Top problems affecting the world.

[FrostyBoy]

Communism can work, but only in small communities, not entire nations; And possibly even small populated countries.

The communities would have to be made up of people who don't require the need for luxuries.


The problem comes down to how many people think: "How hard and how long do I have to work and what job is it, in order to get that position in order to get that luxury that I ultimately want, and when I get it, I will be one step happier than I am now".

That's how it is with a LOT of people, but the reality is, you can never be satisfied with the continuation of striving to reach ultimate happiness. There is no "greater happiness". That's why I said earlier; understand what Jesus said, which basically instructs you how to BE happy with nothing. Which is easy to understand scientifically because happiness is a creation from the mind, not from anything outside the mind; It's easy to understand because whenever someone tries to make themself happy by using something from outside their mind (like drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling, games, sex, movies, etc), one does not make themself happy, but places a veil over their unhappiness, once that veil is gone, their "happiness" mysteriously disappears.

[Giancarlo]

Communism doesn't work. You can't award people for not doing anything. You can't pay people who work at McDonalds the same wage as a dentist or a doctor. In capitalism, your work is valued at what you do. Communism is impossible and no less then idiotic. I believe in materialism and capitalism. It is the best thing since sliced bread.

[Agathon]

You can't award people for not doing anything.

Capitalism does that all the time.

In capitalism, your work is valued at what you do.

No it isn't. It is determined by the exchange value of your labour. If you want to make your income directly proportional to the value of what you do, you will be a Marxist.

You are so so bad at being a capitalist Fez. You consistently espouse communist or socialist doctrines in your posts without realizing it.

I mean, even Kidicious is a better capitalist than you.

[Agathon]

The problem comes down to how many people think: "How hard and how long do I have to work and what job is it, in order to get that position in order to get that luxury that I ultimately want, and when I get it, I will be one step happier than I am now".

Part of the problem is that such luxuries don't make people happier. In fact once GDP reaches a certain level per capita, increases in happiness stop.

What drives our society is largely competitive consumption. People want to have the coolest stuff first and thus gain a relative advantage over their co-citizens. Of course this means you have to keep spending and spending in order to keep up with the Joneses. Veblen pointed this out over a century ago and people still don't get it.

For most people competitive consumption is always a losing game and they would be better served if the whole thing were called off. Luxury items actually make society more miserable overall.

Funny huh?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Communism can work, but only in small communities, not entire nations; And possibly even small populated countries.

The communities would have to be made up of people who don't require the need for luxuries.


The problem comes down to how many people think: "How hard and how long do I have to work and what job is it, in order to get that position in order to get that luxury that I ultimately want, and when I get it, I will be one step happier than I am now".

That's how it is with a LOT of people, but the reality is, you can never be satisfied with the continuation of striving to reach ultimate happiness. There is no "greater happiness". That's why I said earlier; understand what Jesus said, which basically instructs you how to BE happy with nothing. Which is easy to understand scientifically because happiness is a creation from the mind, not from anything outside the mind; It's easy to understand because whenever someone tries to make themself happy by using something from outside their mind (like drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling, games, sex, movies, etc), one does not make themself happy, but places a veil over their unhappiness, once that veil is gone, their "happiness" mysteriously disappears.

You're quite right, but lets face it, Jesus was hardly the first asceticist around...and Buddhism probably sets a better example.

A lot of this materialism boils down to sexuality, the successful hunter having acquired all these modern day trophies. It's a sad loophole of the human persona that everyone, including myself, is vulnerable to it. It is why people like Buddha and Jesus can be a very helpful example because materialism will not bring happiness...there will always be someone who has more than you and is doing better than you. Happiness does lie within, but it is a very difficult chain to break but it would be possible to do as a society where the emphasis shifts away from material wealth.

[Provost Harrison]

I think I have echoed Agathon a bit there. It is a losing battle. But we are all inextricably tied into it. I wish I could break it but alas I am too competitive a person, I am only human. But I do see that and acknowledge it.

[Provost Harrison]

...but circumstances have meant that I am not necessarily a materialist but I do strive for some degree of stability and order in my life. I do like change, but on my own terms...

[Agathon]

I think I have echoed Agathon a bit there. It is a losing battle. But we are all inextricably tied into it. I wish I could break it but alas I am too competitive a person, I am only human. But I do see that and acknowledge it

That's why you need the glorious party to make luxury illegal.

Sex however shall be mandatory.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon

The free market, the great equalizer

This is the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on Apolyton. I'd have to be a bloody moron to believe that crap.

Really? Then please show which part of my logic was wrong?

If a country has higher wages (such as the US) then another country (say India), then jobs will flow from one to the other, until the cost of producing in India is the same as the cost of producing in the US. Considering that expenditure on transport will be at a constant rate of supply, the only cost that increases to bring the cost of production in India to the level it is in the US is the wage rate. So wages in the poor country rise, and those in the richer country fall, until the costs of production are the same.

It's just basic economics. But then I guess you wouldn't know that, so just dismiss it in a "it's not communism so it must be evil" comment. Some parts of the free market actually *help* the poor.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon

You can't award people for not doing anything.

Capitalism does that all the time.

How so?

Originally posted by Agathon

In capitalism, your work is valued at what you do.

No it isn't. It is determined by the exchange value of your labour. If you want to make your income directly proportional to the value of what you do, you will be a Marxist.

I thought Marx advocated equality? How than can your income be determined by the value of what you do. A free market does value it as such, as you are free to take your labour elsewhere. How does Marxism handle it?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Agathon

You can't award people for not doing anything.

Capitalism does that all the time.

Wrong.

No it isn't. It is determined by the exchange value of your labour. If you want to make your income directly proportional to the value of what you do, you will be a Marxist.

Yes it is. And no if you are a marxist you believe everybody should be put down to the same meager wage and become cattle for the state. You are horrible at being a communist. Don't even know your own beliefs.

You are so so bad at being a capitalist Fez. You consistently espouse communist or socialist doctrines in your posts without realizing it.

I mean, even Kidicious is a better capitalist than you.

Now you are acting foolish. I'm very capitalist. I'm so capitalist not even Milton Friedman can compare. You are the one who is horrible at stating your views. Afterall you know nothing about communism or capitalism. You are the one who doesn't know anything about the facts. Capitalism gives people more for the achievements they make. It is an achievement based system, not one where you get sent to gulags and shot in the head because you don't want to comply with the state. **** communism and **** socialism.

[Agathon]

It's just basic economics. But then I guess you wouldn't know that, so just dismiss it in a "it's not communism so it must be evil" comment. Some parts of the free market actually *help* the poor.

Yeah right. I'm not dismissing it on communist grounds, but on the simple grounds that it's ****e. Sure a free market will lead to equalization of wages for the poorest paying jobs. That just means more people will be paid crap wages.

I thought Marx advocated equality? How than can your income be determined by the value of what you do.

I'm having him on, what he said sounds a bit like the Labour theory of value.

[Ming]

I think some people need to chill... I don't want to have to delete anymore posts... so stop!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon

It's just basic economics. But then I guess you wouldn't know that, so just dismiss it in a "it's not communism so it must be evil" comment. Some parts of the free market actually *help* the poor.

Yeah right. I'm not dismissing it on communist grounds, but on the simple grounds that it's ****e. Sure a free market will lead to equalization of wages for the poorest paying jobs. That just means more people will be paid crap wages.

Firstly that's crap. As I showed, as more people are employed in the poor country, the wage rate will rise due to increased demand, while falling due to less demand in the rich country. Indeed, the equalization will lead to the wage rate in each being far higher than it would be if you tried to force the wage rate to tbe the same, with legislation, a la communism.

And secondly, even if it did, you just contrdicted yourself. The first argument you made was that it was a stupid statement that the free market will equalize wages. Now you've admitted that it would, but claim the wages will all be crap then. So the first statement I've made was correct regardless of what the wage rate would be, and your whole "that's the most stupid statement" thing actually applies to something that you've admitted is correct. Great for credability.

There's enough differing of opinion here that the most stupid statement will generally not be something you admit to be true.

[Heresson]

Re: Top problems affecting the world.

Originally posted by Pax
I think the top problems effecting the world are poverty, disease, education and equality.

If you just reduced the level of poverty, increased equality and education. Things like drug addiction, "terrorism" and "gang warfare" would be siginicantly reduced or become virtually non-existent.

Naive.
Many of the fundamentalists are well-educated people coming from rich families.
The poorest nations do not trouble others as much as some other.
Equality - ha, perhaps it's part of the sollution, but it's part of the problem as well. Try to tell Saudi Arabia that it needs religious equality. Equality means somebody must lose his privileged situation, and no-one likes it.
Try to make both Palestinians and Jews as rich, well-educated and equal. It still doesn't solve the problem.