The Problem with Payment- a proposition to my opponents

the discussion of the subject was brought about in another very irrelevent thread, so I felt this would be a more appropriate place to continue along my line of thought.

Here's how a typical capitalist monetary payment plan works: Say item A has a cost of thirty six dollars(american currency). This is based upon what the market concludes is fair (in theory) and more so what is reasonable and likely to be paid for it in conjucture with several economic factors.

The problem with this is the market value of a product has very little to do with the realistic value of a product, which is based on the individual buyer and seller.
for example: for someone that receives $1,000.00 per hour, the realistic value of a product costing $36.00 is vary greatly different than the realisic value of that product to someone who makes $5.00 dollars per hour.

Where is the proposition part?

i'm proposing a problem with that idealogy to those that would contest such a system is the right and only way.

Hmmm... correct me if I'm wrong, and it may be because I haven't run across the original thread, but aren't you kinda just describing inflation, and the basic problems resulting from putting extra money into the system? More money in the system increases the sticker price on regular products, because products tend to be priced according things like comfortable percentages of disposable income and such. Obviously, it depends on the product, but adding more money to the system causes product prices to increase, thus driving down the real value of the currency. Or am I missing the point?

no, seems like you get it. It was really just my aim to share that idea to people that hadn't thought about it, not so much to one particular thought, but that one would basically be the sentiment that if you want someone you should pay for it, or more precisely, that it's the obligation of things to revolve around what you want because you can or did pay for them. to clarify what brought this whole thing up was when someone said that websites, such as this one, should have what whomever wants to see, because that person is paying for it, and that alternatley for the same reason it shouldn't have anything that they don't want to see, reguardless of what the creators want.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that people should take into account other people's values and try to make a system that is flexable and caters to compromising so that everyone can get what they want, not just 'this is what we have, and that's all you'll get, so if that's not what you want, too bad.' which I feel is kind of examplified in a system where value = dollar curency, and not to anything else that is valuable, and available, and equally exchangible for services and goods, which I feel would be better and more productive. basically what i'm propsoing is that a barter system is better than this one, although ideally i'd like to see an exchange/gift economy, where people give things to each other because they can and want to, which now (for reasons as I stated elsewhere and might as well post here) even if you want to, you sometimes can't.

ok. here it is: To Pay is to exchange for something what is decided to be the equivalent of its worth. An alternative to this would be Giving, which means to exchange things freely without requiring any compensation. You see, there are people that are not selfish, and that think giving is it's own reward because they find happiness in allowing other's to pursue thier happiness, rather to deny them from what they want because they don't have the means to Pay for it. And there's more than enough of everything to go around, if people weren't greedy and did not take more than they needed and denied to other's what they have- which is the problem with payment, it's based on an equal exchange of goods which is not even truly feasible because the porportions of goods to be be exchanged are not equal in the first place.

which then leads back to the cause of the problem, as previously stated in the first post on this thread, and further detailed by forrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

no, seems like you get it...

...I feel is kind of examplified in a system where value = dollar curency, and not to anything else that is valuable, and available, and equally exchangible for services and goods, which I feel would be better and more productive. basically what i'm propsoing is that a barter system is better than this one, although ideally i'd like to see an exchange/gift economy, where people give things to each other because they can and want to, which now even if you want to, you sometimes can't.

---

I love a barter system and have always been into cool trades from goods and services. It's always nice to provide something valuable that you have or create in trade with other people who create something of value that you would enjoy. The difficult part comes in the valuation though. Someone will decide that their cow is worth ten of your pigs, while you only think it's worth three. That's why we have currency. It helps stabilize the valuation of goods and services. (hahah... bonus points, I said stable in a cows and pigs analogy... :1orglaugh )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

ok. here it is: To Pay is to exchange for something what is decided to be the equivalent of its worth. An alternative to this would be Giving, which means to exchange things freely without requiring any compensation. You see, there are people that are not selfish, and that think giving is it's own reward because they find happiness in allowing other's to pursue thier happiness, rather to deny them from what they want because they don't have the means to Pay for it. And there's more than enough of everything to go around, if people weren't greedy and did not take more than they needed and denied to other's what they have- which is the problem with payment, it's based on an equal exchange of goods which is not even truly feasible because the porportions of goods to be be exchanged are not equal in the first place.

which then leads back to the cause of the problem, as previously stated in the first post on this thread, and further detailed by forrest.

---

See, here is where I might disagree. Giving is very rarely done, in reality, with no expectation of any sort of return. People like to think of it that way, but often times these 'giving' people get pissy if things don't go according to whatever plan they had in mind. They did expect some value in return, but often times they are either hiding their intentions or they are in denial. There is nothing wrong with being giving, but it is very rarely a one way street. If giving is it's own reward, there is still that reward you are looking to get in return.It can take the form of cultural stature, good will you expect in return some day, tax breaks, or maybe you just needed to see someone smile that day to feel better about yourself. Those are not intrinsically bad motivations, but it is important to recognize that there is a desire for return.

And no, I don't think communism works. Somebody always wants more. Sometimes out of greed. Sometimes out of a distorted view of their own needs. But somebody will be the winner and somebody will be the loser. Some people work harder than others as well. The world we live in is not equality based, and there is not really more than enough of anything to go around. So, people who create, or are in some other position to provide, can choose to barter or trade with others for what they want. They can even provide for the destitute in order to improve the quality of their own lives. But nothing comes from nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

See, here is where I might disagree. Giving is very rarely done, in reality, with no expectation of any sort of return. People like to think of it that way, but often times these 'giving' people get pissy if things don't go according to whatever plan they had in mind. They did expect some value in return, but often times they are either hiding their intentions or they are in denial. There is nothing wrong with being giving, but it is very rarely a one way street. If giving is it's own reward, there is still that reward you are looking to get in return.It can take the form of cultural stature, good will you expect in return some day, tax breaks, or maybe you just needed to see someone smile that day to feel better about yourself. Those are not intrinsically bad motivations, but it is important to recognize that there is a desire for return.

I would tend to agree that there really is no pure "altruism". In terms of "doing good", I tend to think of it in almost karmic terms. The mistake is when people confuse "doing good" with "being good", almost inevitably they will be expecting tangible results for their "charity". I'll give money to a homeless person or a cause, but I am always careful not to equate that with "being good" and thus entitled.

And no, I don't think communism works. Somebody always wants more. Sometimes out of greed. Sometimes out of a distorted view of their own needs. But somebody will be the winner and somebody will be the loser. Some people work harder than others as well. The world we live in is not equality based, and there is not really more than enough of anything to go around. So, people who create, or are in some other position to provide, can choose to barter or trade with others for what they want. They can even provide for the destitute in order to improve the quality of their own lives. But nothing comes from nothing.

---

I believe communism (as it was applied) simply did not take human nature into account. Inevitably, a person or people will take actions that serve their own needs. I believe we can achieve at least a parity of opportunity amongst people but not of results.


OEC

it depends on how you define good. true there is no thing that can be done without some form of reward, because we cannot break way from our basic pschological makeup that even if something we perceive as being good, and done for the cause of good, that very action would make us feel good, and thus reward us in that way. but I think that you should do what you feel is good, because it's what you feel is right. even if you know that others will never follow your example.

I disagree with the idea of human nature. it's just as superstitous as any religous dogma, to say that people will do this or will be that way, and that's the universal law... people will be how they want to be. and it is only the peole who choose to do things that they are ashamed of that claim that people cannot help what they do, as a means of trying to take the blame off of them for thier own actions.

people WILL do what is best for themselves, that is true.. the goal to become a better person and make a better world is to make what is best for you and what is best for everyone come together. If making other people feel good is what makes you feel good, and in turn doing good deeds for the sake of themselves, then your selfishness is indeed a virtue because it is one and the same as your selflessness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

it depends on how you define good. true there is no thing that can be done without some form of reward, because we cannot break way from our basic pschological makeup that even if something we perceive as being good, and done for the cause of good, that very action would make us feel good, and thus reward us in that way. but I think that you should do what you feel is good, because it's what you feel is right. even if you know that others will never follow your example.

I disagree with the idea of human nature. it's just as superstitous as any religous dogma, to say that people will do this or will be that way, and that's the universal law...

By human nature, I am referring to the tendency of humans to act in their own interests.

people will be how they want to be. and it is only the peole who choose to do things that they are ashamed of that claim that people cannot help what they do, as a means of trying to take the blame off of them for thier own actions.

---

True. People are completely responsible for their own actions and consequences.


OEC

here is a definition of the word propostion from dictionary

A plan suggested for acceptance; a proposal.

what is your plan? you should quit your job and sit around your house hoping people give you shelter food pants etc or were you just complaining about the system that although flawed at least works somewhat

once again.. my proposal was to present such a problem, and that was also my plan, my solution is for you to accept it, which you just did by admitting the system is flawed. congradulations. um you can also feel free to discuss whatever or add imput as did other's.

I have proposal....WTF are you talking about? your just reitterating absoloute sillyness based on some interesting stuff. I think you like to type to see your own words.....unless your real proposal is to make a poorley based statment to get reaction then say you're being socially creative which is it? A or B At least if yer going to fuck around be like forrest and use cows and pigs then throw in stable....Just recomend the books and we'll go read them, oh wait I think most of us have....wasn't there a movie about this with Matt Damon or some other goof and he was like a working class kid and he'd cruise by the local frat bar and get in intellectual debates with said"know it alls" Maybe when I took a shit all of it didn't come out and I'm just grumpy....this is my filthy mcnastty reply.....for every action there is an oposite or equal reaction....I know ya love me

wow...I wrote that....OKAY I must say Bran cerela does more the just make you regular.....is this my old peoplea re so grumpy? could bran actually cause anger in the elderley.....I will not eat anymore branflakes I promise.

applesauce, bitch!