it explains the facts or not. Another problem with movements like Resistance is their structural militarism. They need to loosen up a bit, have more fun.


However, the right has held the riens for some three decades (world wide) and I ask, has it been a net pragmatic success? Not really, eh.

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1389-4978

Abstract #5 on that page is rather interesting.

PHAT
14-03-2004, 10:31 AM
Abstract #5 on that page is rather interesting.


And then there are others do not agree. Over the years I have seen a growing interest in what I will call "persective relativity". It appears that while measuring SWB is more straight forward than was thought, finding correlates for SWB proves more difficult. In summary, the SWB depends very much on how other people around us are coping/feeling. We see this in: rates of mental health during "hard times"; suicide rates in "happy" societies are higher; disatisfaction in relative poverty.

http://www.res.org.uk/society/mediabriefings/pdfs/1997/November/oswald.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s322438.htm.

[EDIT]This interesting study on prossional baseball players' pay structure illistrates the idea that money does not buy happines, but relative status does. Hence, even if we are "happier" now than 50 years ago, it has nothing to do with a material wealth. One could say, we are destroying the planet for nothing that matters.

firegoat7
14-03-2004, 10:45 AM
Bonham wrote:
Ha-ha. Paint yourself as the big expert on socialism and the big globalist and you still don't know where Che Guevara died I do not paint myself as an expert. I am a human being trying to comprehend what is going on in the world. I presumed Che died in the Congo, if I am wrong I am wrong. So where did he die?

Importantly, I will admit I am wrong if it is shown I am wrong, which is more then likely over Che since I know next to nothing about him. By the way sorta misses the boat when you claim I am a Che worshipping Socialist dosen't it :hmm:

Nevertheless, your defence to the a-social liberalism comment absolutely sucks Bonham. Why don't you just admit that you misunderstood what I meant by the term, improving the communication channels between people, instead of mounting some stupid attack about you telling me what I meant.

I mean OMFG, since when did you ever know what was inside somebody elses head when it comes to thoughts?

By the way, your efforts to change the history of a number of threads into a personal slanging match. At least 5 at my last count simply prove that you are uncomfortable with ever being wrong and are actually deluded enough to think that your opinion is the only one that is ever correct.

Cheers FG7

Cat
14-03-2004, 02:17 PM
10 years! Me, with a dieing grandmother. Are you trying to insult me? This worth 50 if it's worth a century.

Now we are into compomise. I'll give you 1 year and that's my final offer.

Ah, but it takes around 5yrs on average to get to market, so the effective comercial time is only 5yrs. Deal?

PHAT
14-03-2004, 02:40 PM
Ah, but it takes around 5yrs on average to get to market, so the effective comercial time is only 5yrs. Deal?

Just as the amount of junk you accumulate approxiamtes the amount of space you have, the time taken for full commercialisation and market penetration approxiamtes the time duration of the patent. I'll give you 2 years and not a minute more or God strike me dead.

Cat
14-03-2004, 09:40 PM
10 years! Me, with a dieing grandmother. Are you trying to insult me? This worth 50 if it's worth a century.

Now we are into compomise. I'll give you 1 year and that's my final offer.

Look 4yrs and I promise you won't get a better deal this side of Alpha Centauri! I'll even throw in a couple of Queen Elizabeth mugs for free.

Kevin Bonham
14-03-2004, 09:46 PM
Bonham wrote: I do not paint myself as an expert. I am a human being trying to comprehend what is going on in the world. I presumed Che died in the Congo, if I am wrong I am wrong. So where did he die?

Che was captured and executed in Bolivia by soldiers in 1967.


Importantly, I will admit I am wrong if it is shown I am wrong, which is more then likely over Che since I know next to nothing about him. By the way sorta misses the boat when you claim I am a Che worshipping Socialist dosen't it :hmm:

Does actually, I'll grant that. Must be a rare case of convergent political stupidity because the babble you come out with on capitalism is so damned similar to theirs.


Nevertheless, your defence to the a-social liberalism comment absolutely sucks Bonham. Why don't you just admit that you misunderstood what I meant by the term, improving the communication channels between people, instead of mounting some stupid attack about you telling me what I meant.

If that is what you meant you should have expressed yourself more clearly, and certainly you shouldn't be criticising me for assuming you meant the large L meaning, for the following reasons:

(i) As I pointed out, "a-social liberal" in modern terms is a contradiction in terms and makes no sense.

(ii) If you were going to use that sense of "liberal" to pigeonhole me I think you would have started doing it long ago, whereas you've already falsely misused "conservative" for me (which is not so far from "Liberal").

(iii) Quite simply, you need to learn to write better.


I mean OMFG, since when did you ever know what was inside somebody elses head when it comes to thoughts?

Since they expressed themselves more clearly and earned my respect for their intellectual honesty. Hope that helps. :hand:


By the way, your efforts to change the history of a number of threads into a personal slanging match. At least 5 at my last count simply prove that you are uncomfortable with ever being wrong and are actually deluded enough to think that your opinion is the only one that is ever correct.


You must be talking to yourself about yourself here. I would need to invent a new number system to count the number of times you have done this on threads I posted on rather than debate the point. So what does the above say about you?

I'm perfectly comfortable with being wrong now and then. That doesn't mean that every joker who disagrees with me, vomits weak abuse and can't make a coherent case is right.

firegoat7
14-03-2004, 10:18 PM
Correct me if I am wrong Bon Bon but liberalism is a philosophy that is the basis for our democratic system of government. So when u say
As I pointed out, "a-social liberal" in modern terms is a contradiction in terms and makes no sense I can actually say to you.......Ahhh what the hell are you talking about?

We believe in liberty correct? An A-social human being, a recent historical development, is a human being that is private, cut off from normal social relations. If you still do not get it then hey you don't get it. No need to criticise me for your inability to understand.

Capitalism is the dominant economic aparatus of society, it has been for 500 years. It will not remain forever, based on previous known history, it will eventually be replaced by something else.

We may or may not be living through that change right now at this particular historical epoch. As Marx said Capitalism gathers the proletariat together to communicate, thus sowing its own destruction.

The computer and the internet is a revolution. The internet could be the end of Capitalism, already we see that communication is almost instant anywhere over the globe. Imagine a 3rd world with Internet access KB and you might see the most incredible change in society. Of course we may not aswell, but hey, some think that we are witnessing a very interesting change where normal nation/state rules no longer apply.

Cheers FG7

Rincewind
14-03-2004, 10:31 PM
We may or may not be living through that change right now at this particular historical epoch. As Marx said Capitalism gathers the proletariat together to communicate, thus sowing its own destruction.

Worker states haven't been that efficient either so perhaps Marx didn;t know everything. :eek:


The computer and the internet is a revolution. The internet could be the end of Capitalism, already we see that communication is almost instant anywhere over the globe. Imagine a 3rd world with Internet access KB and you might see the most incredible change in society. Of course we may not aswell, but hey, some think that we are witnessing a very interesting change where normal nation/state rules no longer apply.

True it may be that sovereign states are losing power but with large corporations merging to form even larger multinational behemoths it could be that the power vacuum created by the irrelevance of national statehood is going to be replaced by corporations. Ergo capitalism on the increase, not the decrease. A possibility worth considering and at least as likely as your electronic-commuication-enabled-marxist-utopia scenario. In fact applynig Murphy's Law would rule out any sort of utopia. ;)

Food for thought.

Kevin Bonham
14-03-2004, 11:05 PM
Correct me if I am wrong Bon Bon but liberalism is a philosophy that is the basis for our democratic system of government. So when u say I can actually say to you.......Ahhh what the hell are you talking about?

There is no one "liberalism". There are several different strands that have held that name. Classical liberalism is (or was) far more "right wing" economically than the contemporary "liberalism" of the USA, which is also sometimes called "left liberalism". Furthermore the PC touches of contemporary liberalism also include illiberal components that the classical liberals would probably have opposed. Mainstream liberalism does still exist, but normally when "liberal" is used (uncapitalised) it is in reference to a "small l liberal" or "left liberal".


We believe in liberty correct? An A-social human being, a recent historical development, is a human being that is private, cut off from normal social relations. If you still do not get it then hey you don't get it. No need to criticise me for your inability to understand.

What we live in is called "liberal democracy". It's a hybrid of two different strands that are often in tension with each other - liberty and democracy. One who believes in liberty to the exclusion of all other doctrines is not a liberal but a libertarian. You could at least call your straw man by its name. (And I'd be very surprised if "a-social human beings" were a recent development. Surely every age has had some with such tendencies?)


Capitalism is the dominant economic aparatus of society, it has been for 500 years. It will not remain forever, based on previous known history, it will eventually be replaced by something else.

If you feel so inclined, convince me.


We may or may not be living through that change right now at this particular historical epoch. As Marx said Capitalism gathers the proletariat together to communicate, thus sowing its own destruction.

The computer and the internet is a revolution. The internet could be the end of Capitalism, already we see that communication is almost instant anywhere over the globe. Imagine a 3rd world with Internet access KB and you might see the most incredible change in society. Of course we may not aswell, but hey, some think that we are witnessing a very interesting change where normal nation/state rules no longer apply.

I think the internet will cause great and interesting changes in the 3rd world but I am highly sceptical about it having the ability to speed a marxist-style revolution. It certainly has not shown any real signs of doing so in the 1st world. IMHO (and I have studied political economy) Marx was simply wrong; rather than allowing the proletariat to destroy it, capitalism/corporatism simply bribes them off with little increases in their standard of living. Despite the finitude of resources, with continuing innovation I can see no reason why that process will necessarily stop.

PHAT
15-03-2004, 06:25 AM
I HAVE SEEEEEN THE FUTURE.

AND THE FUTURE OF THE WHOLE WORLD LOOKS LIKE ...

Berlusconi's Italy

... have a listen :

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/

click on [Sunday 14 March]

arosar
15-03-2004, 10:19 AM
Capitalism . . . will not remain forever, based on previous known history, it will eventually be replaced by something else.

Perhaps- certainly not by your socialism. An interesting question is: are we not there yet?


The computer and the internet is a revolution. The internet could be the end of Capitalism . . .

I don't believe you. No doubt the net age has brought about some degree of transformations in many parts of social life - but an end to Capitalism? C'mon.

What you're really doing here is toying with the marxist notion of 'mass consciousness'. While I don't disagree that the net may and can serve as a kind of enabling agent that galvanises thought and protest (e.g. China, Indonesia), this will only be true in some societies; it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that the net imperils capitalism on a truly global scale (or that it imperils capitalism at all).

AR

(LATE EDIT: Fg7, I happened to have some free time this avro and found a coupla interesting articles on the Foreign Policy journal archive - this is a journal I recommend - that I thought you might find interesting. Gimme your email and I'll send you the pdf files. Else you can look for these in the Expanded Academic ASAP Plus database of your uni library. The citations are: Kalathil, S., (2003), "Dotcom for Dictators"; Kenny, C., (2003), "Development's False Divide".)

arosar
29-03-2004, 04:32 PM
Hey fg7....you still alive mate? Listen, get the current issue of NIC ok. There's an article re IP and chess.

AR