714
Gritty with the truth bomb...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
714 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
5447 readers
3591 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is the line right at billion, how rich should people be allowed to be?
Should it matter how the money was acquired?
Should everyone always have to have the same amount of money as everyone else?
Personally, I don't care how much someone accrues in their life. I do think there should be a cap on inheritance. Peg that cap to some multiple of the minimum wage, let's say 1million, then if billionaires want to pass on more than $7.25 million they need to raise the minimum wage.
Tax 'em when they die and move on.
I remember watching an intervew with a philosopher dedicated to answering those questions. She says that, in her country (Norway or somewhere near, I can't remember), surveys show that the majority of citizens consider having 2 million dollars the max amount a family of 4 should have before being "too much money any family should have". So she suggests putting a cap at 10 millions for an individual. In her country, that's officially more than enough while not detering people to try to become "rich". Big emphasis on "in her country". She believes it should be very dependant of the amount and quality of public services. Good quality and cheap public education etc.
Money shouldn't exist. Hope that helps!
How should goods and services be exchanged?
Should everything be done with bartering?
Basic needs and resources should be provided, the rest by bartering or agreement, yes.
Have you seen Star Trek?
Money would like immediately be reinvented.
"I need my window repaired but I don't know how to do it"
"I can repair windows but I need someone to help my sick dog"
"I can diagnose animals but I need someone to translate Spanish".
"I can translate Spanish but I need someone to deliver this package "
They're not going to all line up and do a series of trades. Someone's going to be like "what if I give you a token, and we all agree that token is worth work? Then you can take that token to anyone*
Nobody is advocating for keeping the current system and simply removing the concept of money. Money is of course a necessity of the current system, but need not be if the system itself is changed.
The person I replied to literally said "the rest by bartering or agreement". I guess you could stir money is an agreement but that's not what I took from their message
Also how are you going to solve the scenario I provided?
Collective ownership of Capital. You don't need money in every system.
I don't understand how that's going to solve the scenario I described.
There's stuff I can do but don't want to. There's stuff I would do in exchange for something. But once that "something" isn't what you have, the reasons for currency become apparent.
In Capitalism, sure. In Socialism, no.
I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm not following.
In the example I gave, is the guy going to repair the window out of the goodness of his heart?
No, they will do it because it's their job, and they work a certain number of hours per week.
So if someone asks me to do a thing for them, I can only do it when working in an official professional capacity, or through unofficial favor exchanges?
Sure. You can help your neighbor for free, a favor, whatever you want. You could also put in an order officially.
That "whatever you want" is immediately going to turn into tokens, which are currency. That's almost certainly how it happened originally.
"I'll do this for you if you give me some shiny rocks, then I can go to the city and trade them for a cool hat" or whatever.
Why would you need to tokenize things with a large unofficial market of sole proprietors? Is that how you get your services done today?
Because I don't want anything you have, but trying to build a whole barter chain where we trade everything in sequence until everyone gets something they want is wildly impractical. As described in my first example.
And yes, today I pay a dude money and he does the thing. I don't have to clean his gutters so he'll agree to knit me a sweater.
Why do you think money came to be originally?
That's not what people are advocating for. 99% of producion would be handled by the government, you're pretending the 1% would actually be 100%.
If you go all the way to the start of this thread, it began with "Money shouldn’t exist. Hope that helps!". So that's what I'm arguing against. Money will be reinvented because it serves a very real purpose.
Also if something happens 1% of the time you still have to account for it.
And "I can do the thing. I don't really enjoy it. For some incentive, I'll do it" is more than 1% of what's happening in life.
Money is a unit of measurement. This is as insane as talking about removing the concept of length.
No, money is a commodity used to exchange commodities. You can have a functional society without relying on markets.
Star Trek has replicators.
It does, but we have the means to provide the basic needs for everyone already, no replicators required.
We do, but it requires a good deal of manual labour. Which isn't something people will just do for fun. Even someone who enjoys sowing isn't going to want to spend all day in a factory making t-shirts, for example.
I don't like taking out the trash and my partner doesn't like doing the dishes but we both do them happily because we understand when we contribute to the household we both benefit in vastly greater measure than our individual efforts.
Looks like you have a much more optimistic view of humans than I do. Because I don't think that "it's necessary" would be enough motivation for most people to do things that they fundamentally dislike doing without having an immediately tangible benefit.
What about if you make flower necklaces and you want a remote-controlled truck, but the person making trucks doesn't want necklaces? Should you need to go ask all the people making truck parts if they want to trade with you so that you can trade with the truck maker? What if you can't find anyone who wants to trade with you who also has things that the truck maker wants?
People used to barter long ago, that gradually shifted into everyone bartering for a specific type of seashell. Seashells are the most used "currency" in history. They were really great as a currency because you could measure them individually, or weigh lots of them for bigger trades. Some people stuck with the old bartering system without using seashells, but they didn't get the stuff they wanted nearly as easily. Eventually, some people switched from seashells to other things that worked even better for them, gold being a very popular one. Alchohol was one for a long time as well. Even muslims that wouldn't drink it still used it as currency. The advent of strong liquors was incredible because it allowed for easier transport of large quantities of wealth when compared to beer or cider.
One of the most surprising currencies was massive carved donut shaped rocks. They were not divisible, but they were extremely hard to steal since they were so heavy.
I've seen a few episodes of Star Trek long ago, back when it was on TV. Did they have a successful barter system?
You seem to think the flower crown maker is making them for profit. You're stuck in the capitalist mentality. We shouldn't be defined by what we do and we shouldn't only do that which is for monetary gain. I don't want somebody needlessly making an endless supply of flower crowns, I want a person free to make flower crowns only when they want to for pleasure.
Absolutely. I would love for them to be free to make them as well without any worry about survival. I just don't think that anyone should be able to go to them and demand that they have to give them their flower crowns that they just spent all weekend making. They have friends that they want to give these flower crowns to in exchange for other cute accessories.
Also, I think that if someone spends 3 months making an RC truck, then the flower maker should not be allowed to demand they give them a truck simply because they make flowers crowns that the truck maker doesnt want. The truck maker wants to give this truck to the drone maker who is going to give him a drone.
Why does the truck maker need anything? Why can't he just give the truck for free if his basic needs and resource requirements are being met?
The truck maker spent many years learning how to make trucks, and even still, it is very exhausting and time-consuming. They can't make very many. Because of this, there are not enough trucks for everyone who wants them. The truck maker likes rare and difficult-to-make things, so they prefer to give their trucks to other people who are willing and able to give them rare and difficult-to-make things.
Honestly, the flower necklaces are kind of sweet. The truck maker can tell that the flower maker tried to put a little smiley face on them, but they fall apart very easily, and any child can make dozens of them in an afternoon.
Workers should collectively own the Means of Production and direct it democratically as they see fit.
Whoa! Which one of these questions do people not like and why?
Ok so.... I can't speak for everyone, but
This could be perceived as sealioning, or just asking questions. Looking through the thread I don't believe that to be the case, so I personally don't find this one objectionable. My answer to that would be $100,000,000 US Dollars. No more than that, and people should really be retiring once they hit $10,000,000 USD
Perfectly reasonable question, and I would answer, "yes, absolutely." I would then immediately ask two follow up questions.
Is Wage Theft a crime?
Will we prosecute the crimes that these rich people have committed?
This is a strawman question, even if you didn't intend for it to be. No one thinks that everyone should have the same as everyone else, even those of us that advocate for moneyless and stateless society. I suspect this is the one that is getting the down votes, though the first is also a potential candidate.
I think the question could be summarised as, how much is "enough"? Is it enough to live on? Enough to feel secure that you know you could pay for that big ticket item? Is that big ticket item the necessity you need or have to pay for?
And for that, alot of people have different lines that are deemed enough.
Exactly. Everyone has their own line. Some people are content to sit in the woods and live off of the land. Some people are content living a life of bartering without as many interesting things to spend their time with. The majority of people are not content no matter what they have. They are always looking for a way to get more than they have now, however much it is.