Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work

[ArMaP]

The only time that word would be of any real relevance to the people of the world, would be if there was a form of proportional representation in place. I.e one person one vote.

Isn't that how it's done, one person one vote?

[ArMaP]

Well then.  Explain what that is...

It's the system used (I don't know if it's still used, but it was some 20 years ago) in some small villages in the north of Portugal, where all the cattle, the land and what it produces, the water, everything, is the property of all the people that live there. They have schedules to do the different works, so some person may be responsible for the sheep for a month and in the next month he/she may be planting cabbages or treating the cows, for example.

[petrus4]

Il give that a bit of gold I think.

Thanks, Elvis.

My overall point, however, was to emphasise the fact that Capitalism is not the dominant economic system because it produces the most effective, positive, or socially beneficial result.  It is the dominant system because its' advocates murder and destroy all other alternatives.

I will never forget a moment that I experienced, while playing the computer game, Call of Duty: Black Ops.  One of the levels in the single player campaign for that game, is a scenario in which you are in a jail with a number of Russians, and you have to stage a prison break.  During a scene where my character was standing in the exercise yard and a message came over the PA system, I suddenly realised that this was, in fact, the default condition of most of the planet's population.  That the American government had created a scenario where less than 5% of the human population lived in relative luxury, while the other 95%+ were perpetually held face down in the mud.

Gadaffi might have been mentally ill; I won't challenge that assumption.  I do, however, believe that to a degree at least, he had a desire to change the above scenario; as have a lot of the political figures who the American government has demonised as bogeymen.  Although he genuinely was murderous, some research into the infrastructural quality which Sadaam maintained in Iraq may prove enlightening, as well.

Again, I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Holodomor, Mao's purges in China, and other attrocities have not occurred on the other side of the fence; but in reality, the situation is nowhere near as cut and dried as Capitalism's advocates would have you believe.  As the saying goes, the truth is out there.

[robomont]

i lived rich and poor.if you aint maken 100,000$ a year in todays money then you aint livin the american dream.if your workin 80 hours a week to earn it then your not livin either.
$20,000 a year is chump change that the young and ignorant take to survive.then the rich buy up all the assets and rent them back to us.a race to the bottom.eventually the corporations own our boddies and our time.
we are currently paying to be propagandized.ie dish
we are currently paying to be spied on.cellphones and computers.
i say eat the rich before they eat anymore of us.

[Sinny]

If We are ensuring everyone gets an "equal" share, it is NOT abundance; it is communism.  There is enough on this planet for 10 times the number presently here.  WHY do We need accounting at ALL?  Everything AVAILABLE equally; One may have as much as One wants.  Most are satisfied when comfortable.

Yea, I worded that one wrong. Make that 'an equal share of abundance' lol.

[petrus4]

Yea, I worded that one wrong. Make that 'an equal share of abundance' lol.

Equality, in and of itself, is actually an erroneous concept, in a way.  I experience different levels of hunger at different times.  Sometimes I'll want a steak; other times I'm only feeling like a relatively small amount of vegetables and rice.

So equality in pure amount terms, does not tend to be what people want, as much as the ability to obtain whatever satisfies them.  If each person is able to eat until they are satisfied, then we can say that they have equality in terms of that ability, but if they truly have the ability to choose what they want, then the type and amount of food consumed will very often be somewhat different.

The point is to create a scenario where one person does not starve, while others have vastly more than they can ever need or use.

I don't think of TAP, then, as providing set amounts of a given resource; again, that is Communistic.  The idea is actually to get to the point technologically, where each person is capable of having as much as they want; that is the definition of abundance.  Each person having as much as they want, again, does not imply equality in set amounts of physical stuff, at all; it implies equality in the sense that each person can decide said amount, or the types of resources, for themselves.

In that sense, you could say I have something in common with transhumanists, although there is much about their philosophy which I am also wary of, as I have mentioned.

Today we're beginning to have 3D printing; eventually we will have full matter replication.  This will happen because nanotechnology will progress to the point where we can literally edit the atoms and molecules of a substance, until they are identical to the substance we want, even if said substance was previously non-renewable.

So it is going to happen; the only real obstacle in the way, is the question of will.  We have to get to the point where we are no longer willing to allow our current economic paradigms, and the cynicism and psychological damage which cause them, to distort and inhibit our inherent desire to mutually reinforce and nurture each other.  Compassion can not develop in an individual until they have had all of their most pressing physical and emotional needs met; but once that has happened, it can.

[robomont]

i agree with all you said petrus.

[Sinny]

Agreed Petrus.

[Amaterasu]

It's the system used (I don't know if it's still used, but it was some 20 years ago) in some small villages in the north of Portugal, where all the cattle, the land and what it produces, the water, everything, is the property of all the people that live there. They have schedules to do the different works, so some person may be responsible for the sheep for a month and in the next month he/she may be planting cabbages or treating the cows, for example.

Yes.  Something that requires Human energy input for the basics to survive.  What if someOne HATED sheep or cabbages or cows...?  Who gets to determine what Others do?  What if One LOVED the sheep and just wanted THAT job?  What if EVERYONE hated all the jobs?  What if all One wanted to do was sit and write music?  Or a book?

EveryOne who doesn't LOVE the work, who hates it in fact, is stuck.

Abundance allows Us ALL to do as We choose.  No Human energy required for the basics.  No accounting for how much anyOne gets.  This planet is plentiful and abundant.

[Amaterasu]

Yea, I worded that one wrong. Make that 'an equal share of abundance' lol.

If You had a warehouse full of pies and You had to get rid of as many of them as You could, would You search everyOne that came along to take pies to make sure everyOne got the same number of pies?

There ARE no "shares" in abundance.  There is so much on this planet, that everyOne may have AS MUCH AS THEY WANT and still We would have plenty.  Once You start applying "equal shares" of ANYTHING, You have communism, and policing, and oppression as some ensure Others don't get more than Their "fair share."  And Those who do the ensuring...have access to MORE than the rest and often take it.

So...  Even reworded, it is communism and not abundancism when We feel We must worry about "fair shares."

[Amaterasu]

Equality, in and of itself, is actually an erroneous concept, in a way.  I experience different levels of hunger at different times.  Sometimes I'll want a steak; other times I'm only feeling like a relatively small amount of vegetables and rice.

So equality in pure amount terms, does not tend to be what people want, as much as the ability to obtain whatever satisfies them.  If each person is able to eat until they are satisfied, then we can say that they have equality in terms of that ability, but if they truly have the ability to choose what they want, then the type and amount of food consumed will very often be somewhat different.

The point is to create a scenario where one person does not starve, while others have vastly more than they can ever need or use.

I don't think of TAP, then, as providing set amounts of a given resource; again, that is Communistic.  The idea is actually to get to the point technologically, where each person is capable of having as much as they want; that is the definition of abundance.  Each person having as much as they want, again, does not imply equality in set amounts of physical stuff, at all; it implies equality in the sense that each person can decide said amount, or the types of resources, for themselves.

In that sense, you could say I have something in common with transhumanists, although there is much about their philosophy which I am also wary of, as I have mentioned.

Today we're beginning to have 3D printing; eventually we will have full matter replication.  This will happen because nanotechnology will progress to the point where we can literally edit the atoms and molecules of a substance, until they are identical to the substance we want, even if said substance was previously non-renewable.

So it is going to happen; the only real obstacle in the way, is the question of will.  We have to get to the point where we are no longer willing to allow our current economic paradigms, and the cynicism and psychological damage which cause them, to distort and inhibit our inherent desire to mutually reinforce and nurture each other.  Compassion can not develop in an individual until they have had all of their most pressing physical and emotional needs met; but once that has happened, it can.

Brilliantly put, petrus!  I snuck some gold in Your direction.

[ArMaP]

Yes.  Something that requires Human energy input for the basics to survive.  What if someOne HATED sheep or cabbages or cows...?  Who gets to determine what Others do?  What if One LOVED the sheep and just wanted THAT job?  What if EVERYONE hated all the jobs?  What if all One wanted to do was sit and write music?  Or a book?

EveryOne who doesn't LOVE the work, who hates it in fact, is stuck.

True, but it's doable, today.

[Amaterasu]

So is abundance if We all chose to do it. (Or at least most of Us...)

[ArMaP]

So is abundance if We all chose to do it. (Or at least most of Us...)

Really? How?

[zorgon]

Yes.  Something that requires Human energy input for the basics to survive.  What if someOne HATED sheep or cabbages or cows...?  Who gets to determine what Others do?  What if One LOVED the sheep and just wanted THAT job?  What if EVERYONE hated all the jobs?

Well in the closed system ArMaP described I would assume it was a mutaul agreement in other words all those people WANTED to do it that way

What if all One wanted to do was sit and write music?  Or a book?

Well if everyone wanted to do only that who would get the job done? I could list a hundred dirty jobs that NO ONE really wants to do but the are a necessity for a big city to function.  Who would do those jobs? And NO robots can't do them, at least not yet  So who would do those?

EveryOne who doesn't LOVE the work, who hates it in fact, is stuck.

But don't we already have that situation? Those that HATE work in our society have no money 

Abundance allows Us ALL to do as We choose.  No Human energy required for the basics.  No accounting for how much anyOne gets.  This planet is plentiful and abundant.

So basically... a global welfare system free handouts no need to work ergo no incentive to achieve.... anything  Result? stagnation, sloth and basically a planet full of useless eaters

in effect