Wealthy Quality - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

0 posted 2012-03-16 01:23 AM

If all the money in the world were divided equally among all the people, wouldn't we all be millionaires?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

1 posted 2012-03-16 01:43 AM

If that were to happen, withing a year we would have multi-millionaires and poor people...just like we have now.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

2 posted 2012-03-16 02:38 AM

Indeed, it wouldn't be a one-time event. All the money in the world would need to be divided ongoingly so we could maintain the equality in the future.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

3 posted 2012-03-16 08:17 AM

.

Why would you work if you get the same
for doing nothing?

.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

4 posted 2012-03-16 12:29 PM

You seem to be suggesting we are supposed to work for money to begin with.

I think most people have the spirit, if not an inborn instinct to work for much nobler things than money. Happiness is one of those things, safety, health, knowledge, justice, etc, are a few more. Most things are a lot more worth spending our work and time on than money. If no one needed to worry about money we could focus more directly on working for things that are a lot more important than money.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

5 posted 2012-03-16 02:40 PM

That would be frightful. Distribution of wealth is a Marxist idea. And it doesn't really work. For example, a large number of houses built by "Habitat for Humanity" fall into disrepair shortly after giving them away to people who can't or won't work to maintain those houses. I'm not one of these guys who says that we shouldn't help the poor. We should. But we also can't dispense with a society in which productivity and hard work is rewarded. Enforced egalitarianism would take away all incentive, and would create a dystopian society of literary proportions.

Stephen

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

6 posted 2012-03-16 03:20 PM

quote:
For example, a large number of houses built by "Habitat for Humanity" fall into disrepair shortly after giving them away to people who can't or won't work to maintain those houses

But that would cease to be a problem, because they would be millionaires and would be able to afford either to hire people or to get the training and equipment to do it themselves. Once much of the barrier of money and slavery to it is out of the way or is no longer such a burden, people can enjoy the freedom of being able to do what they couldn't/wouldn't do before because of the difficult conditions they were in.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

7 posted 2012-03-17 04:10 AM

     I hadn't heard that about the Habitat houses, Stephen.

     The reason that I hadn't heard that is because in order to get a habitat house, you have to work on other habitat houses.  They aren't simply given away, you've got to put a lot of sweat equity into them — not only yours, but a number of others before you're even considered — so there's pride of ownership, and if that's not the way things are working out, I'd like to know more about it.  If the ownership process goes belly up too often, then that indicates a major rethink needs to be done.

     Where, Oh where, are you getting your information?

    I checked Wikipedia for information.  They felt their information might be somewhat too biased on the positive side and were inviting balancing negative information.  As a compromise of sorts, I'm including the part of the wikipedia article they printed in the rubric "Criticism"

quote:

Cost-effectiveness
An article in the Weekly Standard, an American neoconservative opinion magazine, questioned the cost-effectiveness of Habitat building projects. To estimate cost effectiveness, all costs associated with building a Habitat home must be used, including the cost of volunteer time and training.[27] For houses constructed by foreign volunteers, travel and associated costs paid by the volunteers are also significant. Including these costs raises the question whether building a house this way is an efficient use of resources. Particularly in developing countries where labour is relatively inexpensive, unemployment is high, and local currency is cheap, purchasing local labour and supplies may result in an increase in the number of houses built.
Habitat has been criticized for its slow and inefficient rebuilding efforts along the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.[28] After 18 months, Habitat had completed under 500 homes. A major factor was Habitat's reliance on working through local affiliates, who are not equipped to undertake large-scale rebuilding efforts.
[edit]Partnering with low-income families
Families are required to show an ability to pay for their home in addition to the need for housing. With these requirements, homeless and low-income families may fail to qualify for a Habitat home. Most American Habitat affiliates perform credit checks and criminal record checks on applicants before partnering with them for the construction of a home. Some critics therefore allege that Habitat misrepresents the nature of its work by partnering with families that might be considered nearly "middle-income."[27] To address this, many Habitat affiliates in the United States partner only with families that fall below the government-set "poverty line" for their area. The current poverty rate is measured according to the United States Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines.[29]
The credit and income requirements help assure that Habitat applicants are able to maintain their houses. Foreclosures on Habitat houses have been very low: 2%, according to official figures. The homeowners' monthly mortgage payments are used to build more Habitat homes.[1]
[edit]Ousting of the founder
Habitat's founder, Millard Fuller, and his wife were dismissed by the Habitat board of directors on January 31, 2005, citing “a pattern of ongoing public comments and communications by the Fullers that have been divisive and disruptive to the organization’s work”[30] after Fuller was accused by a former female employee of "suggestive comments and inappropriate touching" during a ride to the Atlanta airport in 2003. The Habitat board investigated Fuller for sexual harassment but found “insufficient proof of inappropriate conduct.” Some Fuller supporters claim that the firing was due to a change in corporate culture.[31]
Before Fuller's termination, attempts were made by former President Jimmy Carter to broker an agreement that would allow Fuller to retire with his $79,000 salary intact; when Fuller was found to have violated the non-disclosure portion of this agreement, he was subsequently fired.[32]
[edit]Conflicts with affiliates
In January 2008 a dispute arose between the parent organization and an unspecified number of local Habitat for Humanity affiliate organizations over the terms of their cooperation agreement. These local affiliates contended that the agreement gave the international organization too much power over the assets and operations of the local chapters. One of the affiliates, Habitat for Humanity of San Antonio, reached an agreement with HFHI in July 2008 to “continue working together in their efforts to make affordable housing possible.”[33]
[edit]

rwood
Member Elite

since 2000-02-29

Posts 3793
Tennessee

8 posted 2012-03-20 05:49 AM

The dollar wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Hasn't been for a while, really.

nor would the annihilation that would come from taking from those who have billions to distribute the millions.

Wealth & quality of life to some is clean water. Others require a holocaust or "cleansing" for prosperity.

If everyone were so noble, we wouldn't be spending trillions in military defense.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

9 posted 2012-03-20 02:17 PM

.

"I think most people have the spirit, if not an inborn instinct to work for much nobler things than money."

So why are there wealthy now?
Why haven't they written the checks?

.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

10 posted 2012-03-20 11:57 PM

John? I think it's not so simple because money becomes a game--a grown up game of marbles.

I never understood "collectors" myself, as the point never seems to be to have better of whatever is collected (stuff) or even more (money or monetary value) but ALL of the stuff.

sigh...I am married to a collector, and it's a problem. He hangs out with other collectors and I don't understand their mindset or their lingo. I tried to explain it to him like this-- Even as a child, I never understood the game of marbles. Even if one is the neighborhood marble expert, and completes the goal of winning every game and collecting ALL of the marbles, that expert marble player effectively puts an end to the game he loves--unless he has an act of charity and gives some back for love of the game. Or, like the guy I recall, who is probably living in some gated community by now, that expert SELLS kids back their own marbles only to repeat the process all over again...

Ess? I love your idealism, I truly do.

But um, that's coming from someone who lost all of her marbles.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

11 posted 2012-03-21 01:08 AM

     Distribution of wealth is also a religious idea.

     I happen to enjoy what money I have, though it isn't much.  I have no wish to give all my money away because I feel that I need some for myself.  While working on a locked psychiatric unit a patient developed a long term animus toward me because I had the nerve to eat my dinner in front of him and wouldn't give him any.  He was utterly un-interested in the fact that being short staffed meant I either ate in front of the patients or I didn't eat at all.  I, on the other hand, was completely rational, and have forgotten about the incident, now 25 years past.  Doesn't bother me at all.

     I wouldn't have wanted to eat the State food that he was forced to eat, by the way.  It was inedible gristle and slime, and could only have been defined as food by an incredible act of violence on the dictionary.  It was quite literally a choking hazard.

     My eating in front of this guy must have been pretty difficult for him.  Had I vanished to eat off the unit, as I was supposed to have done, I would have provided a danger for some of the other patients (yes, I did in fact save somebody's life from a choking incident during one of our periodic short-staffing periods).

     None of these patients were wealthy enough to pay for their own care, and the state grudged them every penny they spent, supplying rock bottom food supplies, rock bottom physical plants designed for air-conditioning but without air conditioning installed on the patient care areas and with minimal medical care.  One of my jobs when I started off was to wash the disposable medication cups for reuse, and it was occasionally the practice to find that doctors called to suture fingertips and other vital things would not show up until far too late and the fingertips could no longer be sutured on.

     I understand that there can be excellent quarrels started by talking about Might Have Been situations.  What would it be like if this or that unlikely demand were made.

     I think such discussions can be very interesting, as can been seen by the start made on this one.

     But look, folks, we have people who can't take care of themselves who are being exploited.  The experiences I was writing about above were part of how I made my living for years.  Instead of trying to make these things better in Massachusetts, where they were happening, the (Democratic, to my shame) government tried to side-step the issues by putting a lot of these patients into very short term hospitalizations, which dumped them onto the streets in a revolving door sequence.  Feeding, clothing and medicating these folks became a much more hit or miss affair.  It was a great solution for politicians because it looked great and cost little.

     Even better because it meant that there was little or no accountability for what happened to these non-voters.

     I believe it was a way to dodge the bullet by erasing an issue and a population by creating a more difficult sort of homelessness problem that we really hadn't had to deal with before.

     There are things that a responsible society needs to do.  Being wealthy is a very nice thing, but I suggest to you that being wealthy is something that should come a little further down the line than where we have placed it in our scheme of important Things.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

12 posted 2012-03-22 03:38 AM

Bob? I was going to say that since I've never been wealthy, I can't really agree nor disagree with your proclamation that being wealthy is "nice".

I'm pretty sure that if I looked at my financial situation comparatively, I might be considered wealthy. Yep. In fact, I'm confident that if I could teleport a person from say...Haiti, they might be overwhelmed by the contents of a shruggishly kept pantry. (Beans, bean, ramen noodles, and lotsa save-a-lot side dishes?) But yes, I am pretty confident that the fact that I have much more conveniences in my life than that fantasy teleported person might have, would place me in the "comfortably" wealthy bracket which you deem "nice."

It's actually more than "nice". This "nice" situation allows a person to dream bigger and better dreams, because we, as humans, are animals that aspire. I can only assess your intent from the words you've written here on these blue pages, so I'm assuming you understand the psychology of environment which lends subtle signals of "hope" to people--even people who live in a hovel in a city of hovels. (I wish I knew how to find it, but I recall a story of a flowerbox campaign which took place in a poor neighborhood in New York City--can't place the year of publication, but I do believe it was a Reader's Digest issue.)

I also thought about Forrest Gump.

That excellent film, and his innocence with lack of glee, after being told that his money had been invested in one helluva payoff--APPLE, inc., and what did he say:

"Well, good. One less thing to worry about."

But that's in the movies. Money is NOT less one thing to worry about. It's a helluva lot MORE to worry about. For money to have any value at all, it needs to have movement, energy. It proves or disproves one's value system. (And please understand I'm shifting focus just a bit, from just you, to everybody.)

Money is a challenge of moral responsibility and integrity. Where you decide to place that value indicates--no, PROVES who you are as a person. I think about the uber-rich at times, and I'm reminded of a story that Kathy Griffith tells of meeting Cher. She describes Cher's "home" as having its own zip code. She further described security stations with armed guard, high gates, and a "home" so vast that when she was finally allowed in to see this cultural icon, she called out to her:

"Cher?"

And after she recovered from the shock of hearing an ECHO of her own voice in someone's home, an assistant appeared and smiled at her. She told her that she could holler all she wanted--Cher couldn't hear her. She was directed to take a seat, after her offering of a piece of birthday cake wrapped in aluminum foil was taken from her. (Her offering to Cher, a piece of Kathy Griffin's own birthday cake.)

Kathy Griffin tells the story better, but I felt a qualm of something cold inside of me, and actually had sympathy for Cher. Her life, as described, sounded very glamourous, but also very lonely. I thought as I listened to Ms. Griffin, that her visit may well have been a welcome respite for Cher. A chatty girl moment, which I'm sure Cher was well aware would become part of the Griffith act.

I thought that was sad too.

I think about Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Howard Hughes, and Kurt Cobaine. I think about how it really doesn't matter if someone has talent or not--they become a celebrated person because they made (or inherited) lots of money. And they become the focus of our peasantry attention because we are animals of aspiration.

And it's just that very focus that daunts me, an my own aspirations. It seems to me that wealth isolates people--it forces them into community of elite, by necessity. Not only are they hounded by the love and acceptance they craved, they actually become dehumanized into a commodity for product placement advertisements, as our hunger, our curiosity, the very admiration/love and attention that we bestow on them traps them into a surreal world which requires some very expensive protection in the form of security--high walls, deep moats, big men with big guns and big dogs--stylists, agents, PR agencies, attorneys...none of this sounds like quality to me.

Me? I dream of solar panels, so I won't have to worry about the electric bill in July.

I'm really interested in a technology that turns ordinary water into gas. Even in a swamp, I like the idea of rain retention--it's raining right now, but yanno? I'd like to be able to test that rainwater for pollutants, contaminants ...

My ide of wealthy quality is still pretty much hippy-do-well--some beefsteak tomatoes, squash, basil, eggplant, and a nice barter system for services rendered. (I mean that in the nicest way.

) Really. I'm too old for dirty joke now--it's just..gross.)

Wealthy Quality, Quality Wealth.

I think we all know it's just paper, but that stuff has energy, and with proper intent, it can do a lot of good. Would that we were all as conscientious as Essorant, and as pragmatic as Grinch, with the combined fortitude of you, Bob, and Mike, with the long-suffering patience of our host, Ron, the exuberance of Noah Eaton, and the prodding thoughtfulness of our too-silent philosophers, who know who they are.

And a little bit of my wit. Just a little.

Karen just wants a nice garden, a good library, company who calls before coming, and good conversation accompanied by sweet tea in the day, pinot in the evening, and maybe some berries, vegemite, and drool-till-ya-sleep tv on occasion. THAT would define quality of wealth for me. Occasional worship, but no pictures, please.

and OH--an orchard would be way cool. *s*

G'nite folks.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

13 posted 2012-03-22 04:02 PM

Goodnight, Gracie.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

14 posted 2012-03-22 09:24 PM

Bob, I was talking about Governmentally forced distribution of wealth, not generosity. There's a big difference.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

15 posted 2012-03-22 11:14 PM

.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,
translated into Stalin and his cronies eating caviar in their dachas
while millions of others starved to death; it didn’t work.

.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

16 posted 2012-03-24 04:45 AM

It would be a stepping-stone, hopefully, toward doing away with money altogether. If we can live and live fairly well in the equality of all being millionaires, then we should soon realize we deserve the next and the best step, that of doing so as "zero-aires" no longer pretending we need to force ourselves to need or bother with money at all, at least for the most important things.

Money is a completely artificial "need", something we don't actually or naturally need for anything we do. Everything we do need and/or want we could do or have without money if we (as a humanity) let ourselves.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

17 posted 2012-03-24 10:04 AM

Essorant, we couldn't live "fairly well" under the forced distribution of wealth. It's been tried. Look up "Cultural Revolution" ala Mao Tse Tung.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

18 posted 2012-03-24 04:01 PM

Stephanos,

It wouldn't be a revolution or be forced on anyone. It would be a gradual evolution of changes in that direction through the process of enlightenment. People will learn to follow virtue more than money and the more they do the better both will be distributed until eventually people realize through the virtue that the money doesn't need to be distributed at all for them to be able to live and live well with each other. They will make virtue their chief pursuit and give up money altogether.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

19 posted 2012-03-24 06:06 PM

.

And who, unlike anyone else in human
history, would be the successful teachers of this new way?

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

20 posted 2012-03-25 01:47 PM

Stephen,

The Cultural Revolution was not about redistribution of wealth.

quote:

Cultural Revolution
n
(Historical Terms) (in China) a mass movement (1965-68), in which the youthful Red Guard played a prominent part. It was initiated by Mao Tse-tung to destroy the power of the bureaucrats and to revolutionize the attitudes and behavior of the people Also called Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
Collins Eng

[Edited - Ron]

     I don't believe it was a good idea, either, by the way —  I assume, here, that you disapprove of it as much as I do.  It's probably more complicated than I can figure out, but near as I can follow, it's one of those nationalist movements that sweep countries every now and again and Mao decided to get behind it instead of trying to stand in front of it.  I think the modern equivalent is the Tea Party Movement in this country — anti-bureaucratic, anti-governmental, and populist.

     The Tea-party movement tried to be historical while the Cultural Revolution tried to reject history, but both were actually variations on Know-Nothing populism, I believe, and both were attempts to ditch the institutional memory of the bureaucracy.

     As was demonstrated by the events in China,: No bureaucracy, no stability.  This may have been Mao's way of getting rid of The Gang of Four.

     No one particularly likes bureaucracies, but they are what make the difference between institutions that last and institutions that don't last.

[This message has been edited by Ron (03-25-2012 02:32 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

21 posted 2012-03-25 02:29 PM

quote:

Stephen:

Bob, I was talking about Governmentally forced distribution of wealth, not generosity. There's a big difference.

And were we talking about profit and not extortion, as is so often the case, there wouldn't be much point in the discussion, would there? Unfortunately, you're talking to somebody who buys gas and who needs, on occasion to buy medicine and is aware of the artificially high prices charged for both.

Nor are these the exceptions.

quote:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,
translated into Stalin and his cronies eating caviar in their dachas
while millions of others starved to death; it didn’t work.

     Actually, Marx didn't translate into into Russia at all, they had to invent something completely new, didn't they, John.  It wasn't Marxism any more, it was Marxism/Leninism and then later it was Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism.  They kept having to tack extra names on because the original was designed for industrialized countries and nobody had any idea what to do with Russia.  There was no theory there to cope with it, only the idea of a revolution, really, and a bunch of people with a commitment to having one.

     This is 1917 we're talking about, right?

     You're complaining?

     You're in the middle of World War One.

     What are you going to do?

     The Germans have just sent Lenin in a sealed train into St. Petersburg in the hopes of knocking Russia out of the war.  It's a good move for the Germans at the time.

     Who are you, and what are you going to do to make things go differently, and why?

     As for me, about the last thing I would imagine at the time would be a successful left wing revolution in Russia at the time.  I would have trouble imagining a successful Parliamentary government emerging with Kerensky at the head.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

22 posted 2012-03-25 07:43 PM

Goodbye Bob.

Women have repeatedly tried to voice opinions here, and it doesn't seem to matter if we come from the Left or the Right. It doesn't seem to matter if we back up what we say with references and sources. We are all dismissed, but sometimes we get a pat on the head.

I've received e mails thanking me for speaking up, for venturing into what many Pip women consider a hostile environment, because women are ultimately dismissed as crazy, an itch of inappopriate content or just plain stupid...

*shaking my head*

I'm done. (Ladies, you were correct and I was wrong.)

I'm gonna keep smoking my cigars, though.

You gentlemen keep moving and shaking the world though.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

23 posted 2012-03-26 02:30 AM

     Gracie was the brains of the outfit, .  George Burns said so every chance he got.

     Your comment on wealth was way better than mine was.  It was more humane, it was more clever, it had more depth and it had more on the ball.  I wasn't patting you on the head, it was a bow of admiration.  I'd been masterfully outdone and I was acknowledging it.  I wish I'd done it better, but I have to settle for the best I can do most of the time, and I still don't think "Goodnight Gracie" was bad at all.  She was a class act all the way, and as bright and witty as they make them.

     As for me, I had to give up cigars when people started dropping quarters into my coffee when I was standing around relaxing on the street.    I was afraid the folks who were in it for a living would started demanding a cut.  How embarrassing would that have been?

     Your comments are frequently more interesting and clever than mine are.  It simply a bit awkward to say that straight out, though, isn't it?  I don't see men doing that, and I don't see women doing that either very often, especially not directly  in the middle of the conversation.

     I don't know that clears things up, but it is an attempt in that direction, Serenity.  My best.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

24 posted 2012-03-26 08:19 PM

GREAT ANSWER!!! *smile*

And my apologies, for hypersensitivity.

I totally take responsibility for the fact that I sometimes make a point of being deliberately silly, and then getting offended when I'm not taken seriously.

I'll get some rest. Thank you for being a gentleman. I'll try harder to be a lady.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

25 posted 2012-03-27 07:00 PM

.
The problem through history has been that for all those wanting to be
lambs there’s always more than enough wolves who only show up to have dinner.
.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

26 posted 2012-03-28 12:39 PM

The money-based system turns the lambs into wolves.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

27 posted 2012-03-28 07:36 PM

     I suspect the conversation could get even more abstract, but probably not without completely losing touch with the subject.  That was wealth and poverty, I believe, and maybe even something more specific than that.

     Predators and livestock are interesting, but sound more like animal husbandry — which I think is illegal in many states — or ecology.

     Perhaps a restatement of theme would be helpful here?

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

28 posted 2012-03-28 07:49 PM

If not a money-based system, what are you suggesting, Ess? It's difficult to travel very far with a herd of sheep in your pocket, or to pay for that new car in cough-drops. If you're against money, what do you suggest we use to replace it? I'm open to interesting suggestions.

Personally, I think money is a good idea, and that people have done a lot of interesting things with the concept. I'm not sure I like poverty as one of them, mind you, or "calls" or "puts" when it comes to the stock market and some of the variations they've come up with on Wall Street, but people are going to elaborate on abstractions whether we're talking physics or finance. You can't unmake ideas.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

29 posted 2012-03-28 08:32 PM

Bob,

Yes, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" was not strictly monetary, but it was redistributive, born of a similar idea, and disastrous.  As for attempting measures/ laws against extortion, I'm open to that.  I'm not so sure that all of the ideas about redistribution of wealth, limit themselves to preventing extortion however.

Karen,

I also appreciate your ideas, your honesty, and your down-to-earthness, if that makes sense.  Sometimes philosophy can get impersonal, and you always seem to prevent that direction.  I tend to only reply to the theoretical and ideological posters but that is an imbalance of my own. Hope I haven't offended you in any way.

Stephen

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

30 posted 2012-03-28 09:13 PM

Bob,

quote:
If not a money-based system, what are you suggesting, Ess? It's difficult to travel very far with a herd of sheep in your pocket, or to pay for that new car in cough-drops. If you're against money, what do you suggest we use to replace it? I'm open to interesting suggestions.

A virtue-based system. Virtue is the quality that makes something worth doing or having. If something is worth doing or having, then it is worth working for and giving oneself and others the opportunities that come out of it. If we do things because they are worth doing, giving, having, sharing, etc then we can all benefit from them a lot better. There is no need for a transaction of money, cough-drops, marbles, etc.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

31 posted 2012-03-29 03:38 AM

     I am a porker, Ess, and got that way as a result of eating too much food and radiation treatments as a child.

     Clearly, I like to blame my own eating habits for the issue.  With the plan you suggest, however, I imagine my problems would be solved.  I might dine richly on virtue and still starve to death.

     I was asking if there was a suggestion somebody might offer that was different than the one that we are already using.  The poor already dine richly on promises and starve before their time; a suggestion that we do more of the same doesn't seem to add calories to the  equation, or not that I can see.

    Having spent many years working in the social services, I found that virtue was big on the promise of return, but was as bad as the company store for actual payments.  The harder you worked, the more indebted you became to your own sense of rightness, and the less you got paid in terms of anything that others would exchange for food or shelter.

     But that's merely how I managed to amass my personal non-fortune and personal sense of cynicism.   Not even a bartender’s willing to let you run much of a tab these days, no matter how good you are.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

32 posted 2012-03-29 12:15 PM

I don't agree.

A good family already usually has a "virtue-system" and is a microcosm of a world that would be based on it.  We don't (usually) charge our family members for things we do for each other nor things we give to each other.  Could there be something more important than money?  Yea, the goodness of doing those things and the people we do them for.  Things that are actually worth our time and work.  This isn't ideal, because there are still money issues forced on the family from the money-based system outside of it.  But it is still a thousand times better than the money-based system itself.

Likewise when a child is young, he doesn't say he wishes to be a fireman, policeman, teacher doctor, etc. with money in mind.  His first instinct is doing something for the virtue of doing it.   And that instinct should only become stronger as he grows up, but instead it goes in the opposite direction and usually becomes a slave to money, stress, and depression under the influence of a money-based system.

Hopefully sometime in the far future (because we know it won't be anywhere in the near future) our societies will work a lot more like the family and think a lot more like a young child who doesn't and isn't forced to need to think in terms of the amount of money he can get or give.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

33 posted 2012-03-29 05:53 PM

     But it sounds as though the points are the same as the ones that I was making, though I understand you don't agree.

     I'm not terribly fond of the realities of the adaptations one is forced to make, and I understand that the adaptation everyone makes is different, depending on how each person understands economics and philosophy and the family.  But there are adaptations you have to make to protect the vulnerable parts of yourself and the people you love with more or less success.  Some folks are left in a bit of a mess with the adaptations they make, despising everybody who is wealthy or everybody who is poor for not having come to the same conclusions about the world that they themselves came to and then acted upon.

     You can tackle that issue from all sorts of different angles.  We do that here.  Sometimes we do that by talking about religion and ethics; sometimes we talk about philosophy; sometimes we talk about the psychology or sociology of it.

     I can't tell you that you're wrong when I grapple with the same issues myself and have come to some of the same conclusions about the need to maintain a sense of ideals and the need to maintain a sense of loving relationship with the world.  It's simply that I don't often see people who want something different than that, and that the difference is most often something to do with technique, with the How of it, as Eyeore said when he reported how he was feeling one day.

     "Not very How," I think the donkey said.

quote:

A good family already usually has a "virtue-system" and is a microcosm of a world that would be based on it. We don't (usually) charge our family members for things we do for each other nor things we give to each other.

     Yes.

     Families also have other systems.  These include  systems for dealing with economics.

     Maslow is onto something with his hierarchy of needs.  Only when more basic needs are met is a person able to concern itself with more abstract needs.  Air first.  If you can breath, many things are possible.  Water comes next; but not too much, or air is compromised.  Then food.  Way down the line come relationships.

     Virtue is not the first concern of a relationship.  The first concern of a relationship, just as it is the first concern of any organization, is the survival of that relationship.  Affection is very important, but loads of relationships and loads of families may not be awash with affection.  It will be awash with structure and rules, which seem to be very important.  Apparently human beings tend to panic when they don't know what to do and when to do it, so a drive for structure will be important.

     Money enough to support that structure will also be important, and lack of that will expose members of the family to panic.

     Right about here is where we start talking about virtue as a need for family structure.  There can be lots of discussion about virtue, much of it noble, and it passes a lot of time, which is good.  Too much free time, remember, equals panic.

     The late great poet, Richard Hugo, wrote a wonderful book of poems called "The Right Madness on Skye."  Hugo like to write about wealth and poverty, among other things, and he talks about one of those historical figures who crop up every now and again who have cryptic yet brilliant things to say.  Shakespeare was fond of tossing them into his plays.  In mythology, folk-lore, and archetypal psychology they're called "wise fools."  Hugo quotes one from the early 19th century, when crofters were being kicked off their land and Skye was being turned by the absentee landlords into a giant sheep farm for fun and, mostly, profit.

     If you want more details, it's worth a little research, but the quote that Hugo offered and which I now offer you is pretty straightforward.  "Had I the right madness," said the wise fool, "bread would be assured."

rwood
Member Elite

since 2000-02-29

Posts 3793
Tennessee

34 posted 2012-03-30 11:36 AM

quote:
Likewise when a child is young, he doesn't say he wishes to be a fireman, policeman, teacher doctor, etc. with money in mind. His first instinct is doing something for the virtue of doing it. And that instinct should only become stronger as he grows up, but instead it goes in the opposite direction and usually becomes a slave to money, stress, and depression under the influence of a money-based system.

Actually, a child's first instincts are completely egocentric.

I can't say that changes into adulthood. One can't really achieve moral excellence or righteousness of virtue without 1: being subject to another person's perceptions or an ultimate ruling authority, & 2: Without being somewhat egocentric as the efforts are, ultimately, self-preserving. There's probably a 3-4-5-6, lol, but I'll let somebody else have a go at those.

Money, to me, is just a byproduct of power. Power or the fear of being powerless may be the basic premise of nearly all systems, from money, to politics, to education, to religion, to law, etc, and even anti-belief systems.

Power is what we think we have when we are born healthy into a loving environment. I cry. Someone appears. I'm soothed. I'm in control of my world. My world was created for me. Everyone must think and feel the same thing I do. I am special.

This is what kills me when I see a starving child. The powerlessness within that child's existence, of that pain, when its cries bring only more pain, until it succumbs to the body's own involuntary processes. I'm tormented by the reality of this, my inability to look away and/or feed them all, to the point of intolerance-- which is a real problem for me.

I, honestly, do not fare well in the face of waste or nutritional ignorance, despite the fact that I have no place to judge anyone for anything, I can hardly control how my whole system goes on alarm when I see perfectly good, fresh, fine food being thrown in the garbage. And worse, when I see a loved one stuffing themselves with fast foods and poor nutrition? I feel like they're killing themselves right in front of me. I am no one deserving of any power over these things, because you can see how MY standards (my system of things) are, developmentally, flawed. I'm human, after all, among humans. So I would not trust that human instincts are so virtuous even when we mean them to be.

What we want to be when we grow up usually has less to do with virtue, and more to do with power. Even if it is to heal or feed the world or create universal peace. Remove money from the equation, and it would still take a massive amount of energy, which would still be subject to a system of some form, in order to lead, follow, distribute, build, accomplish, maintain, etc. an objective. You can't have such a system without those who are willing to be a "slave" of sorts to the cause. I believe "Born Leaders" are a slave to their role, are they not?

Being of service to humankind without any type of monetary support system or reward is argued as the "impossible altruistic dream," and whether it's possible or not has been muddied, more often than not, by money, or personal gain, or pride

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

35 posted 2012-03-30 05:45 PM

     The comments about power by rwood seem very much to the point.

     The Atlantic used to think about itself as a discussion at a dinner table, I read somewhere, and perhaps it still does.  That's one of the things that I used to enjoy about it, and one of the things I used to enjoy about a good dinner party, and here I find that spirit again, the gracious and interesting contribution.  Somebody sees what's missing and adds it to the ongoing conversation to give the group creation a bit of seasoning.

     Power is one of the elements that help keep the family functioning.  Every family teaches lessons about power and position to each of its members, and teaches different lessons to the children depending on their birth order.

rwood
Member Elite

since 2000-02-29

Posts 3793
Tennessee

36 posted 2012-03-31 09:20 AM

Morning Mr. Bob and fellow Pipsters,

Indeed, I especially agree with your last line in your post, Mr. Bob.

On another note: We have winners

3, so far, of the Mega Millions. In tune with the topic, I believe. Seems lottery winners aren't really all that lucky, after the fact, as Karen touched on in her post. These "winners" become targets for scams and stalkers and users start crawling outta every crevice of life wanting a peace of the lucky pie. I'm reclusive enough to cringe at that thought and actually feel glad that I didn't buy any tickets. Not that I wouldn't ever do so, I simply haven't thought about it- lately.

But? Ess~ 640 million dollars = 640 people would have gotten lucky by your distribution of 1 mil each.

You have to begin somewhere, so who would be your first recipients? Besides the IRS--who gets their share here before you do, but if there was no IRS (I can dream!) who would you start with?

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

37 posted 2012-04-01 09:14 AM

Would there be a different result in having a society NOT based on money of any kind at all and everything were just FREE to everyone instead of taking the money from those who have earned it or inherited it and spreading it equally with those who haven't?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

38 posted 2012-04-01 03:04 PM

.

“Che’s plan was to do away with money altogether, and he came damn close to
succeeding by making everyone equally poor, save for those who, like him,
ran the country.”

“Learning to Die in Miami”

Carlos Eire

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

39 posted 2012-04-01 05:09 PM

     I didn't know Che was interested in doing away with money altogether.  I didn't know that any of the Cubans were.  Nor did I know that Che ran the country.  I thought that Che was on the outs with the Castro brothers, and was being used to spread revolution outside the country both in Africa and in South America because it created a source of foreign aide for the Cubans from the Russians and because it kept Che out of the country and away from domestic politics.

     My belief was that the Castros wanted him away, where he could be a revolutionary hero and not a rival for power.  If he'd spent too much time at home, he would have put himself in the same position as Trotsky did with Stalin.  I suspect that is why, in the end, that Che found himself leading a group of Shining Path guerrillas in Peru and vulnerable to a CIA hit squad, and didn't find himself leading brigade and battalion size cuban mercenary forces in Angola or setting up other, more significant revolutionary movements in other areas of the globe.

     Of course, the Castros started with forces no larger than the Shining Path  guerillas that Che died with in Peru, it's true.  But to suggest that Che was the sort of parasite  that Carlos Eire suggests requires more than the sort of smear we're offered here.

     Who is Carlos Eire, and what gives him the expertise to make a call like this one?

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

40 posted 2012-04-02 02:19 AM

     I'm confused.

     I was commenting on a posting in Philosophy, and I find myself trying to address John who is appearing in the Alley, where I am not supposed to be.

     The signature on the letter by Doctor Eire says that he's a Professor of History from Yale, and his comments about Cromwell give his comments about Che context.  I now have some idea who he is.

     I don't approve of concentration camps or re-education camps whether they're run by folks on the left or the right, no matter what their slogans happen to be.  I don't believe Che was a saint.  I also don't particularly believe that Che cared whether he lived in wealthy surroundings or in poor ones, though I certainly might be wrong.  Government posts often come with this sort of perk.  There was a very large mansion on the grounds of Metropolitan State Hospital, where I worked for several years in the seventies, that was once the home of the director of the Hospital,  Many Institutions came with mansions attached for administrative personnel, and that's here in the United States.  To expect differently from a bureaucracy that goes back to Columbus seems a bit naive.  Whether Che should have actually lived there is another question.  How much of an actual choice he had, I don't  know.

     From the sound of Dr. Eire's comments, it doesn't sound as though he knows either.  It sounds as though he's too busy being enraged over what sound like a series of terrible character flaws and human rights abuses to consider some of the other factors that might be involved.

     Clearly the abuses and the flaws cannot be overlooked.

     Just as clearly, they should not be the only parts of the story to be told.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

41 posted 2013-07-20 07:54 AM

quote:
If all the money in the world were divided equally among all the people, wouldn't we all be millionaires?

No – based on the total amount of currency currently circulating worldwide we’d each have the equivalent of 643 US dollars.

.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

42 posted 2013-09-22 04:02 AM

Grinch

If everyone's money - or absence of money - were reset to 643 US every two or three days or so, I think that would in effect make people millionaires. They could spend 643 US over and over again so often that it would eventually add up to millions.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.