162,000 unemployed just a “technical rise”

Written By: - Date published: 7:59 am, August 10th, 2012 - 277 comments
Categories: jobs - Tags:

Key’s making excuses for his government’s pathetic record on jobs. Unemployment is going the wrong way but Key calls another 2,000 people without jobs to 162,000 – the highest number since 1994 – a “very small, technical rise“. 65,000 more unemployed under National. And we’re doing relatively badly. We’ve gone from 6th lowest unemployment in the OECD to 14th.

What’s Joyce’s genius solution? More mining and drilling. First off, it takes 5 to 10 years from starting to look for stuff to mine to actually producing. Second, mining and oil employ only 5,500 people across the country. National would need to increase mining and drilling by 1200% to replace the jobs they have lost so far.

It’s manufacturing that’s hurting. 25,000 jobs lost under National, 42,000 since manufacturing employment peaked in 2004. We need smart monetary policy because right now the high dollar means manufacturers can’t compete on the international market and it can’t compete domestically against cheap imports.

And it’s Christchurch that’s hurting. 1 in 10 jobs lost since the earthquakes began. And about 1 in 20 gone from the Canterbury region. Gerry Brownlee has sat on his fat arse so long that the question is no longer how many jobs the rebuild will create and when but if there will be a rebuild at all.

Think about it. If you’re a commercial developer and you’ve got your insurance payout, are you going to build commercial and retail space in a city that people are leaving, or are you going to go to Auckland or Australia? And if you’ve got a residential payout are you going to stay in a city where jobs are disappearing, where you could be next if you haven’t lost your jobs already? No, you’ll go to Auckland or Australia. Canterbury has lost a net 850 people overseas so far this year and the internal migration numbers aren’t known but appear to be much higher.

The momentum in Christchurch is very worrying. The Government’s unwillingness to even acknowledge there’s a problem is just as worrying.

The Government is now actually sucking jobs out of the economy with its public service cuts, which multiply the job cuts throughout the economy.

And all the Government can do is say ‘unemployment benefit numbers are down’, which of course means that more jobless Kiwis are having to get by without any public support. Hardly something to skite about.

277 comments on “162,000 unemployed just a “technical rise” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Brian 1
    10 August 2012 at 8:08 am

    Key is “comfortable” with it…. what a surprise…..

    • Tom Gould 1.1
      10 August 2012 at 9:46 am

      Looks like the news media is also “comfortable” with the highest number unemployed for 18 years too. No hard news there. But not hard to imagine the screaming banner headlines if the other lot were in charge.

      • Marjorie Dawe 1.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 2:15 pm

        But imagine what the figures would look like if we hadn’t driven so many offshore.

    • mike e 1.2
      10 August 2012 at 4:31 pm

      This figure dosen’t include those who have given up looking for a job.
      Trickle down where the Capital class get to piss on the peasants from a great height!
      Thats yor brighter future.

    • mike 1.3
      10 August 2012 at 5:34 pm

      He’s “comfortable” with it, AND he’s “not overly bothered,” so everyone just relax.

      I love how Key responds to bad news figures – not bovvered, it’s a technical thing, that source isn’t reliable, we budgeted for that, comfortable with it.

      The implication is that he’s the man in the know, so if you ARE bovvered then you just don’t get it. That’s your fault, not his. He’s the PM after all, so when he opens his mouth and says stuff you should just believe it.

      Tactics of corporate psychopaths no.s 7-11 I believe.

  2. Carol 2
    10 August 2012 at 8:12 am

    Good to see Helen Kelly getting onto this, as on RNZ this morning:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/112863/govt-needs-to-focus-on-creating-jobs-ctu

    CTU president Helen Kelly says it is increasingly hard for those out of work to find decent work.

    She says the Government needs to focus on job creation, and increase skill development programmes.

    And her comments reported here:

    http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/higher-unemployment-needs-plan-ctu/5/131319

    Helen Kelly says “we are not surprised that the statistics show our unemployment rate has increased to 6.8 percent, up from 6.7 percent in the March quarter – this is the highest rate since June 2010. A recent Reuters survey showed economists were expecting the rate to drop to 6.5 percent, but our experience shows there aren’t many jobs out there, and its increasingly hard for those out of work to find decent work. I would like to know what economists were basing their expectations of a drop in the rate on?”
    […]
    We need to boost training for Kiwi workers in Christchurch, build trains in New Zealand, retain good Government jobs, increase infrastructure projects, increase skill development programmes, reinstate tertiary spending cuts and stop hoping the market will fix this.

  3. Bored 3
    10 August 2012 at 9:43 am

    The numbers betray the reality:

    * I am assuming at-least 20% of those employed are on the breadline.
    * I would estimate that there are probably 25% of 19-25 year olds “training” and racking up huge student debt. As a rough calculation that is 10% of the population of c.4 mlln x25% so you can add another 100,000 to the “unemployed” numbers.
    * There is a large number of “graduates” from the “training” who dont find work, or suitable work or go offshore as their only hope.
    * Funding for “training” is harder to get, National are quietly turning the screw on it, so more who would “train” are going to end up on the dole or similar.
    * The counting method is flawed and does not include other beneficiaries plus a whole ream of people who have walked away from the process.

    In short Keys concerns amount to sweet fuck all (in reality he could not give a fekk). He will as the newly aspirational “middle class” watch their children go nowhere and their income shrink as their liabilities grow. The shit is beginning to hit the fan for Joe and Jill Average.

  4. tracey 4
    10 August 2012 at 10:18 am

    Sigh. I suppose at least, after years of probably being away from his family alot, he is supporting his son. Just asxwell max excels in sport…

    For the pm everything is about statistics, risk and profit, accordinly he looks at this prely as a numerical issue not a human one.

    • Dr Terry 4.1
      10 August 2012 at 11:23 am

      Key, like others who opt for leadership, can only expect that his family will experience some deprivation of his dubious company. Of course he does not view anything in terms of “human need”. The unfortunate guys who died in Afghanistan are, by and large, victims of his policies there, and now they deserve his presence and attention. (The nasty jibe against Hungary simply compounds the offence of crawling to American masters. His arrogance here is supreme).
      Key appears almost to be rejoicing about the latest unemployment figures, like it is some triumph of a kind (secretly, he might have been expecting a worse outcome!) What ever could disturb his own state of comfort? Human need? Bah!

    • Colonial Viper 4.2
      10 August 2012 at 1:05 pm

      as well as supporting his son, Key is meeting with bankers and hedge funds around the asset sales.

      Which is why he can’t cancel the trip, those asset sale investors are more important than our dead soldiers.

      • xtasy 4.2.1
        10 August 2012 at 7:31 pm

        I suspect Key is doing exactly that – meeting with ‘banksters’ and perhaps former work buddies.

        He is preparing his exit by lining up an new opportunity, to perhaps return to merchant banking, maybe even “consulting” or running a casino in Vegas.

        Just a game of baseball can hardly be so important, even if his son is involved.

        This may turn out to be a blessing in disguise, if he succeeds and soon announces that he will hand over his job to Joyce or English.

        Even Shearer may start looking a little better then?!

  5. marsman 5
    10 August 2012 at 10:21 am

    The same level of unemployment as when that brilliant financial genius Ruth Richardson fucked our economy.

    • bad12 5.1
      10 August 2012 at 2:32 pm

      Unemployment is the tool with which the politicians protect themselves from the wrath of the ‘Haves’ in the middle classes,

      High unemployment kills demand within the local economy thus keeping interest rates as low as possible, a 2% rise in interest rates would equate to the average mortgage holder paying a third more on that mortgage per week than what they do at present,

      Instead of spitting upon the unemployed as bludgers the comfortable middle class should be thanking them all on a weekly basis for making the sacrifices that allow the middle class to live their comfortable lives…

    • starlight 5.2
      10 August 2012 at 3:11 pm

      Yes you are right there,Richardson and Shitley also left us in $20 billion of debt which
      labour had to pay down when they took the reigns,a continuing saga left by successive
      national governments and then they blame labour.

    • UpandComer 5.3
      11 August 2012 at 1:29 am

      That’s a statement from Bizarro land.

      She wouldn’t have needed to reform anything if the economy was all roses and milk.

      We were seriously ****ed in 1991. I mean, we were going down the gurgler. That is a bizarre statement. If she hadn’t done anything, we would have defaulted on our bonds, and the welfare state would have gone bankrupt.

      We had over 60% taxes on 38000, so it wasn’t a case of taxes being too low… there were only 80k more full-time workers then welfare recipients, every cent of PAYE tax went into welfare payments, but it wasn’t enough. Fully one-third of our GDP went towards welfare.

      You can’t get away with statements like that.

      • bad12 5.3.1
        11 August 2012 at 1:44 am

        Only 80,000 more full-time workers than welfare beneficiaries…Bullshit, but it sounded oh so dramatic…

        • UpandComer 5.3.1.1
          11 August 2012 at 5:51 am

          All those figures above are from a Listener headlining article from 1991 – I need to check them with MED maybe, but I trust it when the Listener puts out numbers like that, because I am sure excellent people as dwell on here will hold them to account if the numbers are wrong. Also, the debate was virulent in 1991 so again I have faith they wouldn’t fluff vital numbers like those. I got the reference to the original article from the Listener’s One hundreth anniversary issue, and dug up an original hardcopy.

          I got the marginal tax rates from the reserve bank website.

          I’m not sure exactly re cause and effect Rosy. But I think that in the 80’s the situation was similar, except rather then being on benefits/welfare, people were still getting a check from the government, but it was as part of the 25 thousand people working on the railway for instance or other such jobs. But look I’m not sure re 80’s causes leading to 91, I’ll have to try and sort that one out too.

          • locus 5.3.1.1.1
            11 August 2012 at 6:48 am

            “We were seriously ****ed in 1991”

            Well we were even more f*cked by 1993. rwnj ideology back then resulted in increasing unemployment which led to increased welfare, increased overseas debt and shrinking GDP – just as it is happening now under key.

          • rosy 5.3.1.1.2
            11 August 2012 at 9:07 pm

            The Listener – I used to read it back then, they had a range of opinions, with Brian Easton writing a regular economics column. I’d respect the source it if was him, but I don’t think so I’ve checked his website and although most of his Listener articles are there, there’s not one that sounds like what you’re quoting. It could have just as easily been Michael Bassett – arch ACT druid back then…

            I suggest you check a few more indicators immediately before and after Richardson’s Mother of all Budgets. It’s also important to remember she didn’t change the medicine – she just made it stronger. I’m not denying there was a problem – there were huge problems. Trying to undo the legacy of Muldoon with a Friedman prescription only made thing worse IMO (same as the Eurozone now).

            This discussion started from an employment perspective, and for me the question is – did an economic system that created a new poverty-stricken non-worker class and at the same time a super-wealthy class, neither of which existed in any meaningful way before, improve the welfare of New Zealanders and improve their future prospects? Clearly for me the answer is no. There were alternatives but for the ‘Powers That Be’ these were, and still are, ideologically impure.

          • McFlock 5.3.1.1.3
            11 August 2012 at 10:23 pm

            Lol.
                     
            I’d be more interested if I could be sure that “beneficiaries” didn’t include pensions and, more importantly, full-time low income people who received a benefit to top up their low income. 
                     
            Unemployment levels nicely illustate the brighter future we got from Lab4 and ruthenasia.

      • rosy 5.3.2
        11 August 2012 at 4:03 am

        Where are your stats coming from re the employed and welfare payments? I can’t find anything on the MSD or statistics websites that give government transfer figures back to 1991. Do your full-time employed include contractors, the self employed trades etc, who increased in number in the deregulated labour market? (and were they paying tax?)

        Also – why were there so many relying on social security payments? Unemployment rose because??? …. wasn’t the New Zealand economy ‘restructured’ in the years before with no regard for the impact on job retention, particularly in the low skill and unskilled sectors? The ‘something’ Richardson did was follow exactly the same prescription as the 1st ACT government that increased unemployment, social and income disparity.

        You’re mixing up cause and effect as far as I can tell.

        • Kotahi Tāne Huna 5.3.2.1
          11 August 2012 at 6:26 am

          Cause and effect, fact and opinion, reality and fantasy.

          • locus 5.3.2.1.1
            11 August 2012 at 7:26 am

            Cause: cut public spending (for rwnjs = “curb the ‘welfare’ state”)

            Effects: increase unemployment (for rwnjs = “technical rise”); suffer social/economic ills of higher unemployment (for rwnjs = “lazy bludgers can’t be bothered to find jobs”)

            Fact: 25,000 jobs lost under National (for rwnjs = “…not as bad as Greece”)

            Opinion: Mining for minerals and oil – and factory farming…will fix our failing economy

            Reality: pitifully few commercially viable opportunities for exploration and production in NZ & mining/commercial farming will destroy NZ’s world-wide reputation for clean green environment

            Fantasy: overseas owned mining and factory farming companies will hire lots of kiwis

      • Daveosaurus 5.3.3
        11 August 2012 at 5:32 pm

        Your suggestion that 1990 tax rates on income over $38,000 per annum were over 60% is an outright fabrication.

  6. Glg 6
    10 August 2012 at 10:25 am

    And the health and social implications of that little experiment are still being seen today. To see what National has planned for us, just look at the UK. prisoners working in call centres for 40 p an hour while workers get laid off!

  7. starlight 7
    10 August 2012 at 3:05 pm

    National’s spin doctors through bennett previously claimed in parliament that the people
    on the unemployment benefit had gone down in christchurch,yeh right, perhaps her
    speech writers and spin doctors should attend the new charter schools when they
    get going and learn something,the unemployment levels went down because a swag
    of people left christchurch.
    The other worrying agenda is that basher bennett has spilt her vile attack on to those
    who have lost jobs etc through no fault of their own, Parliament passed welfare changes
    which included 20hrs will be considered ‘full time’,is this how key and bennett plan to
    keep wages down and benefit numbers down?
    Surely these two need to be taken to the human rights commission or the UN
    What angers me is that shearer is no where to be seen and heard when these
    ridiculous laws are passed on the average joe in nz.
    Ms Kelly should be leader of the labour party, at least she stands up and backs
    up downtroden workers.

  8. AmaKiwi 8
    10 August 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Politicians are usually the last to know what’s happening.

    Neo-liberal economics does not have a strategy for coping with a deflationary depression. (Deflation is when credit and money are decreasing, therefore prices are going down, consumer spending is decreasing, jobs disappear, business failures become widespread, etc.)

    The reason the Parker/Shearer economic statements are so absurd is because they think we can still get people to spend more, thereby reviving consumer spending and jobs.

    Their beef with David Cunliffe is he knows the inflation party is over. He recommends labor intensive government spending on infrastructure to keep people working and modernize the country.

    Who’s right? Look at the “For Sale” signs in your main street. Read the news from Europe and the US. They are heading down the hole. We are not far behind them.

  9. tracey 9
    10 August 2012 at 3:22 pm

    cv, do you have a source. and its not an international tournament. its an asia pacific team playing some us clubs.

  10. Polish Pride 10
    10 August 2012 at 3:56 pm

    I find it interesting that technology and automation displace people from their jobs every day, yet we continue with a system where you have to work in order to survive. In fact if you are made redundant you are forced to find another job asap in order to survive.

    If ‘Man’ were truley intelligent and Unions truly cared about workers they would fight to change the system.
    They would change the system to one that worked for ‘Man’ rather than the other way around as it is now.
    They would make it so that one of the primary goals of the system was to free people from the bonds of labour.
    This would enable them to spend more time doing things that matter, things that make them happy. Things like spending time with friends and family, things like spending time on activities they are truly passionate about.

    This is easily possible with things like automation, hydroponics, robotics, 3D printing and other forms of automation.
    Such a shift even has the ability to eradicate poverty almost overnight.
    Yet you persist with a system that changes very little as we move a couple of degrees to the left or to the right every 3 years. It never fixes any of the real problems that face society. It simply does not know how. At best it merely tinkers around the edges.

    The best lesson to come from Capitalism is that of planned obselesence which has shown us we have an abunadance of resources we simply need to learn to use them in a more effective and sustainable manner.
    Imagine a world where you had to work far less or perhaps one day did not have to work at all. Yet in this world you were able to have access to far more than what you do now. How would your life be different? What would you do?

    The greatest advances in human history have been bourne out of passion.

    Yet you think you need political parties to make your world a happy place. Instead think for yourselves and open your minds

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      10 August 2012 at 5:58 pm

      Quite correct.

      In the 1970’s and the advent of wide spread automation, mechanisation and office technology people discussed at lngth what they were going to do with all their new leisure time. The normal working week was thought likely to become 20 hours per week for instance.

      Instead, the capitalists increased work to a break neck pace, longer hours for less pay, and skimmed off the financial benefits of the additional productivity for themselves.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.3
      10 August 2012 at 7:32 pm

      Shifting to a system that actually supported people rather than denigrating them would mean that the rich wouldn’t be able to be rich any more and that’s where all the resistance to change to a rational model comes from.

      • mike 10.3.1
        10 August 2012 at 7:52 pm

        Exactly. The general population’s minds are open only as much as those trying to preserve the status quo allow them to be. We only know what we are told.

      • Polish Pride 10.3.2
        10 August 2012 at 10:25 pm

        Thats because you need to implement a system that looks after needs and wants that satisfies those on both ends of the political spectrum.
        Unfortunately the problem you have now is that both ends of the political arena work on a wealth redistribution model. This unfortunately will solve nothing and will only keep society locked into the current path of shifting a few degrees to the left and then a few degrees to the right over and over and over again.
        Whilst you stick with a socialist view of the world it may seem fair and equitable as everyone appears to be looked after. Everyone has enough to survive. It sounds reasonable. The problem is that in order to achieve it you must take from the wealthy. Obviously this is done through taxation. Nobody likes tax. Whether you think this is fair enough unfortunately doesn’t matter. You are taking money from people and giving it to others. The people you take it from (the wealthy) many of whom have worked hard and taken risks to get where they are today, will ALWAYS want less to be taken and will therefore always vote for policies and political parties that take less. This is one side of the left vs right paradigm.

        The other is the redistribution of wealth used by the right. This is where through influence on govt policy around labour laws and immigration policy downward pressure is placed on wages or it is taken via taxation for things such as corporate welfare. This is of course essentially paid for by workers through their taxes. It is these things that result in the funnelling of wealth upwards to shareholders, CEOs etc. Those on the left of the political spectrum will always vote for policies that protect workers and wages at least in theory and there you have the other side of the left vs right paradigm.

        So long as this system remains you will never achieve what you ultimately want and more importantly you will never solve the real problems facing society.

        There is a solution you just have to be able to see and understand the bigger picture and put in place a new system that by its design focuses on satisfying the needs and wants of the ‘Individual’ as opposed to continuing with the left vs right paradigm and essentially going nowhere.

        The change needs to come from the people on both sides of the spectrum. It is unlikely to ever come from your politicians especially when their salaries depend on selling you on and the continuation of the left vs right paradigm.

        I am sorry for the long posts but it is difficult to get this message through in a couple of sentences

        • Draco T Bastard 10.3.2.1
          11 August 2012 at 1:15 am

          The problem is that in order to achieve it you must take from the wealthy.

          Considering that it’s the wealthy that are actually taking from the rest of us what we need to do is accept that we can’t afford the wealthy.

          The people you take it from (the wealthy) many of whom have worked hard and taken risks to get where they are today,

          Many have worked hard but probably not as hard as the people who are working to make them richer.

          So long as this system remains you will never achieve what you ultimately want and more importantly you will never solve the real problems facing society.

          Which is why the system needs to be changed from one of legalised theft to something far more equitable.

          The change needs to come from the people on both sides of the spectrum.

          Perhaps but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the RWNJs to suddenly become rational.

          • Polish Pride 10.3.2.1.1
            11 August 2012 at 1:49 pm

            Draco for this to happen you need to give up Left vs Right thinking. You need to give up Us vs them.
            You are correct many wealthy have gotten rich of the work of others and continue to do so. But many have whether you like it or not risked a great deal to get where they are and ttain the wealth that they have.
            To a degree what has happened is a moot point. The fact is there are people and both ends of the scale and to implement a truly equitable system you need to cater for the needs and wants of all.

            Draco you said
            “Perhaps but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the RWNJs to suddenly become rational.”

            You do not have to. You only need to provide a solution that meets their needs also. The problem is that all the left has ever presented as a solution is something that takes from the Right. If you are on the Right you will always see this as being not a good solution.

            The key point you made which is the heart of the matter is where you said “we need to move away from a system that is legalized theft to something far more equitable”. This is 100% correct. But remember taxing the Right (or anyone for that matter) is exactly that, legalized theft.
            Consider this point in light of the fact that many solutions put forward from the left involve redistribution of wealth from the wealthy……many via legalized theft. As such the solutions are inadequate to solve the problems because you fail to meet the needs of those on the right with your system and solution.

            Then there is the second part of your statement which talks about having a more equitable solution. Also correct. The problem here is that when people think of this they automatically think about a more even distribution of resources… no problem… the problem is that this is often thought about in terms of the poor having more than they do and the wealthy having a bit or in some cases a lot less than they do now. This is where you again have a problem. Instead ‘equitable solution’ needs to be thought about more like giving the poor and the middle class as much as the wealthy. This does not then take from the wealthy and the problem is gone.

            The solution need not even necessarily be equitable provided the solution provides for the wants and the needs of the individuals in the society. i.e. the total set of your wants and needs may be greater than mine or your next door neighbors. However provided that my needs and wants are met, I am happy and it should not matter that you want and need more. Yes human nature does come into play here but this is because we live in a system that uses barriers and scarcity. Change the paradigm and this part of human nature will have less of an influence.

            • prism 10.3.2.1.1.1
              11 August 2012 at 1:58 pm

              Polish Pride
              You appeared to have been thinking hard. But then you come out with this trite little piece of propaganda about tax. Someone said it once and it is such a sweet saying to embrace for big movers and shakers – the self-made men and women. It invalidates all the rest of your long diatribes.

              But remember taxing the Right (or anyone for that matter) is exactly that, legalized theft.

              • KJT …
                11 August 2012 at 2:44 pm

                Tax is simply a charge for the costs of living in a functional society.

                This is theft.
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235576/How-bankers-destroy-7-1-create-Hospital-cleaners-valuable-society-say-researchers.html

                “Bankers may be good at making money for themselves – and sometimes for their banks – but they are a drain on society, a study has found.
                It says they effectively take £7 from the rest of us for every £1 they create”.

                Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235576/How-bankers-destroy-7-1-create-Hospital-cleaners-valuable-society-say-researchers.html#ixzz23CYP8it7

                The wealthy benefit the most from the society, and take the most resources from it, they are wealthy after all, so it is entirely appropriate they pay the most tax. They get the most benefit from the commons that taxation pays for.

                In many cases, not all, they are wealthy because they have stolen from the commons.

                As soon as someone says taxation is theft, you immediately know they are a thief. Someone who expects to benefit from society without contributing.

                • Polish Pride …
                  11 August 2012 at 2:51 pm

                  You are correct what the bankers have done is theft.

                  “Tax is simply a charge for the costs of living in a functional society.” also correct but more accurately you need to add on the end – “under the current system”.
                  It does not need to be this way.

                • Polish Pride …
                  11 August 2012 at 2:54 pm

                  You do not have to tax anyone at all if you put in place a system that allows everyones needs and wants to be met without taxation……. 🙂

                  • lprent …
                    11 August 2012 at 3:11 pm

                    File that one with other fantasies. The noble savage of Dryden, Pope etc comes to mind as a similar utopian stupidity.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      11 August 2012 at 3:32 pm

                      Then you simply do not yet understand the system. how can a system that still requires people to work be utopian.

                      Iprent if you were as intelligent as you think you are -you would have enquired further and asked how can that be so to have a system with no taxation and still provide for the needs and wants of everyone…..?

                      Come back when you have opened your mind a little more.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 August 2012 at 4:12 pm

                      The enlightenment of PP…a fantasy world of miracles…and no plan of getting there.

                    • Bill …
                      12 August 2012 at 4:21 pm

                      The right sentiment and intention though, yes? So why be so dismissive?

              • Polish Pride …
                11 August 2012 at 2:45 pm

                Prism think beyond the boundaries of the current system.

                The reason that part about tax is in there is that you need to understand and more importantly cater for that way of thinking when determining whether the system works for all. You do not have to agree with it but I am sure you as an intelligent person can understand the logic behind the statement.

                Again perhaps you’d prefer to continue with the current system as it is clearly working so well for everyone……???

              • Polish Pride …
                11 August 2012 at 3:05 pm

                Prism – I had also picked that you were intelligent enough to look at and understand the message as whole without zeroing in on a single line that you do not like and dismissing the rest in its entirety. I am going to continue with my original assumption. I am hoping you don’t prove me wrong.

                As background yes you are correct. I have thought about this a lot. I was/am very unhappy with the system especially when many of the problems are easy to solve – poverty, human trafficking, sex slave trade, 80% of crime and more. But not whilst we continue with the current system.
                So I set about redesigning the system starting with needing to satisfy peoples needs and wants.
                It took 6 months.
                Then I found that I came to the same solution as someone before me with one slight variation and he came to the solution about 20 years before me. There are a lot of people already that would like to see this implemented worldwide. But it removes the need for the politicians so there is zero political will to make the change happen.

                • prism …
                  11 August 2012 at 7:41 pm

                  Polish Pride
                  There are lots of comments and links to read to be informed that I can access from this site. I have noticed your long comments but have not read them in detail. (I write longish comments too so I know that I can suffer from this too.)

                  The need for a country to have sufficient tax funds from people’s enterprise helps the nation or province even to provide its infrastructure and help its people when they are having difficult times. I looked up google on tax and the following link seems interesting and I pass it on in case you are interested. I’ll read it later when I’ve got more time.

                  http://www.thefairsociety.net/2011/06/property-is-theft-versus-taxes-are.html
                  “Property is Theft” Versus “Taxes are Theft”
                  These two quotes, one from the nineteenth century socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the other from the modern conservative Grover Norquist, represent the two extreme positions in our polarized political debate about wealth and taxes.

                  I am as wary of people hooked on theories as I am on RWNJs. And any system that is thought up by humans is likely to get gamed, a really good system can be brought down by that, and one with flaws further damaged by corruption of some sort. And then there is the elegant theory that requires that reality be kept at a distance to prevent damage to the structure of what is a fantasy.

                  You have been thinking you say about a good system. Good on you – just have fall-back positions when there is a failure somewhere. My motto is that the wise person can make the best pick from a number of unsatisfactory choices.
                  Are you Polish? If so were you there under communist reign?

                  • Polish Pride …
                    11 August 2012 at 10:19 pm

                    No not Polish 6th generation kiwi. My wife is Polish her family fled poland in the middle of the night within 24hrs of receiving their passports under the communist regime there…..I am however very proud of her 🙂

                    • lprent …
                      11 August 2012 at 10:34 pm

                      Trying to figure it out. I think the polish thread in my family is either 6th or 7th generation back. They had to leave after 1848

                    • prism …
                      11 August 2012 at 10:45 pm

                      Polish Pride
                      There is a lot to be proud of – there was so much for Polish people to feel heartbreak over in WW2 and then the aftermath. Then communism, then not and now financial bothers, but they will overcome.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 12:50 am

                      Iprent I think my family cam not long after that maybe 10 possibly 20 years later if that helps

            • Draco T Bastard 10.3.2.1.1.2
              11 August 2012 at 2:33 pm

              This is 100% correct. But remember taxing the Right (or anyone for that matter) is exactly that, legalized theft.

              No it’s not. It’s payment for services rendered and it’s actually the wrong way around because all the wealth starts out belonging to the society of which the government is the representatives.

              The legalised theft is the heart of capitalism, the exploitation of the worker and is best shown through rents and interest – both are rewards for doing nothing at all that only the rich have and both are exponential. Having access to them increases wealth at an exponential rate and that wealth is coming from those who can’t afford to be a rentier.

              The problem here is that when people think of this they automatically think about a more even distribution of resources… no problem… the problem is that this is often thought about in terms of the poor having more than they do and the wealthy having a bit or in some cases a lot less than they do now.

              Some people probably see it like that. I don’t. I think that everyone should have an equal say in how the countries resources are used and that everyone should be able to enact their ideas and be recognised and rewarded for them. This does not happen in capitalism as the resources are owned and controlled by the few making them rich at everyone else’s expense.

              Instead ‘equitable solution’ needs to be thought about more like giving the poor and the middle class as much as the wealthy.

              As resources are limited and the economy is a zero sum game this can’t possibly happen. We can’t afford the rich.

              The solution need not even necessarily be equitable provided the solution provides for the wants and the needs of the individuals in the society.

              In which case we won’t have the rich.

              • Polish Pride …
                11 August 2012 at 3:27 pm

                Draco when govt goes against the collective will of the people, the do not represent us. This is why representative democracy is a farce. It is too easily co-opted by big business and political egos. It does not represent the people anymore. This also needs to change.

                “As resources are limited and the economy is a zero sum game this can’t possibly happen. We can’t afford the rich.”

                Unfortunately we can afford the rich as we do now. That is not to say what we have now is something we should continue with. It is most certainly not.
                Technically yes resources are finite yes. But that is not the same as not having enough resources to meet the needs and wants of every individual in society.
                Understand those needs and wants. Then understand the amount of resources you have or can get and you may very well be able to do that. especially with sustainable design and building things to last rather then continuing with things like the profit motive and planned obsolescence.

                “In which case we won’t have the rich.”
                again technically correct.

                I am trying to put it in terms of the current system – you are already jumping into the new one 🙂

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  11 August 2012 at 4:06 pm

                  Unfortunately we can afford the rich as we do now.

                  No we can’t. If we could we wouldn’t have the poverty that we do now.

                  But that is not the same as not having enough resources to meet the needs and wants of every individual in society.

                  I didn’t say it was. The problem is that most of the limited resources go to enriching a few (mostly through exporting the actual wealth) rather than supporting the populace.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    11 August 2012 at 10:25 pm

                    Draco the reason we have poverty is that we put a barrier in the way of people being able to have the things that they need and want. In fact that barrier even has us throwing out goods people need because they haven’t overcome the systems barrier in order to obtain the goods. That Barrier is ‘Money’

                    Your second part is correct but that is the battle that will ALWAYS exist at one level or another with the current system and why we need to break away from the Left vs Right thinking and change the system to one that doesn’t have this.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      11 August 2012 at 11:23 pm

                      That Barrier is ‘Money’

                      No it’s not although that’s what people believe it to be. The actual barrier is one that we cannot bypass and that is the actual physical limits of the resources available to us.

                      Over the centuries people have been conditioned to believe that having more money will give them what they want and the system has been designed to keep that money from them while a few get rich both in monetary terms and in privatising the commons. The latter takes the wealth that people actually need and which will ensure, if used properly, that there will be no poverty and gives it into the hands and control of a few who then ensures that they have far more than they need while everybody else a) works hard for them and b) lives in poverty. It’s system of restriction and dependence.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 2:10 pm

                      Draco I’d have to disagree on that one. Yes resources are finite although. But there are resources that exist and can be used to build products. So the resources exist, The product exists, but I cannot have it as I do not have they money to pay for it.

                      Two examples
                      First Superyachts – we can and do build them here in NZ. The only thing stopping me being able to have one is that I don’t have the money.
                      Forgetting for a moment the impracticalities of everyone owning a super yacht, If we had a different system and the resources existed (which they do as we can build them) and society determined ‘we want a super yacht’ then one could be built. We have the resources and the knowledge to do so. So society could have one

                      Another example free energy tech. Now I’ll preface this by saying that I believe this exists. But it is being withheld again because of money or in this instance the loss of money (revenue stream) that would result for oil corporations. Hence the technology is withheld. Remove money and their is no longer a reason that societ cannot have it.

                      A simpler example is I grow 10 pumpkins. Because of the way the system is I need to make a living. I only need 2 pumpkins for myself and should under the current system sell the other 8. If money is removed from the equation however and it is distilled down to satisfying needs and wants then I have 10 pumpkins. I still only need 2. If you and 3 others need 2 each why should I not just give them to you thus fulfilling a need you have in doing so?

                  • Polish Pride …
                    12 August 2012 at 2:14 pm

                    If we took money out of the equation and the resources were there and accessible. What stops you giving those currently in poverty what they need so they are no longer in poverty?

                    • Bill …
                      12 August 2012 at 2:30 pm

                      Who presently controls the resources? What is one of the expressions they have that signifies their control and power? (Answer = money) How do you rob them of that expression of power and privilege etc and gain access to the resources they control? Who exactly is the ‘we’ who are doing away with money? How would that be done (practically)? How does that ‘we’ you envisage make decisions? Who (if anyone) has favoured access to information that those decisions are to be based on? Who (if anyone) resides over the system of information gathering and decision making? I’m guessing such positions of oversight exist in your scenario since you state that ‘you’ (ie, some person or body of people) give ‘them’ (those currently in poverty) what they need…as determined by who and how?

                      Why not keep it simple and practical. (And in that vein, I humbly suggest reading comment number 22)

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 3:21 pm

                      to a degree you need to work within the constructs of the current system to move towards the new one with a view to securing things such as food supply, fuel ans energy sources.

                      I don’t think you would actually remove the money from the equation until you have the new system up and running almost in parallel. I think that money is only finally removed via a vote by the people through the true democracy process.

                      The longer money remains in the mix though the longer you are at risk of the system being corrupted like others in the past in my view.

                      It is also about getting the people behind it as they will ensure that it works. The opportunities and benefits and freedoms such a system would would provide are just too great for ‘The People’ to ensure that it is not corrupted and that it happens.

                    • Bill …
                      12 August 2012 at 4:08 pm

                      Hmm, yeah PP. Those were pretty basic, concrete questions that were posed. And answers to them begin to reveal concrete proposals… or at least reveal measures of faulty analysis or highlight points that need further consideration.

                      But your response (unfortunately) is gushing ‘if’ and ‘and’ with no concrete basis…it’s extrapolation based on wishful thinking and therefore it amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking…. just vague notions of ‘the people’ and fairness/justice etc.

                      You seem to have a hang up on money. And that’s partly understandable. But…there are cultures that use a means of exchange (money) that, because the money itself has no intrinsic value (ie, to all intent and purpose it’s worthless and really just a token of exchange), avoid all the nonsense we find in market economies. Money in and of itself simply isn’t a problem. The values we ascribe to it are. So the value systems that surround money, rather than money itself, is what needs to change. And the value system is rooted where? In the market economy. So….?

                    • Polish Pride …
                      13 August 2012 at 1:25 pm

                      “Who presently controls the resources?”

                      Many people but I am going to assume you’re driving at those at the top of the food chain?

                      What is one of the expressions they have that signifies their control and power? (Answer = money) – Agreed.

                      “How do you rob them of that expression of power and privilege etc and gain access to the resources they control?”

                      Because at a level we need to operate at, they do not control everything.
                      A couple of possible approaches. And I am just speculating.
                      -The if you want to play in our sandpit you need to make the resources available. Then you can have access to any products and services the system provides when, you want or need them just like everyone else in the system.
                      -The we’re not going to play in your sandpit anymore and not allow anyone to operate the toys in your sandpit who is not a New Zealand resident.
                      Think of an oil rig for this example. Overseas company can’t operate it. It is left abandoned it is taken over by our system as is the oil refinery. (remember I am speculating)
                      Could legislating be an option…..?

                      “Who exactly is the ‘we’ who are doing away with money? “How would that be done (practically)?
                      Who – All within the new system at a time that is practical to do so.
                      How – via agreement of the people through a democratic vote using the true democracy system.

                      How does that ‘we’ you envisage make decisions?
                      Through true democracy and a vote – this can be decentralised for many functions eg. its not really important to have people in Invercargill vote on whether or not to build a rail loop in Auckland.

                      Who (if anyone) has favoured access to information that those decisions are to be based on?
                      All should have access to the same information to enable them to make an informed decision. Anyone should be allowed to put forward information ( at least in principle Not sure how that would work practically).

                      Who (if anyone) resides over the system of information gathering and decision making?
                      Not sure but I do see a function or multiple groups responsible for such a function working for the people in the society

                      “I’m guessing such positions of oversight exist in your scenario since you state that ‘you’ (ie, some person or body of people) give ‘them’ (those currently in poverty) what they need…as determined by who and how?”

                      Not quite – I see it more as setting up systems so that anyone who needs anything can place an order for what they need and have it fulfilled by the system. Manythings would not even be that complex though.
                      The system would have determined the amount of milk and area consumes on a weekly basis( these figures will exist already in many instances in many exiating systems) It would then ensure that production and delivery meets ofr exceeds that level. Then if you needed milk You would go to the supermarket and get the milk and whatever else you needed but not have to pay anything.

                      Why not keep it simple and practical. (And in that vein, I humbly suggest reading comment number 22)
                      I agreed with this but also believe this system meets that criteria.

            • bad12 10.3.2.1.1.3
              11 August 2012 at 3:27 pm

              Having read all of that i really really am gushing with the milk of human kndness and really REALLY feel an overpowering need to stroll arm in arm down a sunlit hi-way with John Key on one side and David Shearer on the other, to a brand new future where there is no tax and I yes ME ME ME can have it all, everything i have ever desired,

              Can you please buckwheat cut to the f**king punchline of EXACTLY HOW all this can occur, the suspense is killing me…

              • Polish Pride …
                11 August 2012 at 10:29 pm

                Watch the movie ‘Zeitgiest Moving forward’ – the third one in the series its free on Youtube. Substitute computers making decisions for true democracy…. or don’t ……or have a combination of the two

                • lprent …
                  11 August 2012 at 11:10 pm

                  Computers are way way too dumb. I program rules into them all of the time, but they are my decisions. Computers are too stupid to look for exceptions for rules even when you code for it – there are always too many variables in any situation that isn’t fully constrained.

                  Think of the nearly half a million lines of code for the curiosity landing. More than 95% were for code that wasn’t exercised in the landing but were there for things that didn’t happen. Even so the probabilities of success were no more than even despite the operation being a relatively constrained problem. It was probably a less complex problem than most humans face in their daily commute for a computer.

                  Similarly “true democracy” works at something close to the lowest common denominator for a mob – almost as stupid as a computer. I couldn’t trust them not to make pi equal to 3 at the bequest of skilled retorical maniac because it was “efficient”.

                  As much as a pain it is, representative democracy works the best.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    11 August 2012 at 11:29 pm

                    As much as a pain it is, representative democracy works the best.

                    No it doesn’t. If it did we wouldn’t be having the debate about marriage equality as it would already have passed. If we had democracy that would pass overnight as the majority actually support it.

                    Now, go back two centuries and representative democracy probably was the best as the majority of people were uneducated and communications far too slow to allow effective discussion. These conditions no longer apply.

                    Just need to get it so that people have an idea as to what resources we have and then have them be able to put forward their ideas about how to use those resources. Do that and democracy will work fine.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      11 August 2012 at 11:36 pm

                      “Just need to get it so that people have an idea as to what resources we have and then have them be able to put forward their ideas about how to use those resources. ”

                      How will this work then? Using your example of marriage equality, how would this be decided in your system.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      11 August 2012 at 11:51 pm

                      “If we had democracy that would pass overnight as the majority actually support it.”

                      We have a democracy. A parliamentary democracy.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 12:38 am

                      The contrarion

                      “We have a democracy. A parliamentary democracy.”

                      What because you have bought into the illusion that because they let you vote every three years you think you have democracy and can effect real change!?!

                      Again Representative democracy is a farce and an very poor cousin to true democracy. It is too easily co-opted, corrupted, bought, is subject to egos and agendas. Hell they don’t even have to follow the will of the people and don’t and there is nothing you can do about it until their 3 years is up where you vote in the next lot of idiots who do exactly the same thing.

                      You think that is democracy!?! Your expectations are too low.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 12:46 am

                      The Contrarion

                      I didn’t have an example of marriage equality but I’ll take it as a typo and guess that you were asking me…..?

                      It would work one of two ways. Either by vote (probably online so that it is easy and accessable).

                      Or via an already defined and voted on constitution. Saying something like for arguments sake ‘No law shall be made that impinges on the rights of an individual where that individual is behaving in a manner that has no direct or quantitative indirect affect on anyone else.

                      No law shall be made that descriminates or does not afford the same rights to an individual or group of people etc etc etc.

                      Personally I hope it is the constitutional method with those kind of entries.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    11 August 2012 at 11:48 pm

                    “Computers are way way too dumb. I program rules into them all of the time, but they are my decisions. Computers are too stupid to look for exceptions for rules even when you code for it – there are always too many variables in any situation that isn’t fully constrained.”

                    Then you need a business analyst to define the rules and parameters for you in such a way that they can be coded. If you are in IT you should know the saying Anything is possible it is just a matter of time and cost.

                    “Think of the nearly half a million lines of code for the curiosity landing. More than 95% were for code that wasn’t exercised in the landing but were there for things that didn’t happen. Even so the probabilities of success were no more than even despite the operation being a relatively constrained problem. It was probably a less complex problem than most humans face in their daily commute for a computer.”

                    Think more of a SAP ERP type of system with a trademe front end these systems already do 99% of what I am talking about. Landing on Mars not really going to help much with the problems of the current system

                    Really True democracy has only been tried once at country level and so far so good – Iceland.
                    The position you have taken on true democracy is speculative at best. It is also exactly what the powers that be want you to think.

                    Representative democracy is flawed and easily corrupted, co-opted, bought and hugely prone to egos and agendas. None of which are in the interest of the people they are supposed to represent. Add to that it can ‘t fix any of the problem it still facing society today.
                    Poverty, Starvation, Poverty, Human Trafficking, sex slave trade, man made climate change – All easily fixable under a new system with money having been removed from the equation.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 August 2012 at 11:59 pm

                      Really True democracy has only been tried once at country level and so far so good – Iceland.

                      Say what? Isn’t Iceland a representative democracy? Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of laying criminal charges against idiot politicians, but I’m not sure how they’ve changed their political system away from representative democracy.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2012 at 12:05 am

                      Poverty, Starvation, Poverty, Human Trafficking, sex slave trade, man made climate change – All easily fixable under a new system with money having been removed from the equation.

                      You’re confusing the vector or mechanism by which the problem propagates with the actual cause. No money just means that human deviousness will move to another mechanism. A security maxim is that “anyone is smart enough to design a security system that they can’t beat themselves – it doesn’t mean it’s unbeatable”.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      12 August 2012 at 12:14 am

                      “No money just means that human deviousness will move to another mechanism”

                      McFlock, this is another rare time we agree. I like it when we do – it makes me feel squishy and warm.
                      But I digress. Money is a representation of labour/product exchange of ideas or skill. Even without money one person may be a gifted or knowledgeable in house building while another may be a good fisherman.
                      The house builder can exchange his skills at creating a domicile for some fish.
                      But, money or not, the fisherman can provide inferior product or that builder can cut corners. With or without money.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 12:15 am

                      All Icelandians are voting on the constitution not just the represenatives They are in place to formulate it. This is trying true democracy. But yes they will most likely move to a hybrid of the two after this. They should stay with True democracy.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 12:22 am

                      Those things are supplied today because someone is willing to pay for them and someone is willing to take the risk and get paid for supplying them. Remove the money and the second party loses their incentive. It becomes that much harder for the first party. Then we still have laws.
                      I presume you were zeroing in on Human trafficking and the sex slave trade.

                      If you think it applies to the others… explain how and I will address them for you also.

                      I don’t think any system is unbeatable but the more the system caters for the less who will have the desire to try and beat it.

                      But don’t lose sight of the important thing here. How life would be under this system vs the current one.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 12:29 am

                      Contrarion – this is true but is also another reason for automation wherever possible. This can also possibly be dealt with by laws, guidelines and checks or inspections or weighing or whatever.
                      It also does not need to be realized through a direct exchange.
                      The fisherman can request a house and enter the request into the system. The builder can build the house to the required spec ( or it can be fabricated using a 3D printer)
                      The Fisherman can deliver the fish to the supermarket (I’m simplifying – there will be some form of transportation and maybe some other roles ). The builder goes to the supermarket and collects the fish he needs. Their was no direct exchange.

        • locus 10.3.2.2
          11 August 2012 at 8:02 am

          There is a solution you just have to be able to see and understand the bigger picture and put in place a new system that by its design focuses on satisfying the needs and wants of the ‘Individual’

          Yes – there is a solution.

          No – the solution is not by focusing on the wants of the individual – it’s by understanding the needs of society

          Individualism is the rejection of society. Individualism means the subjugation of community interests to the individual.

          A ”society’ where individual ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ rule – ultimately leads to an anarchistic dog eat dog world, where the selfishness and greed of the most powerful ‘Individuals’ creates hell on earth

          Thank you Ayn Rand for showing me the horror of individualist ideology

          • Polish Pride 10.3.2.2.1
            11 August 2012 at 2:09 pm

            “No – the solution is not by focusing on the wants of the individual – it’s by understanding the needs of society”

            Not quite – You see it is only by ensuring a society can satisfy the needs of the individual and therefore EVERY individual that make up that society that the needs of the society can finally be met.

            This is a key point because when asked should society be set up to meet the needs of ‘the Individual’ or the needs of ‘the Majority’…99% of people will say the majority.
            The problem with this is that in satisfying the needs of the majority which can obviously be as low as 51% you can have a society that although it has met the stated objective, it fails to beet the needs of nearly half of your society or 49%

            Do not think of meeting the needs of an individual as society meeting the needs of 1 person and failing to meet the needs of everyone else in the society. Everyone in society IS an individual so in saying that society needs to be set up with a system that caters for and meets the needs of ‘the Individual’ it must meet the needs of all individuals and therefore 100% of society.

            Now that we have established this it need not be anarchistic. this is also a common misconception. You still have rules and laws that a civilized society needs to abide by you just need to ensure that you have systems in place to meet the needs of the individual and by that I mean all individuals. There is an element of personal responsibility here which goes without saying. Everyone needs to understand how the society works and how the society meets the needs and wants of each individual. They need to play the game so to speak. They need to use the solutions provided by the society so that their needs and wants are met. But just as important society needs a way for people to introduce a new need or want and have that met. There is no Anarchy with such a solution. More importantly we have the IT systems and technology to move to such a solution.

            • Maui 10.3.2.2.1.1
              11 August 2012 at 2:14 pm

              It’s cool man. A few years in a Louisiana chain gang will cure you of that notion,

            • KJT 10.3.2.2.1.2
              11 August 2012 at 2:52 pm

              51% is better than 3 or 4 people in cabinet, and their corporate funders that we have dominating society at present A situation little different from dictatorship.

              • Polish Pride …
                11 August 2012 at 3:09 pm

                It is but it is a very poor result if you can have 100% or even 90%.
                and even if you were to get the 51% under the current system, history shows us you wouldn’t have it for long.

                • KJT …
                  11 August 2012 at 3:37 pm

                  I think you can.

                  People will put up with a lot if it is shared.

                  Many people bought into the pain now, gain later dialogue of 1980’s Labour.
                  A lot for what seemed the right reasons. It is just that the first ACT Government forgot to tell people that the gain was for a very few while the pain for everyone else would be permanent.

                  We have to downshift to have an ecologically sustainable society.

                  That is not going to happen if we expect those who already have very little to drastically downshift even more, while those who use the most resources go on to grab and use an ever greater percentage. 17% increase in wealth for those at the top, in NZ, in the last year. What extra did they do in the last 12 months to earn it. Everyone else got increases in living costs far in excess of any wage or social insurance increases.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    11 August 2012 at 7:07 pm

                    KJT your not getting what I’m meaning……….No we don’t have to downshift for an ecologically sustainable society we just need to remove things like planned obselecence and do things better smarter more sustainably we need to evolve. Remove money from the equation all together.

                    The waste we have in society is massive. Think of all the waste around the world right now. Why is it all not recycled… Cost!….. We can physically and technologically do it it is that it is cost prohibitive because we have to pay someone to do it rather than just doing it because it needs to be done

                    Take money out of the equation. think of scenarios…. Man goes to supermarket get

  11. captain hook 11
    10 August 2012 at 4:53 pm

    national is supposed to be the party of business.
    okay.
    so where is the business/

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      10 August 2012 at 7:34 pm

      That’s what they say but what they actually are is the party of the aristocrats and dictators.

      • Polish Pride 11.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 10:28 pm

        So change the system and put in place a system that works for aristocrats and dictators and workers. Otherwise you (or a different set of people) will be here in 20 years time arguing over the same things with the world in a far worse situation than what it is today.

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1
          11 August 2012 at 1:19 am

          You can’t get a system that works for aristocrats and dictators and workers as the two positions are mutually exclusive. Administrators (the beginning position of the aristocrats and dictators) are necessary but they need to be seen as the servants of the workers and not as a boss or authority figure.

          • Polish Pride 11.1.1.1.1
            11 August 2012 at 2:12 pm

            Yes you can to a you remove the labels, then you are left with individuals with needs and wants.

            • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1.1
              11 August 2012 at 10:35 pm

              Or individuals who have, and individuals who do not.

              • Polish Pride …
                12 August 2012 at 12:48 am

                so satisfy the needs and wants of the individuals who have not.

                • McFlock …
                  12 August 2012 at 12:54 am

                  which would conflict with the wants of those who have to have something that others do not.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    12 August 2012 at 1:03 am

                    They will have the additional free time to build something unique themselves.
                    alternately if the resources and right technology are available even this is possible.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2012 at 1:13 am

                      And for some people, that will not be enough.
                           
                      But so far your ideal society everyone has access to 3d printers. Oh, and it’s centrally planned with ERD automation, while at the same time “true” democracy means people will be able to have the society change in the way they want.

            • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1.2
              12 August 2012 at 2:08 am

              Your conceptualisation of people as units defined by ‘needs and wants’ is ridiculous.

              • Polish Pride …
                12 August 2012 at 2:15 am

                Please point out where I have defined them as units.
                The questions that need to be asked are:

                Are you human?
                Do you have needs?
                Do you have wants?

                Y.Y.Y…?
                It really is a very simple concept for that part. Do not try to make it something more than it is.

            • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1.1.3
              12 August 2012 at 3:52 am

              You’re not talking about removing the labels but removing the positions. A flat society rather than the hierarchical one that we have today.

              • Polish Pride …
                13 August 2012 at 9:11 am

                That is a good way to put it actually. I had never really thought of it like that but that is probably very accurate. perhaps you should be my translator. 🙂

        • mike 11.1.1.2
          11 August 2012 at 1:23 am

          A world where dictators and workers live together in joyful harmony! I’ve read my fair share of utopian visions on the internet but this is a new one…

          • Polish Pride 11.1.1.2.1
            11 August 2012 at 2:21 pm

            This is far from utopian, In a utopian society no one has to work that is far from what would be the case here. There would still be a myriad of roles required to ensure the system worked. They key would be the system (and people within it) actively looking to free people from the bonds of labour. But perhaps you prefer todays system where we have the ability to and do make people redundant, only for them to have to find another job asap in order to survive.
            Add to that they spend nearly 50 years in the work force in order to survive. Time that could be spent with things that are important in life like friends and family, seeing your children grow up, doing things you are passionate about. You might still have to work but how much would be determined by society and the needs of the systems opposed to what you have now where you work in order to survive because that is the way that the system is structured.
            If you think that this is utopian…..it is not, look a little deeper and most importantly think how not can’t and keep an open mind.

    • KJT 11.2
      11 August 2012 at 2:55 pm

      Party for thieving corporates.

      That’s why so many small business people are in the Greens.

      • Polish Pride 11.2.1
        11 August 2012 at 3:13 pm

        BTW the first step in making this happen is more than likely shifting from farce democracy oops sorry Representative Democracy to True Democracy Then the power and influence of the corporates is no more.

        • KJT 11.2.1.1
          11 August 2012 at 3:41 pm

          Certainly agree on that.

          There is no such thing as representative democracy. You either have democracy or not.

          What we have is an elected Dictatorship.

  12. blue leopard 12
    11 August 2012 at 2:31 am

    @ Polish Pride

    “There is a solution you just have to be able to see and understand the bigger picture and put in place a new system that by its design focuses on satisfying the needs and wants of the ‘Individual’ as opposed to continuing with the left vs right paradigm and essentially going nowhere.”

    I would have thought that the general trend of Western societies has already been one of focussing on the individual.

    … and isn’t this causing the problems in the western world?

    If you look at the bigger picture, you have to take into account the way individuals are living interdependantly; focussing solely on the individual does not acknowledge our interdependance and thus undermines the pivotal strength that humans have.

    Not acknowledging our interdependance, leads to the benefits of our collective advantage being undermined. And we do experience collective advantage every day. Not many of us would survive long or live the way we have become accustomed to without the benefit of others’ efforts and intelligence. (An example of everyday interdependance: we travel in vehicles which involved many people working to create it, AND a huge amount of minds involved in discovering and improving all the different components; houses, food, clothes, all have similar interdependance involved.)

    Our strength as humans is our ability to cooperate – not our physical strength, speed, sharpness of teeth etc; once you start undermining this strength, you undermine our whole species advantage. This is fairly well what is happening at present. We are all collectively intelligent enough to work through all the issues facing us; yet individual advantage is being placed as the highest value to strive for and thus our collective advantages are losing out.

    It is great to have individual rights/interests/freedoms, yet these wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for our ability to work together. We wouldn’t have time for it. We would be too busy surviving in a truly dog eat dog world; which despite the slogans we have been taught by our well meaning parents, is NOT what we have at present.

    A pile of car parts is a pile of car parts. No amount of cleaning, polishing or oiling a pile of car parts will make it go anywhere. The way they are put together and work together make them into something “greater than the parts”. Its the same with people.

    There certainly needs to be a balance between “satisfying the needs and wants of the individual” and acknowledging the group advantages and I truly believe that the imbalance at present is quite the opposite of what you are implying.

    • Carol 12.1
      11 August 2012 at 7:00 am

      +1, blue leopard.

      And these days left and right wing are a bit of a misnomer – our 2 main parties are largely expressing competing versions of individualistic right wing policies.

      A strong focus on collective endeavours and the collective good is more left wing than NAact or Labour espouse.

    • Polish Pride 12.2
      11 August 2012 at 2:38 pm

      Everything you say is correct.
      Now all that is required is to use the ability to work together to move to a system that recoginses what you have stated but also that we ALL have individual needs and wants (many common).

      The problem with the current system is that while it has mechanisms that allow an individual or even group of individuals to have their needs and wants met, it does this in a dog eat dog fashion, it is competitive, combative even. This is a big part of what has led to the rise of individualism and continuing deterioration in our society. Because of this combative dog eat dog nature we see our selves in the position we are now where society meets the needs and wants of fewer and fewer individuals.

      This is massively different from having a society that caters for individual needs and wants of every individual in the society and sets about implementing a solution that recognizes and caters for this.
      Remember even though we all have individual needs and wants it could be easily argued hat one of those is to interact and work collaboratively with others.
      The Individual I am talking about need not be separatist. The individual I am talking about is you, me and everyone else that you know.

      • Colonial Viper 12.2.1
        11 August 2012 at 5:56 pm

        You accuse the Right/Left paradigm as being not very useful (and I agree with you) but what you have come up with is even more useless. The cult of individualism with slightly different shading.

        This is massively different from having a society that caters for individual needs and wants of every individual in the society and sets about implementing a solution that recognizes and caters for this.

        A classic (and dishonest) “white is black” “black is white” line of argument.

        • Polish Pride 12.2.1.1
          11 August 2012 at 6:48 pm

          No Dishonesty about it Colonel V –

          this is not the cult of individualism If it is cult, its a cult of understanding us as humans and having needs and wants and having the system meet them.
          Do not see the word ‘individual’ and assume it must be what you know as a ‘current day political paradigm of individualism. If helps and it may abstract it out a little bit for you to see what I mean. Subtitute out the word ‘Individuals’ in all of my and put in the word ‘humans’ instead.then perhaps you will see the concept I am talking about.

          Go through this example and you will see wht I mean –
          You get to design the system for all Human being which are due to arrive on the planet
          What do you start with
          In the example yo can’t use any system that has already been tried. Thats pretty much the only rule.

          For a little more background – I will be retired in about 5 years I have come to this point by doing what is expected in the system and have come out thinking there must be a better way. This will not be implemented fully with my working life even if we started tomorrow.
          So I would have nothing to gain from the system I am talking about and therefore no agenda. I would just like to see the next generations have a better system. I would even like to see you and your family and your friends and everyone else to have to work a lot less and have their needs and wants met simply because the system (the new system) ….can. I would just like to see a better world for everyone.

          One of the key realisations was the stupidity of the system in that it was designed by ‘Man’ for Man. Man could have built any system he wanted, but he builds a system that he then has to work for. Why would he not build the system to instead work for him? That would be the logical thing to do. Anything else is stupidity. Examples Man built the power drill, he did not build the power drill to then work for it, he built the power drill to work for him. The way it is currently would be like building a motor car and then having to push it everywhere you want to go.

          The failing of the current system is that it doesn’t recognise by its design that we all have individual needs and wants .

          That should be the start point in designing the system.

          Then you can ensure that the system you build allows everyone to have their needs and wants satisfied

          Then everyone is happy.

          • McFlock 12.2.1.1.1
            11 August 2012 at 7:25 pm

            What a load of tripe.

            1: individual needs and wants do not exist an a vacuum. Some conflict with others.
            2: The system is not “designed”, and never can be. It evolves based on collective needs, wants, beliefs and scarce resources.
            3: the key individuals who can influence systemic change are those who already benefit from the system. 
            4: because of 3, that means that systemic change for the betterment of the population needs to come from groups, not individuals -political blocs, unions, advocacy groups, and so on.
            5: because of 2, societal progress needs to be incremental and have constant feedback loops for the groups mentioned in 4.
            because of 1, the outcome “everyone is happy” is impossible. So the groups in 4 need to use the incremental changes from 5 to achieve pareto optimality (within some categorical constraints, e.g. “no society should torture a few for the benefit of many”).

                 
            Designing a system from scratch is therefore a pointless exercise. Not to mention that some jerk will figure out how to fuck it up for their own benefit –  e.g. the line from Marx to Stalin.
                   
            All we can do is try to make the world a better place in the little ways we can, using the imperfect information we have at our disposal. 

            • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.1.1.1
              12 August 2012 at 1:44 am

              Polish Pride is one of the most intellectually dishonest “white is black” “black is white” who have come across here for quite a while. Either that or they truly have no concept of either history or human inclinations, but an awful lot of grandiosity. Its a worrying mix.

              So I would have nothing to gain from the system I am talking about and therefore no agenda.

              This is an example of the intellectual dishonesty right here. Detailing out a thousand words, but somehow all with “no agenda”.

              • Polish Pride …
                12 August 2012 at 1:54 am

                No Colonial It is an example of being able to take your Ego out of the equation, having some faith in humanity and being able to see the current system with all its flaws and problems and having the intellectual capacity to solve them with a new alternate system that would work better for everyone.

                I’m curious is this your standard modus operandi come on and attack concepts you have clearly not taken the time to understand properly. If that is the case either you have an agenda or you are on the wrong blog and would be better suited to Whale Oil.

                For the record I hate fucktards that can launch attacks but cannot conceptualize why they disagree other than by making massive assumptions and cannot present an alternate solution.
                I suggest you try again.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  12 August 2012 at 2:11 am

                  For the record I hate fucktards that can launch attacks but cannot conceptualize why they disagree other than by making massive assumptions and cannot present an alternate solution.

                  What has presenting an “alternate solution” got to do with knowing that yours is non-existant and unresourceable?

                  No Colonial It is an example of being able to take your Ego out of the equation

                  What kind of enlightened god do you think you are?

                  I’m curious is this your standard modus operandi come on and attack concepts you have clearly not taken the time to understand properly.

                  Its important to understand non-existant dross properly, before attacking it? Can’t I just expedite matters once its identified as dross and just attack it immediately?

                  I suggest you try again.

                  🙄

                  • Polish Pride …
                    12 August 2012 at 2:20 am

                    You are ye to explain why it won’t work
                    Its all very well and good to just attack something but if you can’t explain the problem and say specifically what is wrong, it simply shows a lack of intellectual capacity on your part and you are showing that stunning well tonight.

                    You have posted in response about 5 times now and not once have you been able to define an actual problem ……Dishonest !?!
                    Yes!

                    I’m going to go with you have n agenda.. most likely that you are a political party member.

                    As for your comment ” What kind of enlightened god do I think I am” ?
                    No just a simple man wanting a better system for everyone that values and fosters those things that are most important in life.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    12 August 2012 at 3:45 am

                    CV, you’re actually wrong here. Polish Pride hasn’t explained himself well but what he’s talking about is a democratic economy (damn, it’s been two years since I wrote that). Resource use would be determined by vote rather than money (which has the benefit of removing the dead weight loss of profit) with all needs to be met as part of the social contract/constitution. Work would be minimal due to use of extreme automation (there’s always going to be something that a human can do that a machine can’t) allowing for a more active social life and engagement with the community. I suspect that a huge amount of research will be going on under such conditions.

                    Almost everything he’s said is in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. The main difference is that he wants to have humans make the decisions rather than the computer. Which seems reasonable as computer security can be bypassed by those with the needed sociopathy.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 August 2012 at 10:48 am

                      OK, I can accept your comments there. I watched the Zeitgeist video a few months ago and found it useful in some regards but completely impractical in others.

                      Democratic socialism is a well founded and well described political-economics and there are many examples of how a democratic economy can work on a microscale. Could it work on a macro-economic basis? I don’t see why not, but you’d have to build up the experience and expertise of the citizenry over time to do so successfully.

                      And the Labour Party was founded on the principles of democratic socialism. To my mind there is no reason why both work places and local economies could not be run as responsive democracies.

                      Presenting these ideas in the way that PP does simply derails discussion from what is already understood and implementable, IMO.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      12 August 2012 at 1:37 pm

                      That is the closest form of existing political thought that I have found that is inline with what I am talking about.

                      I apologize if the way I have framed things has just added confusion for people trying to understand what I am talking about – certainly not my intention.

                      But then that is one of the reasons that I posted here in the hope that intelligent minds could understand what I am driving at and frame it in a way more easily communicated.

                      For me one of the most important points of the system is moving away from the concept of a monetary system. It is this that enables us to fix many of the problems we have as money is no longer a barrier to fixing them.

                      But Draco as you have framed it that is exactly what I was attempting to convey.
                      thankyou

                      CV again apologies for the confusion (not the right word..) I have created.

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 August 2012 at 11:15 pm

                      Thanks PP and all. Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. And the movie … a lot.

                      I’ve been out of the loop in the discussion here for a while because frankly I need a new model to move forward with. In the last year I’ve stumbled across a whole range of new thinking and ideas and the ideas in this movie are a component.

  13. prism 13
    11 August 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Polish Pride 2.09 pm

    Not quite – You see it is only by ensuring a society can satisfy the needs of the individual and therefore EVERY individual that make up that society that the needs of the society can finally be met.

    I can’t stand this. My observation of humans in society is that most of us don’t know our wants from our needs. The whole advertising and PR industry is organised to understand and sort humans into types and classes then measure their characteristics. Then they sell us our needs, which might have been wants, but insert the slogan, ‘remember you are worth it’ whatever it is and whatever it costs.

    The idea that society will ask each of us, that is each of us will ask each other of us what we need boggles my mind.. Economics tell us that that our wants are unlimited and I think that this may be one of the few economic near-absolute statements that are useful and true.

    That we can be satisfied and live in harmony one with another, smiling and fulfilled etc doesn’t and can’t wash. We will always have wars and alarums so that there is a use for the weapons industry and new technology. That is in the ‘developed’ world and we are at present fighting in Afghanistan and our PM is snuggling up to influential people in the USA to help out in any further skirmishes they may wish to start. Then there are the cleaning up jobs after the wars, and the unfettered business damage, that create hell for the little people living at the bottom of whatever, the hill, the social scale whatever. In the undeveloped world, I think it is Papua New Guinea that is huge on rape, and corruption is rife in other places, and there are land and clean water problems, and these all act to prevent a settled, happy society for all.

    Enough about fantasies. I would like to work out how we can apply more leverage to the locked doors and minds of the wealthy and the smug and the fucking uncaring. Human nature always creates problems, and no reorganisation will prevent this but we must keep trying to improve. But I have worked with a number of community organisations with people who embrace high ideals. They can get so busy following the idea that they forget to listen, to be fair, and to be thoughtful to each other. When firm action is needed they will split into cliques and walk over each other.

    But today is an anniversary of an achievement of thinking people in working to overthrow apartheid. Trevor Richards of Hart was talking on Radionz this morning about NZs effect on apartheid and the ANC from the 1981 protest. And another thing, the fact that Nelson Mandela managed to keep his soul intact during his long imprisonment meant that the new country started off in the right spirit and not one of unfettered recrimination and violence.

    • Polish Pride 13.1
      11 August 2012 at 11:20 pm

      “I can’t stand this. My observation of humans in society is that most of us don’t know our wants from our needs.

      Then they need to figure them out. But you don’t have to detail them all up front. You need to have the ability for people to enter what they need so that it cn be designed, fabricated and supplied.

      “The idea that society will ask each of us, that is each of us will ask each other of us what we need boggles my mind..”

      An ERP Computer system can do most of this right now then, add a revised version of trade me on the frond end and you have the start of a system tht will enable this.

      “Economics tell us that that our wants are unlimited and I think that this may be one of the few economic near-absolute statements that are useful and true.”

      If that is what economics tells you then on that point it is wrong. If heroin was legal, would you want it. I certainly wouldn’t. I don’t have a TV, I don’t want one.
      I want a home for my family
      I want good healthy food
      I want a car to get around and every thing required to run it
      I want electricity
      hot and cold running water
      I’d love a campervan
      I want a trailer
      I want to spend quality time with family and friends
      I want to learn and do things I am passionate about
      Most importantly I want myself and everyone else to be free from the bonds of Labour
      I want access to treatment when I am ill.
      Access to parks and the beach
      There would be more but my list is finite and most of it I already have today.
      There are a number of things I have no desire to have.
      I don’t want Susan Boyles CD

      “We will always have wars and alarums so that there is a use for the weapons industry and new technology. That is in the ‘developed’ world and we are at present fighting in Afghanistan and our PM is snuggling up to influential people in the USA to help out in any further skirmishes they may wish to start. Then there are the cleaning up jobs after the wars, and the unfettered business damage, that create hell for the little people living at the bottom of whatever, the hill, the social scale whatever. In the undeveloped world, I think it is Papua New Guinea that is huge on rape, and corruption is rife in other places, and there are land and clean water problems, and these all act to prevent a settled, happy society for all.”

      Everything you just mentioned except ‘Rape’ goes away if you remove money from the equation.

      “Enough about fantasies. I would like to work out how we can apply more leverage to the locked doors and minds of the wealthy and the smug and the fucking uncaring. Human nature always creates problems, and no reorganisation will prevent this but we must keep trying to improve. But I have worked with a number of community organisations with people who embrace high ideals. They can get so busy following the idea that they forget to listen, to be fair, and to be thoughtful to each other. When firm action is needed they will split into cliques and walk over each other.”

      again not thinking big enough. You may very well unlock the doors …but they will only be closed again down the track under the current system as you continue to go from left to Right by a couple of degrees every 3 years.Again think bigger

      But today is an anniversary of an achievement of thinking people in working to overthrow apartheid. Trevor Richards of Hart was talking on Radionz this morning about NZs effect on apartheid and the ANC from the 1981 protest. And another thing, the fact that Nelson Mandela managed to keep his soul intact during his long imprisonment meant that the new country started off in the right spirit and not one of unfettered recrimination and violence.

      Even more reason not to take a defeatest approach to hanging the current system. Where those wanting to change the system from Apartheid prepared to accept anything less tha a complete change in the system. No of course not.

      Instead of saying can’t. Start thinking about how.
      But before you even do that just stop and think for a moment in what ways your life would be different under such a system. What would you do if they put the new system in place and you only had to work 3 months on 3 months off. And all yo needed and wanted was accessible, What would you do with the time you didn’t have to work…..?
      Try it it will lighten your mood and help you see the concepts more easily over time.

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        12 August 2012 at 1:38 am

        🙄

        I wish you all the luck, maybe you can create your system in Minecraft and show us all how it could work

        • Polish Pride 13.1.1.1
          12 August 2012 at 1:45 am

          I know yo are trying to be facetious but I have seen minecraft – my friends 9 year old is addicted to it. I don’t understand the attraction to it

          This where I would do rolly eyes.

  14. Polish Pride 14
    11 August 2012 at 10:48 pm

    1. there is conflict with others now and the system magnifies this with a focus on competition, dog eat dog etc. Conflicts will occur, you need to resolve them. just like we need to resolve them today.

    2. Wrong it can be. I and many others have designed systems. Systems are designed every day. This one is no different. In designing any system for an end user the first two questions will be what are the things you need what are the things that you want? This is followed by what resources do we have and can we provide for them.

    3. Correct – but with the right idea the current system can be brought down. First step towards this is moving to true democracy – National is having a constitutional review soon too. It would be an excellent arena to push for it.

    4. Correct it does Groups are made up of……. individuals. A group with no individuals in it is not a group. Stop thinking of an individual from an isolationist perspective.

    5. Yes it does – you can not wake up one day and decide you are switching tomorrow. There needs to a transition, no doubt about it. But that transition starts with an idea, then people understand and support the idea, then we take the first steps towards it ..and so begins the transition – feedback loops and all.

    “Designing a system from scratch is therefore a pointless exercise. Not to mention that some jerk will figure out how to fuck it up for their own benefit – e.g. the line from Marx to Stalin.”

    Once you have the system satisfying mans needs and wants and giving him true democracy it becomes near impossible to change as the overwhelming majority will be happy.

    “All we can do is try to make the world a better place in the little ways we can, using the imperfect information we have at our disposal.”

    Think bigger, use your mind and your voice they are the best assets at your disposal. But whether think that you can dot or you cant do it. Either way you will be correct.

    • McFlock 14.1
      11 August 2012 at 11:33 pm

      I assume that was a reply to me.
         
      1: The current system does magnify many conflicts. Generally as a result of scarcity. But solve scarcity, and there will still be conflicting needs and wants. Not everyone will be happy. 

            
      2: Looking at societies as systems you can design is hubris in the first degree. Some aspects can be planned within an extremely wide margin of error. But fantasizing about idealised outcomes without focusing on the intermediate points leads to a complex system throwing up massive numbers of exceptions. In the case of social structures, these exceptions involve dystopian outcomes like n@z1s, stal1n and pol pot.
            
      3: National’s constitutional review will be guided and constrained by those in power to avoid democracy.      
             
      4: Groups are made up of individuals who suppress those needs and wants that conflict with the group. The current labour caucus is a good example of what happens to groups where this doesn’t happen.
            
      5: Without a clear path and achievable steps, an idea is just a pipe dream. 
            

      Once you have the system satisfying mans needs and wants and giving him true democracy it becomes near impossible to change as the overwhelming majority will be happy.

           
      Yeah, Marx had the same idea. Sadly it was implemented by people. Whoops on that one.
         
       

      • Polish Pride 14.1.1
        12 August 2012 at 12:09 am

        1. You are coming at it assuming all needs and wants cannot be met to a level that will more than satisfy the individual. I am not.
        We don’t know if we have true scarcity vs needs and wants once those needs and wants are solved using sustainable design to built things to last. If we do this the rate of consumption could fall sharply in many areas.

        2. I have implemented many of these types of systems in big corporates at a certain level all the same principles apply. I could draw a parallel with any part of the required system with an already existing IT system or business process. It is possible. The system need not be any more complex that some off the shelf systems today with some integration layers conceptually.

        3. quite possibly so then we build momentum for the change outside of this process also. Still better to use this avenue to bring it into the politcal arena and the minds of the masses.

        4. You forgot to add under the current system largely due the competitive, combative, dog eat dog nature of the current system onto the end

        5. I have a clear path and achievable steps. I first need to introduce you to the idea. The give you the opportunity to digest it, see how it is different from what we have now and ask any questions you might have and address any flaws you can potentially see. Most importantly you need to determine if such a system could work for you. To answer this you need to ask yourself if it would and if not why not..

        This is not Marx and has never been attempted before. It instead a form of resource based economy.

        • McFlock 14.1.1.1
          12 August 2012 at 12:45 am

          1: needs could probably be sorted, as a general rule. But wants will not – there will always be conflicting wants. Pro-choice vs antiabortionists, legal prostitution vs moral outrage, marriage equality vs religious nutbars, just to name a few.
              
          2: we’re not talking about a corporate system, but a full social system across the planet. The more people you involve, the more chaos comes into the equation. People do not work according to slide rules. That’s why economics is bunk, and it’s why every previous attempt to organise or predict people down to the nth degree has failed dismally.
             
          3: yeah, you and every revolutionary in the last couple of hundred years have said that.
              
          4: no. Think of a Venn diagram. The more circles involved, the smaller the area of overlap.
              
          5: your idea is the same wishy washy happy clappy claptrap I’ve heard before, generally from stoners. Achievable steps would be a massive deviation from the norm.
                
          I bring up Marx because the outcome of “no money, no competition, everyone happy” was his vision, too. But then at least he clearly demonstrated the problem and indeed outlined enough intermediate steps for people to try to follow. 

           

          • Polish Pride 14.1.1.1.1
            12 August 2012 at 1:34 am

            See need to preface this that I don’t see those as true needs or wants for an individual. They are more people attempting to impose their will on or control the lives of others based on their own system of beliefs. I personally would like this to be in the constitution. that for the most part society should always err on the side of freedom of choice for the individual. But these could also be dealt with via true democracy. But I like the constitutional route personally

            Correct we are talking about full social system across the planet …but I have also worked out the steps we would need to take to implement it here whist the rest of the world was still operating under the current system. This doe not attempt to organize or predict necessarily, think of it more a facilitating. So it is in effect kicked off by the person with the want or the need. This is also a wy to ensure greater efficiency in the use of resources.

            3. so we should just not try and stay with the current system and except our lot…? don’t be so defeatist. All significant advances for mankind (and I am not saying this is one) started with two things – The idea and the passion.

            4. or greater depending on how you draw your venn diagram 🙂

            5. Not necessarily example you would start with identifying common and true needs and start shifting the system to ensure those things were met. For example building multi story sustainably developed and designed corporate style towers housing hydroponics for ensuring increased food production to secure the food supply. Society need not shift at all at that point but may reap the benefit of additional food being available.

            Dude seriously !??! I am trying to do this on a blog! as I have said earlier go and watch Zeitgiest Moving Forward on You Tube it will give nearly all of the concepts in one movie.

            But again perhaps your happy and think your life would be better under the current system.

            • McFlock 14.1.1.1.1.1
              12 August 2012 at 1:54 am

              I’d say that even if we restricted the subject to material wants, our word is finite in both material and energy. That means that the person who wants 500 acres and their own personal fleet of humvees and a tertiary-level hospital on standby for their pet rat will not have their wants satisfied. Some people will always want more.
                   
              I think that the people who want more than they can get will find ingenious ways to subvert and corrupt your idealised system. Just as they did in the past.
                 
                   
              A million people with perfectly overlapping wants that do not conflict is not my idea of a utopia. It sounds more like a clone army with 1984 overtones.
                  
              I also think that this restricts the improvements we can pursue with any chance of success small and incremental. And over centuries. All we can really do is try to leave anything we touch less fucked up than when we found it. And to do good wherever we can. It’s not a glamorous revolution in human consciousness, but at least I know it’s something I can do. I choose ethical work, I give to charity, I vote left wing, and I pat dogs. It ain’t much, but I have control over it.

                 
               

              • Polish Pride …
                12 August 2012 at 2:09 am

                So take the system I have presented to you and try to solve any problems you see.

                I think the problem you elude to would exist if we where to shift tomorrow. On the other hand if the shift were gradual and the focus became more about being happy as opposed to just simply obtaining ‘stuff’ I don’t think the problem would exist. That said it should probably be considered up front in case it does. This can potentially be resolved via the true democracy system where society determines what is acceptable and what is not with consideration of the content and intent of the constitution.

                Still you raise a good point.

                • McFlock …
                  12 August 2012 at 8:48 pm

                  You haven’t actually presented a “system”.
                     
                  Actually, all you’ve really said  along the lines of ‘wouldn’t it be great if there were no money, everyone had access to 3d printers, there was true democracy where everyone had non-conflicting needs and wants and therefore there was no disagreement, and we used that free energy that corporates and governments have been hiding from us’. 
                       
                  Yes. Yes it would be great. But it strikes me as wishful thinking, based  on serious drugs. It ain’t gonna happen. And if it did, I’m not sure it would be a utopia.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    12 August 2012 at 10:09 pm

                    its not a utopia
                    I’m not sure how to describe it any better.

                    Start by thinking about any transaction you do involving money during the course of a week.
                    Now play out the same scenarios in your head but without money, as in you don’t have to pay for anything.

                    Then work backwards to determine the activities you need (or the place where you got the product needs all without the money part.
                    So if you catch a cab, then the new scenario is you get in a cab, driver takes you where you want to go , you get out you don’t pay him anything.

                    then think how would automate that process if you could. self drive computer controlled cars (like they have built just recently)

                    Anything you need you just order or go and pick it up from a store or warehouse. You can have an automated stock management system that orders replacement stock every week.

                    • Bill …
                      12 August 2012 at 10:22 pm

                      No-one is going to spend their time driving cabs without the negative incentive of being unable to put food on the table if they don’t and the positive incentive of being to afford *that new gizmo* if they do it for a few hours longer.

                      The same is true of most of the jobs people spend their time in.

                      Also. you haven’t thought of any mechanism that would deter people from simply *helping themselves* to whatever they wanted and , essentially hoarding. Or any mechanism that would prevent people acting in concert and taking control of a resource by force and demanding that people *pay* in some way to access it.

                      And so on.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2012 at 10:26 pm

                      It comes down to resources, energy, skills, and power. 
                           
                      Power came before money. Read about it.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      12 August 2012 at 10:45 pm

                      Also. you haven’t thought of any mechanism that would deter people from simply *helping themselves* to whatever they wanted and , essentially hoarding.

                      What would be the point?

                      Or any mechanism that would prevent people acting in concert and taking control of a resource by force and demanding that people *pay* in some way to access it.

                      There’s only one mechanism that can do that – openness. It’s why we advocate for open government and demanding that businesses keep records of their dealings.

                    • rosy …
                      12 August 2012 at 11:18 pm

                      Also. you haven’t thought of any mechanism that would deter people from simply *helping themselves* to whatever they wanted and , essentially hoarding.

                      What would be the point?

                      Because they can. Don’t spend too long looking for the point. It doesn’t matter how low the bar for compliance is set, this is what drives some people e.g. tax dodgers, black market profiteers – they just can.

        • blue leopard 14.1.1.2
          12 August 2012 at 1:24 am

          @Polish Pride (12:09am)

          Am only getting bits and bobs from reading your comments. You have mentioned no money, focussing on attending to the needs and wants of humans (a term I am a whole lot easier with than “individuals”), and you mentioned something to do with no government and that is about all I have picked up.

          Such comments sounded like you were presenting something akin to neo liberalism, (hence my last comment consisted of a serious need for the merits of the “group” to be considered too), however having read more of your responses to others, it may be that you really are attempting to present a new approach. If this is so, I commend you for attempting to present a positive option, it is a nice change from endless criticisms of what is going wrong. (Although such can be most comforting when one is viewing things similarly!)

          I am interested in the arguments put up by Mc Flock and Prism. I relate with the first couple of paragraphs of what Prism expressed.

          And adding to this: If one thinks of systems and wishes to devise a new one, definately suggest the need to have a good understanding of human qualities-both the strengths and the weakness- and not base it on an idealised version.

          There is a kind of paradox/irony in trying to think up a new system, especially when idealism is involved: if we all focussed on satisfaction rather than want, without changing anything else, most systems presented would work better than they do currently.

          Expanding on that point: if we all were encouraged from birth to be “whole” people; imbibed with an understanding of our interconnectedness and honouring such, as well as encouraged to be connected with ourselves what we think, want, and more importantly need, (honouring both ourselves and others) and encouraged to think intelligently; this system would be healthier than it is. We would be less open to manipulation by those of less scruples. If we had a more sincere/healthy version of democracy things would work better, also.

          Which leads to the question: Are our systems breaking down due to the system being unworkable, or are our systems reflecting the attitudes of the individuals working within the system?

          Anyway your idea sounds interesting, can you expand? Or do you have a website where you have presented the idea in full?

          • Polish Pride 14.1.1.2.1
            12 August 2012 at 1:40 am

            Thankyou … need to go to bed will try to respond in full tomorrow.
            All concepts are discussed in Zietgeist Moving Forward free on Youtube although they talk bout using computers vs True democracy to remove the corruptable human factor from the equation. I have more faith in humanity.

          • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1.2.2
            12 August 2012 at 3:22 am

            Are our systems breaking down due to the system being unworkable, or are our systems reflecting the attitudes of the individuals working within the system?

            Our systems are breaking down due to the psycho/sociopathy of the people in power.

            • Polish Pride 14.1.1.2.2.1
              12 August 2012 at 12:55 pm

              “Our systems are breaking down due to the psycho/sociopathy of the people in power”

              Who are a product of the system by its very nature… or have steered the system to where it is today.

          • Polish Pride 14.1.1.2.3
            12 August 2012 at 12:53 pm

            It is essentially a Resources Based Economy where money is taken out of the equation and societies goal is to have a system that provides for peoples needs and wants and is actively geared toward automating roles where possible and freeing people from having to work. It is not utopian as there will be many roles still required.
            Many functions of Govt will still exist, police, fire, health, education and probably others.
            Things in many areas MAY be decentralized so as to better meet the needs of a region or a city or a district.
            There would need to be a groups that would take what the people have decided via true democracy and ensure that they are implemented provided it is in line with the constitution (that would also be required.

            “And adding to this: If one thinks of systems and wishes to devise a new one, definately suggest the need to have a good understanding of human qualities-both the strengths and the weakness- and not base it on an idealised version.”

            I agree with this whole heartedly. I believe that if done correctly the constitution and true democracy would cater for this along with laws as we have now (although not necessarily the same ones).
            Jacque Fresco does not share my optimism and faith in the human race in this area. He feels that because of Human nature that for it to remain uncorrupted the decision making needs to be left to computers and I understand his reason for thinking this way and coming to the conclusion he has.

            Your next to points I agree with. The only problem I see is that the current system by its very nature is not set up to free people from the bonds of Labour. It is in fact the direct opposite.

            “Which leads to the question: Are our systems breaking down due to the system being unworkable, or are our systems reflecting the attitudes of the individuals working within the system?”

            I believe it to be both although I would put it that things are as they are because the system by its very nature fosters the attitudes of the individuals working in the system that we are seeing today. Where we are is a product of the system.

            No website sorry at least not of my own
            best I can do is point you in the direction of Zietgiest Moving Forward which will give anyone a really good understanding of the concepts – warning though it is long and might put you to sleep for the first part but it is worth viewing as it lays the foundation so to speak. But feel free to determine what you like and what you don’t like or are not sure about.

            • blue leopard 14.1.1.2.3.1
              12 August 2012 at 4:56 pm

              PP (12 53pm)

              I will have to watch “Zeitgeist Moving Forward” again because I can’t remember what it was saying.

              Re Draco T Bastard’s
              ““Our systems are breaking down due to the psycho/sociopathy of the people in power””

              and PP’s:
              “Who are a product of the system by its very nature… or have steered the system to where it is today.”

              This, to me seems like a major problem.

              Unless we simply wish to remain in the “safety” of bewailing our fate and agreeing to victim-hood, don’t we have to ask the question why “unhelpful” qualities and activities are being rewarded so intently and why is this continuing to be the case despite the development of these activities having become so blatant?

              Where I define “unhelpful qualities and activities” as lack of trustworthiness, lies, fraud, deception, dissemination of disinformation…stealing en masse…actually put en masse behind all the other words…probably plenty more…hopefully you get my drift…

              Why is this unfettered corruption continuing? and How do we effectively demand accountability?

              My view being, unless we, (people en mass), address this particular elephant in the room NO SYSTEM will function soundly
              🙁

              • Bill …
                12 August 2012 at 5:07 pm

                Our current economy rewards the behaviours you mention. I mean, that’s not too difficult to see, yes?

                So any alternative economy would have to be such that those undesirable traits were either economically neutral or economically detrimental to any individual who’s actions were informed by those behaviours.

                And it would have to be an economy that, on top of that, fostered and rewarded more desirable traits.

                So for example, an economy where individual economic competitiveness didn’t yield any advantage (and more, resulted in disadvantage) but co-operation brought rewards.

                • blue leopard …
                  12 August 2012 at 5:25 pm

                  @ Bill

                  hmm…I deliberately honed in on words such as “corruption” specifically in order to avoid a debate that has already had a lot of airing…over the centuries…

                  i.e Does economic competitiveness necessarily involve lack of trustworthiness, lies, fraud, deception, dissemination of disinformation…stealing en masse…

                  I don’t think so, yet apparently a lot of the big players think this is the way things are.

                  Can competitiveness be separated from these things in order that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater?

                  I agree co-operation is something that needs rewarding, yet this raises a horrible spectre in my mind: Actually co-operation IS being rewarded, (…in some circles…) I mean weren’t there a whole lot of banks/people involved in creating the Libor scandal? (…co-operating with one another…) And I guess there really are a lot of people co-operating in high places to keep fiascos such as revolving doors continuing….hmm so I guess “co-operation” also needs to be qualified i.e. Co-operating toward what end?

                  • Bill …
                    12 August 2012 at 5:54 pm

                    Conniving with others to extract personal advantage from a ‘loop-hole’ in a system isn’t quite co-operation as such. In fact, even under the present set up it (the libor rate fixing) is being viewed as fraud…and illegal. Whether any jail terms are sought is another question and is more a question of the powerful looking after their own. And no, that’s not co-operation either – just vested interests (reasonably, from their perspective) not wanting to rock the boat.

                    But anyway. Why attempt to retain competition in the economy? Competition requires that you seek to rip off any and all other economic actors to get ahead (short term ‘unholy alliances’ aside). If you don’t think that’s the case, I’d be interested to hear how you come to your conclusion.

                    And cooperation surely isn’t that difficult to define? Wouldn’t some more or less level playing field on access to information and input to decision making be a pre-requisite for something claiming to be co-operative ie, something from which a vertical division of labour was absent? And then, some requirement for knowledge/skill sharing to ensure a vertical division of labour couldn’t re-emerge over time be required. And wouldn’t equitable personal and communal/social benefits (where such benefits could be derived) need to be components of something that claimed to be co-operative?

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 August 2012 at 6:30 pm

                      @ Bill (5.54pm)

                      My attempt at avoiding the issue of economic competitiveness was in order to focus on the problem of corruption, out of the belief that- never mind matters such as economic competition,-if we could look at the corruption going on square in the eyes and address that, then I suspect that a whole lot of issues we face (Western world-wide at least), would disappear and we might not have to reinvent the wheel after all.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      12 August 2012 at 6:41 pm

                      My attempt at avoiding the issue of economic competitiveness was in order to focus on the problem of corruption…

                      The corruption is a result of the competitiveness therefore you can’t view the two as separate.

                    • Bill …
                      12 August 2012 at 6:41 pm

                      But corruption is the handmaiden of competition…both in terms of winning advantage (sometimes) and certainly almost always in terms of maintaining any position achieved. (Cronyism, graft, revolving door appointments, ‘gatekeepers’, dissemination of misinformation, lies etc, etc, etc)

                      And ‘re-inventing the wheel’ only applies where whatever is being attempted has been tried before. So, not sure what you’re meaning there.

                      But sure. A whole raft of new legislation could be put in place to combat current corruption and fraud and so on. And by and by, the legislation would be rolled back where it interfered in the activities or prospective activities of powerful economic actors.

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 August 2012 at 7:18 pm

                      DT Bastard & Bill

                      Ah! Thanks, that is probably Politics 101 you are catching me up on there.

                      However, is there a logical fallacy in this “corruption being the handmaiden of competition” bit somewhere?, (that you both referred to)

                      What if the handmaiden isn’t too monogamous? She might join forces with whatever is in power?

                      Corruption is the result of power probably more than it is of competitiveness. It is just that competitiveness creates the power currently.

                      Wouldn’t we still have laws/a system protecting monopoly of power if it weren’t for the corruption? And on addressing the corruption other things might start falling back into order (functioning as opposed to the chaos we are heading for by the looks).

                      “Reinventing the wheel” was in reference to PP’s posts and other approaches I have heard regarding setting up a whole new system; at which point I can’t help questioning whether the system we [are meant to] have now hasn’t got a whole lot of merits which are being thrown away “with the bathwater” so to speak.

                    • Bill …
                      12 August 2012 at 7:34 pm

                      What if the handmaiden isn’t too monogamous? She might join forces with whatever is in power?

                      yup. For sure. Which is why some careful thought on the structures of whatever system is being created is needed. You can’t create positions within an economy that can be ‘captured’ by groups seeking to elevate and privilege themselves. And the best answer I’ve seen to that is a decentraised system…ie, one predicated on substantive democracy with info structures for determining productive needs and capacities that are free from any coordinator input (ie free from the need for a political or economic clique/committee or whatever)

                      And curious. What beneficial aspects do you think there are in a market model that couldn’t be preserved in a democratic model?

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 August 2012 at 8:01 pm

                      @ Bill

                      “And curious. What beneficial aspects do you think there are in a market model that couldn’t be preserved in a democratic model?”

                      When I referred to “the system we [are meant to] have now”
                      I was referring to democracy and perhaps capitalism. I don’t really care much re capitalism, not so very fussed, yet I am increasingly supportive of [real] democracy. (Read: I am f*king furious about how democracy is being dicked around with and all other issues pail into insignificance)

                      I guess I implied support for some kind of market mechanism when I didn’t shoot competition down in flames. Think the competition thing works well with some checks/protections in place.

                      Really don’t know a huge amount about the whole market thing, sounds like its a pretty screwed thing to base the organization of the whole of humanity on and in this respect I agree with Soro’s views re reflexivity

                      http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0ca06172-bfe9-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html#axzz23JfqMkv4

                      (haven’t read this whole link, it appeared to be presenting his view on the subject)

                      Which seems to be a view of promoting a suggestion that a system devised for humans, needs to take into account that humans will be interacting in such a system, for it to have a chance of working well….

              • Draco T Bastard …
                12 August 2012 at 5:30 pm

                Why is this unfettered corruption continuing?

                Because, as Bill says, our economic system rewards such corruption.

                and How do we effectively demand accountability?

                By putting in place the necessary regulations and enforcement. Unfortunately, the politicians seem to be incapable of doing this as they listen to the people who benefit from that corruption rather than principle and morality.

                • blue leopard …
                  12 August 2012 at 5:50 pm

                  Draco T Bastard

                  “Unfortunately, the politicians seem to be incapable of doing this as they listen to the people who benefit from that corruption rather than principle and morality.”

                  …Yes it IS rather unfortunate, isn’t it!

                  ARE politicians accountable to the people? or is it true, that the only real accountability is to “The Crown” (and what is that referring to?)

                  Would someone in the know assure me that there really is a place where you can point to in our ad hoc collection of constitutional rules that require our politicians to place the wellbeing of New Zealanders uppermost on their agenda?

                  I had a rather unsuccessful search for such a few months ago.
                  Then wrote to rather a lot of politicians asking them this question
                  …and got NO response to that particular question…

                  Since then I have intermittently wondered about it…and worried…

                  My view being if there were a majority of politicians on either the left or right who really had New Zealanders wellbeing uppermost on their minds, we wouldn’t have half the problems we have at present.

                  For Example: How would the threats to our legal rights involved within the TPPA be considered for even half a minute?

                  • Carol …
                    12 August 2012 at 6:21 pm

                    Interesting. It has been debated for a while by our pollies, but still they have to pledge allegiance to the queen:

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10739532

                    As Mr Goff said in 2004, “whatever the constitutional theory, in practice the government’s authority is derived from the people”. MP Mat Robson backed him saying the oath of allegiance to the Queen was ridiculous because “nobody pays attention to it”.

                    The discussion paper notes that the parliamentary oath dates back to the time when there was no separation between church and state and “a promise before God to be loyal to the King or Queen, anointed by God, was a very powerful undertaking”.

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 August 2012 at 6:48 pm

                      LOL!!

                      Carol Thanks for the link containing:

                      “What a treasonable act by Te Tai Tokerau byelection victor Hone Harawira, to stand up in Parliament and swear an oath to honour his election pledges.

                      No wonder Speaker Lockwood Smith was so desperate to shuffle him out of the building. What an awful precedent that would have set. And what next might he propose. Pre-election performance reviews for each MP?”

                      Really laughed! 😀

                      The queen allegiance is all I could find, there are references to respecting democracy; and there was another factor which aimed at protecting politicians; something about they shouldn’t be made to be accountable because they are acting in the interests of a lot of people.

                      I’m being lazy…hoping someone might know without my having to trawl through legal papers etc.

                      …One would think that our elected representatives would be quick to answer such a question though…..if there was an easy answer…..??

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    12 August 2012 at 6:38 pm

                    Would someone in the know assure me that there really is a place where you can point to in our ad hoc collection of constitutional rules that require our politicians to place the wellbeing of New Zealanders uppermost on their agenda?

                    Obviously not else the present government would be done for treason for selling state assets when it’s obvious to everyone that doing so is detrimental to NZ.

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 August 2012 at 6:53 pm

                      DT Bastard

                      Could be other reasons for this not occurring

                      Something akin to why war crimes committed by USA and UK go by with no punishment.

                      …although perhaps there was some irony involved in your response…
                      😀

  15. Polish Pride 15
    11 August 2012 at 11:32 pm

    Iceland are putting in a new system for themselves right now. Too close to the old one but the point is they are using true democracy and putting in place the best system that they can see right now.

    So changing the system is very possible…….!

  16. handle 16
    12 August 2012 at 12:33 am

    Anyone who thinks the answer to democracy is an ERP system deserves our sympathy (and possibly a straitjacket).

    • Polish Pride 16.1
      12 August 2012 at 12:57 am

      The concepts for part of what is required is consistent with functionality that ERP systems provide

      Might I suggest you present some credentials if you are going to make such a statement – mine 20 years working on requirements and designs for a myriad of systems for both the Public and the Private sector…. among other things 🙂

      Perhaps you need to try to open your mind more..
      Perhaps you prefer the current system….
      That response is what I’d expect over on whale oil and certainly not inline with the level of intellect that has been shown on here in discussing this so far.

      • handle 16.1.1
        12 August 2012 at 1:04 am

        Your silliness has been indulged too long already. Any dumptruck driver realises you can’t automate complex decisions by large groups of people. It’s a control freak’s wet dream.

        • Polish Pride 16.1.1.1
          12 August 2012 at 11:33 am

          No one is saying you need to automate complex decisions by large groups of people.
          Representative democracy is a control freaks wet dream as you have so eloquently put it by comparison as this system give the power back to the people. It does not put it in the hands of a select few who can then decide to feather their own nest rather than fixing problems for those they are supposed to represent.
          The focus of the current system is survival. Everyone works in the system and spends a lrge chunk of their time doing this so tht they can ensure they and their family just ‘survive’ It doesn’t leave a lot of time to fix the real problems and with all the Egos and agendas that come with politics it is nigh impossible.

  17. Polish Pride 17
    12 August 2012 at 1:13 am

    Do have to say that discussing this on here and the responses are light years ahead in grasping the concepts and posing problems for the new system or saying why you think it wouldn’t work than the same conversation Whale Oil where the overwhelming majority failed to even be able to conceptualize the concepts being discussed.

    I find it odd that one would expect the most intelligent people to theoretically be the most successful in todays society and thus be Right of centre on the political spectrum. This is certainly not my experience however.

    • blue leopard 17.1
      12 August 2012 at 1:31 am

      “I find it odd that one would expect the most intelligent people to theoretically be the most successful in todays society and thus be Right of centre on the political spectrum. This is certainly not my experience however.”

      LOL!!!

      A learning curve!

    • mike 17.2
      12 August 2012 at 2:52 am

      “I find it odd that one would expect the most intelligent people to theoretically be the most successful in todays society and thus be Right of centre on the political spectrum. This is certainly not my experience however.”

      I find the first sentence a little odd, but I think I see what your saying.

      And so the logical inference from your experience would be… (you can do it now… open your mind a little wider… think bigger…)

      The most intellgent people are on the _____ side of the political spectrum.

      My concept of ‘success’ might need to be _____.

      revised
      left

      Honestly if your surprised about the relative intelligence levels on display at Whaleoil vs The Standard then you’ve got a lot to learn and probably not much to say that will inspire the highly educated people who post here.

      BTW if you are interested in getting some worthwhile criticism of your big idea, I’d suggest dropping the you people just don’t get what I’m saying tone. I’m talking about the “open your mind”s and the “think bigger”s, and such insults to intelligence. Makes it kinda difficult to take you seriously. There’s plenty of people here I’d bet who are already familiar with the idea of a resource based economy and the Venus Project.

      Right now you’re kinda looking like the Mormon at the door who’s trying to tell me all about a guy called Jesus as if I’ve never heard of him.

      • Polish Pride 17.2.1
        12 August 2012 at 10:56 am

        Mike – I am smart enough and have lived long enough to understand that the more I know the more I have to learn and my mind is always open enough to learn and consider anything. Including why the current system doesn’t work and in all likelihood (unless you can install a left wing dictatorship) the ‘re-educates’ those on the right of the political spectrum when they get into power.

        Ask yourself is your mind open enough if you think the solution is to continue with a system that fails to make any real progress because of the constant pull towards the right? i.e. even if the left gets into power, I we look at history we cn deduct that they will in all likelihood be there for 6 years before a pull towards the right again. And so it will continue.
        Continuing to do the same thing expecting different results……madness

      • Polish Pride 17.2.2
        12 August 2012 at 11:22 am

        Undefined below was me and there was more to the reply
        in short get what you’re saying about ‘open your mind’ but hard to get people to think outside boundaries of the current system.

        “Honestly if your surprised about the relative intelligence levels on display at Whaleoil vs The Standard then you’ve got a lot to learn and probably not much to say that will inspire the highly educated people who post here.”

        There’ one of the problems of the left -the we know everything and what could anyone else possibly bring to the table that could be worth listening to. This is another reason why the current system has never been able to fix the problems, But then in all fairness it has not been designed to allow you to fix the real problems.
        And all it actually means is that I have spent most of my life out in the real world doing what is required of me by the system rather than bashing away on blog sites continuing to push Left or Right viewpoint of a system that will never solve the problems it really needs to because of its very nature.

      • Polish Pride 17.2.3
        12 August 2012 at 11:27 am

        The key difference is that I haven’t just watched a movie or read a book. I have sat down and tried to redesign the system from scratch with a view to solving the problems we need to. I then find that the system I logically come up with has been determined before by a man similarly disillusioned with the current systems inability to fix the problems that are facing ‘Man’

        • prism 17.2.3.1
          12 August 2012 at 11:31 am

          Polish Pride
          Who is this man who came up with same ideas 20 years ago? What is his name? Is he the maker of or in this Zeitgeist film?

          • Polish Pride 17.2.3.1.1
            12 August 2012 at 12:27 pm

            No not the maker of Zeitgiest
            ( in fact it was probably more than 20 years ago now)

            The mans name is Jacque Fresco with his Venus project
            http://www.thevenusproject.com/
            it is explained better in the Zeitgeist movie though imho.

            There are some things I’d do differently – I’d have true democracy, where he believes because of human nature all decisions should be made after all relevant information is loaded into a computer and effectively be made by the computer running the predefined logic. I see his reasoning but think true democracy is a better option.

      • Polish Pride 17.2.4
        12 August 2012 at 12:20 pm

        “My concept of ‘success’ might need to be _____.

        revised
        left”

        I like the way you put that – I would have done the same.

        Problem is I have was ‘Left’ for a long time until realizing that neither side had the answer because of the very nature of the system.
        Even if the Left were in power for 50 years people would in all likelihood still be working a 40 hour week and be slaves to the system. There is a better way.

  18. Colonial Viper 18
    12 August 2012 at 1:46 am

    Just ridiculous flight of fancies. The Zeitgeist stuff is OK but has no idea of either the physical or psychological constraints our civilisation is running into.

  19. Polish Pride 19
    12 August 2012 at 2:01 am

    Then gain perhaps Colonial you have not taken the time to understand the concepts being presented. If you have work out what you like and wht you don’t and formulate a proper argument or is that too much to ask!?!
    Alternately sit down and redesign the system yourself and let us know your solution and how it addresses the problems we are facing today.

    You come on here with innuendo and half truths-

    “but has no idea of either the physical or psychological constraints our civilisation is running into”.

    Post what you think the physical or psychological constraints you believe our civilization is running into are and I will tell you whether or not the system can resolve them.

    So far the ONLY one being dishonest here is you!

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      12 August 2012 at 2:05 am

      Post what you think the physical or psychological constraints you believe our civilization is running into are and I will tell you whether or not the imaginary, non-existent, in concept-only system can resolve them.

      fify

  20. Polish Pride 20
    12 August 2012 at 2:10 am

    Well done you have simply proved my point about you!

    • mike 20.1
      12 August 2012 at 4:44 am

      The onus is on you to explain how exactly this system you’ve got sitting completed on a shelf somewhere is going to defeat the myriad problems we face today.

      So far all you’ve given us is a lot of (really really) vague ‘concepts’ and ‘ideas’ with about as much substance as The Prime Minister’s Hour on RadioLive. You’ve given us quite a lot of “I’ve got it all figured out because I design management systems” hubris. You keep telling us your system will solve our problems because it will satisfy our needs and wants of all individuals without saying how. (And yes I’ve seen Z – Moving Forward so please tell me something I don’t know.)

      I’ve got one for you. Please explain how your system will satisfy the needs and wants of the 1% of the population who are psychopaths. I know they are aholes but they are still human beings and a part of our society. I’ll bet that number 1 on their Dear Santa wants and needs list that your going to get us all to submit via Trademe is that they don’t want this society. Not their style. And more of a need than a want actually. You did say ALL individuals right?

      Then explain how your system will guard against the political psychopaths, who have successfully infiltrated and corrupted every form of government we have ever tried. Let me take a guess at your answer: you will simply design the system so that that can’t happen. Oh sh*t looks like I just answered my own question!

      I think you’ve been smoking your own product for too long myself.

      • Polish Pride 20.1.1
        12 August 2012 at 10:33 am

        this a blog I have done my best to explain a concept for changing the world system. It might very well be up to me but as I said before, I’ll be retired soon so it matters not to me whether you want to continue with the current system and the Right vs Left paradigm for all Eternity.

        There is only so much that can be explained on a blog.
        If you are genuinely interested then the movie Zeitgiest Moving Forward free on youtube will give you a better understanding of the concepts. of the why and the what. All that remains is the how and this can also be achieved.

        If you have specific questions I will endeavor to do my best to answer them.

        • mike 20.1.1.1
          12 August 2012 at 4:33 pm

          “this a blog I have done my best to explain a concept for changing the world system.”

          I’ve seen you explain zero about anything to do with actually ‘changing’ the system. Again how? Let me guess, ‘the internet’, ‘raise awareness’, ‘bring it up at the next National Party meeting’.

          “It might very well be up to me but as I said before, I’ll be retired soon so it matters not to me whether you want to continue with the current system and the Right vs Left paradigm for all Eternity.”

          So… the onus is on you to explain but you can’t be bothered because it doesn’t matter to you anyway. ‘Cop-out’ comes to mind.

          “If you are genuinely interested then the movie Zeitgiest Moving Forward free on youtube will give you a better understanding of the concepts. of the why and the what.”

          Didn’t I just tell you that I’ve already seen it?

          “All that remains is the how and this can also be achieved.”

          zzzzzz…

          “If you have specific questions I will endeavor to do my best to answer them.”

          Over it.

      • Polish Pride 20.1.2
        12 August 2012 at 11:58 am

        “I’ve got one for you. Please explain how your system will satisfy the needs and wants of the 1% of the population who are psychopaths. I know they are aholes but they are still human beings and a part of our society. I’ll bet that number 1 on their Dear Santa wants and needs list that your going to get us all to submit via Trademe is that they don’t want this society. Not their style. And more of a need than a want actually. You did say ALL individuals right?”

        It will satisfy their physical needs and wants it might not cater for their psychopathic desires That would be up to society as a whole -so I am picking. No.
        Please also realise that there are many people out in the real world who simply do not understand of have any comprehension of the psychopathic nature of the 1% and consider the likes of you and me to be conspiracy theorists on this matter.
        If you were looking for justification to dismiss the system and your justification is now that by not catering for the psychopathic desires of the 1% the system doesn’t cater for everyone …. then perhaps you might want to think bout that a little more.
        In fact if anything it caters for the 99% need to not be controlled and manipulated by the 1% any longer.

        “Then explain how your system will guard against the political psychopaths, who have successfully infiltrated and corrupted every form of government we have ever tried. Let me take a guess at your answer: you will simply design the system so that that can’t happen. Oh sh*t looks like I just answered my own question!”

        True democracy takes care of this.

        • mike 20.1.2.1
          12 August 2012 at 4:14 pm

          “True democracy takes care of this.”

          I predicted you’d give me a vague non-answer to this and look what you did.

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explain

          • Bill 20.1.2.1.1
            12 August 2012 at 4:28 pm

            How about a democracy as in, each person has an input into decisions that will affect them (roughly) in line with how much a decision would affect them? Pretty simply, innit?

            eg. My say in the colour of socks you put on? None.
            My say on your idea to run stock on a river that is also my and others’ source of drinking water? Huge.
            My say on your idea to run stock on a river that has absolutely no impact or bearing on any part of my life? None.

            and so on.

            • prism 20.1.2.1.1.1
              12 August 2012 at 9:15 pm

              Bill But a responsible citizen needs to have some input into things that happen outside his or her own area. “stock on a river that has abolsutely no impact or bearing on any part of my life – none. That’s bollocks. This sort of thing will have a bearing on ‘responsible citizen’ including those with particular cultural beliefs about rivers ie Maori, and also individuals and groups that can be passionate about not trashing our clean waters.

              • Bill …
                13 August 2012 at 9:56 am

                I think your overlooking a few things.

                Even where I am not involved in a decision process, there are many others who are and many of those people would share similar concerns on ,in this instance, stock being by their drinking water supply. And it’s also not a numbers game – so no need to ‘recruit’ people to ‘your cause’. And, of course, there is no higher authority to appeal to or that over ride decisions that we have made. In the end it’s about people arriving at the best decisions for all involved…not a case of *this*, or if not *this*, then *that*.

                Now, if your a guy who wants to run stock by a river and doesn’t give a toss about getting completely off-side with your local population, then hey…good luck to you. The threat of losing your beasts or being being ostrasized – and what I mean by that is that you are literally run out of town, are powerful control mechanisms. It’s how governance of the commons used to work. And it did work. (There was no ‘tragedy of the commons’)

            • Polish Pride 20.1.2.1.1.2
              13 August 2012 at 10:21 am

              To a degree I would agree with this also … to a degree. I wouldn’t want to see you building a nuclear power plant on your property. Once money is removed from the equation it becomes easier to determine what the best solution is, fabricate it and put it in place.

              • Bill …
                13 August 2012 at 10:31 am

                There is no ‘your’ property in a de-monetized economy, yes? And a nuclear power plant would affect anyone, no matter where they lived. And aginn…what is the problem with exchanging tokens of trade that can later be used to get the item desired? You have fish (I want fish). But I only have chickens, which you don’t want. So why can’t I give you a token of trade (ie money) that you can then use to get the pork you desire?

                In a non-market economy that money would not have a value in and of itself. It would effectively have no worth…so there would be little point in saving it all up or stealing someone elses. It would merely be a convenient tool in the area of trade and barter.

                • Polish Pride …
                  13 August 2012 at 12:44 pm

                  “There is no ‘your’ property in a de-monetized economy, yes?”
                  That is the view under Jacque Frescos solution. I would probably differ with him on this too. I don’t think a concept of ‘no ownership’ ownership is really feasible if for no other reason other than people are not likely to accept it.
                  For example A person should have an ownership of their home, furnature vehicle etc.
                  Certain other things perhaps not. – take a new Chev Camaro I’d love to take one for a drive around a race track. I might only want to do this once every 3 months or less. It is very inefficient and a waste of the resource for me to ‘own’ it. So determining what should or could be owned is another task but one that everyone should have a say in to some degree.
                  This also comes back in my view, to what people should have an inalienable right to have… example: quality healthy food, clean drinking water, access to medical treatment, appropriate clothing, quality education, freedom from persecution, A loving Home. – all should have these.

                  “And a nuclear power plant would affect anyone, no matter where they lived. And aginn…what is the problem with exchanging tokens of trade that can later be used to get the item desired? You have fish (I want fish). But I only have chickens, which you don’t want. So why can’t I give you a token of trade (ie money) that you can then use to get the pork you desire?”

                  Why is the token of trade even required?
                  You want fish, the fish is there, take the fish, but only take what you need.
                  The Pork is there, I want the pork so I take the pork but again I only take what I need.
                  Their will still be a level of waste though and we need to cater for that too.

                  One of the reasons for getting rid of money or tokens of trade is because what happens when you need something but don’t have the tokens of trade? You need it. It is right there in front of you. You can pick it up, but you can’t have it because you don’t have the tokens of trade.
                  Then you may have someone come along and say we don’t have enough tokens of trade, we need. more. I will solve this problem. I will put in place a fractional reserve system and loan people tokens of trade. They can deposit the tokens of trade they do have with me and hen they do I will use that as the basis to create more tokens of trade to then loan to others. And pretty soon we are back where we are today.
                  One of the key things I tried to build in was a way to ensure we could NEVER end up back where we are today.

                  “In a non-market economy that money would not have a value in and of itself. It would effectively have no worth…so there would be little point in saving it all up or stealing someone elses. It would merely be a convenient tool in the area of trade and barter.”

                  I get what you are saying (which makes part of what I just wrote above invalid beacuse a value was again put on the token of trade). I still would say why is it even required in the long run. That said I can see huge benefits in what you are talking about transitionally. This would give people a good level of comfort as it is not a significant shift from what they do today to get goods and services.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    13 August 2012 at 4:24 pm

                    I think that those things that cannot be removed from the commons or are essential to the functioning of society should always be owned by the society. Land, air, water and minerals (copper, aluminium, iron, etc) come under this definition. What wouldn’t would be jewellery, homes, cars etc. Although, as far as homes go I think the state should own the building but it is ‘yours’ as long as you need it.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      13 August 2012 at 8:07 pm

                      I also think that their should be the right of inheritance. Imagine you have lived in a property all your life, raised you family in it poured your heart and soul into it. I’d want to be able to pass it onto my kids.

                      I am also concerned that state ownership could lead to communism or subversion of the system to the position of the needs of the state over the needs of the individuals in the society.
                      And then your a few steps away from dictatorship.
                      It may be an unfounded fear but it is one I have none the less.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  13 August 2012 at 4:15 pm

                  And aginn…what is the problem with exchanging tokens of trade that can later be used to get the item desired?

                  Because it always leads to the system you want to get rid of. Notably, interest and over accumulation by a few resulting in poverty for the many.

          • Polish Pride 20.1.2.1.2
            12 August 2012 at 9:45 pm

            Go and do some research on true democracy think about what you would do if you could directly vote on issues and didn’t have to depend on politicians – Thats where you find the answer.
            You exhibit a typical trait of many in your generation, you need to be spoon fed.
            So you watched Zeitgiest Moving forward and couldn’t figure out how we get from where we are today to there. Did you try!?! Did you actually think about what would be required. Start with ensuring you can produce food for the people in society,
            Make sure you have energy fuel source
            Start investing in automated manufacturing, 3D printing.
            Have the ability to provide good quality housing.
            Education
            Health Care
            Police
            Fire
            Theres your start point

            Move the political system either by shifting a party or preferable by a move to true democracy.
            There is a constitutional review coming up, there’s your second

            • McFlock 20.1.2.1.2.1
              12 August 2012 at 10:14 pm

              okay, now you’re moving into ‘oh noes I iz 2 smart for all deez fulz’ territory. And that is indeed a possibility.
                   
              Possibility 2: we get your point, and it’s nothing new or realistic.
                   
              Possibility 3: you aren’t explaining yourself very well. 

            • locus 20.1.2.1.2.2
              12 August 2012 at 10:24 pm

              PP – your epiphany for a utopian world is touching – and touched.

              3D printing, automation and your individualistic concept of democracy will do nothing to change politics – or the number of people in NZ who are unemployed or who currently do not have meaningful, well rewarded jobs.

              Perhaps you could apply your new-found wisdom to explaining how to achieve this…. and maybe start with how you are going to convince free-market capitalists to change their minds? Without writing another rambling essay please.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                12 August 2012 at 10:38 pm

                3D printing, automation and your individualistic concept of democracy will do nothing to change politics – or the number of people in NZ who are unemployed or who currently do not have meaningful, well rewarded jobs.

                Polish Pride has been quite consistent about the fact that work would seriously decrease and that will require a massive change in politics and how we view work.

                …and maybe start with how you are going to convince free-market capitalists to change their minds?

                You don’t. You work to change the minds of everyone else about the free-market capitalists and, IMO, you do that by proving the dead weight loss of profit. Quite simply, prove how much extra the capitalist system is costing and people will demand a change.

                • locus …
                  12 August 2012 at 11:09 pm

                  You work to change the minds of everyone else about the free-market capitalists and, IMO, you do that by proving the dead weight loss of profit. Quite simply, prove how much extra the capitalist system is costing and people will demand a change

                  Fully agree! Coming up with an alternative construct which isn’t anarchistic is one challenge… the next will be to get the owners of capital to ‘agree’ to part with it.

                  Maybe i should be more tolerant of the missionary zeal of people like Polish Pride but i can’t help having a very uncomfortable feeling that the basis is remarkably derivative of randism.

                  • McFlock …
                    12 August 2012 at 11:22 pm

                    The thing is, if you outline any society with big/vague enough granularity you could get randians and leninists and anarchists to all say “yeah, that’s a good idea”. No-one has conflicting needs and wants and everyone gets what they need or want. 
                       
                    the devil – and disagreement – is in the details. Whether your system relies on robot cars and free energy that teh corporates iz hiding, or whether it relies on people being prepared to let others starve simply because it would ‘incentivise’ dependency, these are the bits people disagree with or simply find unrealistic.
                       
                    Once you get past the mom&apple pie stuff, and start debating more particularly at what our first step towards the goal should be, that’s when things really turn bad. Tax increases to fund robot cars? When kids are still drinking saveloy water? or bigger increases to fund both? 
                             
                    It’s not the big  issues people tend to disagree about – it’s the issues immediately in front of them.

                    • locus …
                      13 August 2012 at 12:03 am

                      – in a nutshell McFlock

                    • Polish Pride …
                      13 August 2012 at 12:00 pm

                      Ok personally I would do this step first

                      secure the food supply. This will cost but I believe the money for it can easily be found.

                      Determine strategic locations and build sustainable purpose built (imagine a corporate highrise maybe) buildings that house hydroponic farming on a large scale. You could do this under an initiative or policy to significantly reduce or eliminate poverty.

                      later
                      I would also set aside R&D funds for automation and development of 3D printing technology. I would possibly encourage investment in manufacturing to become a producer of quality products designed and built to last ideally marketable in this system at the same price as those same products currently designed to breakdown so you have to go and buy another one.

                      Self drive cars and the like….. I don’t see anything like this happening until after or very close to transition.

                      Taxis is a great example of inefficiency and waste within the current system. At any given time of the day there are taxis sitting idle and in numbers far in excess of those required by the travelling public. It is massively inefficent and a huge waste of resources, but it is that way because the market allows for it and people need to earn a living to survive.

                    • prism …
                      13 August 2012 at 12:18 pm

                      McFlock
                      But the issues immediately in front of anybody and everybody are affected by the hegemony that is prevalent. I see the one put forward by PP as being full of wishful and high ideals that offer promise rather than definite practices and systems that people can follow to resolve an issue. Sounds like the idea of communism that people had at the start of it all (sorry Polish Pride as I don’t think that’s your intention).

                    • McFlock …
                      13 August 2012 at 1:41 pm

                      “Secure the food supply”
                      Always a good start. Do you mean collective ownership and direct government management of farms and land? Or landcorp purchasing farms and putting the management to tender? Or making vertical gardens a mandatory part of the building code? Maybe making those vertical gardens publicly administered and allowing them to gradually take up a significant place in the food market? How soon will the food be distributed for free? Will a nominal amount be free, with additional amounts able to be purchased either for money (initially) or as a set return for a fixed amount of public service? Would free food only be available in return for a nominal amount of public service? Would that be uniform based on work-hours, or would different jobs get different amounts? 
                               
                      Basically, all those questions incorporate very different type of society, some right wing, some left, some totalitarian. All “secure the food supply”.
                            
                      Personally I’m in favour of reducing monetary inequality in order to provide security to people, then gradually increasing benefit entitlements and introducing public service credits. That would enable a smooth transition towards public ownership and payment in kind for public service. I’d also lean in principle to a work-hour ‘currency’ weighted for real importance (e.g. frontline police/surgeon/teacher vs accountant). But I haven’t thought a huge amount about it and seem to recall there were some issues with the idea.
                       

                    • Polish Pride …
                      13 August 2012 at 2:24 pm

                      Prism
                      No certainly not my intention.
                      I see the difference pretty much like this as a lay person

                      Communism is a system where the needs of the state take precedence over the needs of the people and thus the people work for the system to achieve this.

                      RBE I see as a system that works for the people to facilitate the meeting of their needs and wants. I.e. If there is any hierachy at all…. it is the people that sit at the top of the system equally.

                      does that make sense??? It does in my head at least.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      13 August 2012 at 2:44 pm

                      “Secure the food supply”
                      Always a good start. Do you mean collective ownership and direct government management of farms and land? Or landcorp purchasing farms and putting the management to tender? Or making vertical gardens a mandatory part of the building code? Maybe making those vertical gardens publicly administered and allowing them to gradually take up a significant place in the food market? How soon will the food be distributed for free? Will a nominal amount be free, with additional amounts able to be purchased either for money (initially) or as a set return for a fixed amount of public service? Would free food only be available in return for a nominal amount of public service? Would that be uniform based on work-hours, or would different jobs get different amounts?”

                      Initially I was more just thinking of the vertical gardens but closer to the time of full transition those things could work very well.
                      as a side note The farming one is a good one because although not really automatable it is a role that could be shared with others even to the point where a farmer could work 3 months on, 3 months off with someone else doing the 3months off, 3 months off, yet the level of production is maintained.
                      I’d see the food produced being made available either straight away to everyone, or straight away to the groups that need it most, then as production reaches the levels needed then made available to everyone.
                      I had not seen there being a charge but this definitely has merit especially ensuring enough supply for everyone and discouraging hoarding. This would also work well with timebanking in the full system.
                      Any of the options could be used and really this would be one of the things for society to decide on. My only concern is that I would really like people within the system to embrace the concept of looking for ways to free people from labour. I would not want people to be locked into working to get things via a different mechanism.
                      If I had to pick from what you have suggested. I really like the idea of people getting X amount based on size of their family or something and more than that would need to use ‘public service hours’ or ‘timebanking’ (one and the same under such a system).
                      Id also possibly use these if needed for access to things considered luxury items… just throwing it out there for consideration.

                      “I’d also lean in principle to a work-hour ‘currency’ weighted for real importance (e.g. frontline police/surgeon/teacher vs accountant).”

                      Hadn’t thought about weighted – could have some merit but it is a concept we would need to consider carefully. It could be very useful with jobs that noone wants to do. – cleaning public toilets, rubbish collection….

                    • McFlock …
                      13 August 2012 at 2:58 pm

                      Again, with your 3 months on, 3 months off farmer – who owns the farm, especially initially? Does the owner directly manage the farm, or subcontract?
                                 
                      Because those are the steps which will cause division, no matter what you do. 

                    • Polish Pride …
                      13 August 2012 at 3:16 pm

                      I would err on the side of the Farmer still owning the farm….. but then most farmers would not own their farms. The banks would so there maybe some room to move their. Perhaps those owned outright would retain ownership, Those that do not and wish to remain would be responsible for managment of the farm…. ? And are free to live there as long as they like.

                      The thing with this is that you need to get them to understand their pain points and give them a reason to want to change. i.e. How is life better for them.
                      More free time, access to more, needs and wants met, access to automation, a free heated swimming pool???? 🙂

                    • McFlock …
                      13 August 2012 at 5:12 pm

                      “hi, you can have a swimming pool. But you won’t really own it, because it’s on the farm we’re going to take in exchange for the pool”.
                             
                      Not to mention that the bank owns the debt, not the farm itself. If the farm is mortgaged.
                             
                      And who decides who may or may not remain on the land? Who decides who will be the farm manager? Shouldn’t the farm be run by the most efficient manager? Doesn’t that mean that the hereditary owner should be kicked out if they’re not up to scratch? Wouldn’t the merest hint of the slightest possibility induce tremendous opposition?
                           
                      Going that route, with a big plan up front, makes it too easy for the current power-holders to subvert through misinformation and fear-mongering. Think of it as a system that needs to incorporate its own active, diligent, smart and well-resourced saboteurs into its design and you’ll have some idea of the issues. I’m not talking “lack of buy-in”, which is largely passive barring a few localised opponents. I’m talking skilled and motivated destroyers.
                            
                      But going in little steps towards a sunnier outcome will, if your idea is correct and at all feasible, lead to the utopia you describe. But each little step is a little step in itself: government offering to take over mortgages at a low rate? Good idea. Public service scheme that gets rewarded by MSD payments or timebank tokens? Good idea. Each one difficult to argue against in its own right.
                           
                      As opposed to going “government will take over your mortgage as a first step to collective ownership like the Sov1ets had”. But the pisser is, you can’t make it a secret plan, because that will get out. You’ll need to abandon your ideal system in favour of asking about each and every little idea “will this make life better?”

                  • Polish Pride …
                    13 August 2012 at 12:06 pm

                    Then unfortunately this is my failing in being able to explain it effectively.

                    I can assure you I took a step by step very logical and methodical approach in determining and designing what and how the system should be. That is not to say that I have thought of everything…

                • Polish Pride …
                  13 August 2012 at 9:59 am

                  Agreed

            • mike 20.1.2.1.2.3
              12 August 2012 at 10:43 pm

              One minute it’s “I’ll do my best to answer your questions”, then it’s figure-it-out-yourself. I’m not asking you to spoon-feed me, just to come up with an argument that isn’t hopelessly vague. As I said, and you even agreed, the onus is on you to explain your magic system that you’ve come up with.

              “Have the ability to provide good quality housing.
              Education
              Health Care
              Police
              Fire”

              Yeah this is good stuff bro, so you came up with this all by yourself you say?

              • Polish Pride …
                13 August 2012 at 10:15 am

                “One minute it’s “I’ll do my best to answer your questions”, then it’s figure-it-out-yourself. I’m not asking you to spoon-feed me, just to come up with an argument that isn’t hopelessly vague. As I said, and you even agreed, the onus is on you to explain your magic system that you’ve come up with.:”

                Fair enough comment – but to a degree you do need to imagine yourself living in such a society, What do you need? What do you want? What do we still need to have in place to ensure you can have those things? Can we automate any of those tasks?

                “Have the ability to provide good quality housing.
                Education
                Health Care
                Police
                Fire”

                Yeah this is good stuff bro, so you came up with this all by yourself you say?”

                I guess the point here is that many things in the world will still be needed. In fact 90% (arbitrary figure plucked out of the air) of the stuff we probably have and do now. We still need those things we just find ways to improve them and remove people if possible. We don’t have money standing in the way as a barrier to doing this.

                Example: You want to build transmission gully in Wellington.
                The first thing you need now is a shitload of money to pay for it some how.
                Then you need the guys and equipment to do the job.
                Then you need the materials

                Under the new system you take out the money step, its no longer needed
                Then your left with needing the guys and equipment to do the job.
                and needing the materials

                The guys we have them. If there’s an incentive required (and hopefully one day there won’t be) perhaps time banking or something or additional rewards from the system, prioritisation on the production order line for manufactuure of goods requested. whatever you can think of.

                Raw materials we have them in the country already, If we don’t – trade for them. This even allows us to shift to the system while the rest of the world still has Capitalism.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 August 2012 at 11:27 am

                  The guys we have them. If there’s an incentive required (and hopefully one day there won’t be) perhaps time banking or something or additional rewards from the system, prioritisation on the production order line for manufactuure of goods requested. whatever you can think of.

                  You’re in fact beyond wasting our time. And its clear you have no idea what is required for a complementary community currency system to work.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    13 August 2012 at 11:49 am

                    based on………..?

                    Actually I can conceptualise everything that is needed and how to get there. I do struggle to get the whole picture down on paper.

                    I am actually interested CV what the specific problems (other than how to ge from here to there) that you see with Zietgiest’s RBE. The reason for this is they will also apply to the system I am conceptualising.

                    I am as curious – as you have seen Zietgiest, ignoring the challenges of how we get there…Is it a world that in theory you would like to be living in? If not what is it that you don’t like about it?

      • Polish Pride 20.1.3
        13 August 2012 at 2:01 pm

        In response to Mikes at 20.1
        The onus is on you to explain how exactly this system you’ve got sitting completed on a shelf somewhere is going to defeat the myriad problems we face today.

        I get your point and were the roles reversed I guess I would be saying the same.
        It is not sitting on the shelf It has been put together aimed at solving many of the problems we have today and it is ‘in theory’ capable of doing that.
        It is not necessarily complete and it needs people such as your self to identify weaknesses that you can see but then also to think of ways to overcome these same weaknesses.

        “So far all you’ve given us is a lot of (really really) vague ‘concepts’ and ‘ideas’ with about as much substance as The Prime Minister’s Hour on RadioLive. You’ve given us quite a lot of “I’ve got it all figured out because I design management systems” hubris. You keep telling us your system will solve our problems because it will satisfy our needs and wants of all individuals without saying how. (And yes I’ve seen Z – Moving Forward so please tell me something I don’t know.)”

        Can you imagine yourself living in such a system? (Zietgeist Moving Forward). If so what is it like (rhetorical) is it a system that you would like to live in if we get there?
        In many ways I see it as operating not much differently to now.
        If you need food you go to the supermarket and get what you need. Everything is self checkout. You still scan the items for the purposes of stock levels and re ordering to replenish stock taken. You don’t have to pay for it though.
        You need or want a spa pool – not an everyday item. So you perhaps put an order into the system with your name and address and a spa pool is delivered and installed. The order also goes to an electrician who arranges a time with you to come and connect it to the power supply.
        Or down the track fittings are designed so you can connect it yourself or spa pool design has advanced and no longer needs to be connected to a power supply..
        A number of things it may be better to have work using a library system – lawnmowers might be one of these. You need one you book it, pick it up and return it when your finished.
        Boats could be another. Want to go out on a boat for the day (and know how to operate one) book it, take it out, bring it back.

        “’ve got one for you. Please explain how your system will satisfy the needs and wants of the 1% of the population who are psychopaths. I know they are aholes but they are still human beings and a part of our society. I’ll bet that number 1 on their Dear Santa wants and needs list that your going to get us all to submit via Trademe is that they don’t want this society. Not their style. And more of a need than a want actually. You did say ALL individuals right?”

        This could be a problem for them. There will be some things that are just not possible or acceptable to society. example: A person may have a screw loose and have a desire to see what it is like to kill someone. Not acceptable in the society to allow them to fulfill this desire.
        Now if it is something society is not too happy about but does not really affect them or anyone else directly then it should be allowed – some or maybe all drugs, Gay Marriage etc etc.

        “Then explain how your system will guard against the political psychopaths, who have successfully infiltrated and corrupted every form of government we have ever tried.”

        Under a true democracy everyone is responsible for their own conduct and everyone should get to submit ideas, not only for policy changes but for the betterment of society. (not sure exactly how) but the popular ideas can come to the top… maybe by non binding voting of them by people to the point where they come to a binding vote by everyone eligible to vote in the society. I also son’t think this should just be a yes or no vote. More a statement of problem, possible solutions put forward by people, the most poular selected (say top 5!?!) then people rank them in order of preference. You have a deadline that votes have to be in by and so on.
        Because everyone has an individual vote on all issues and gets to raise issues, it becomes much harder to infiltrate and corrupt like every form of govt before.
        Those at the top are shit acred of the concept of true democracy for this very reason!

        • mike 20.1.3.1
          13 August 2012 at 6:51 pm

          First off thanks for your attempt at a decent reply. I may have come over a bit harshly. At least you are trying to come up with an alternative to the current mess of spiraling financial corruption which the public is apparently going to have to pay for with austerity measures, privatization, and the selling of strategically vital assets to the very same criminals who fucked us over in the first place.

          It’s only natural to think “there has to be a better way.” or “if I was in charge I’d do x,y, and z.” Would I want to live in the society you or the Venus Project describe? I’m not sure, both seem to present a suspiciously rosy view – the worst dystopias in history have begun with the same. I’d need to do a lot more research into the feasibility and potential problems to make such a decision. (The devil is indeed in the detail, not the big picture.) But I’m unlikely to do that for two reasons.

          First I’m just too busy. I live in this mundane reality where I have to work to pay my student loan and provide for my family. My spare time is spent with that family, or friends, or on my creative outlet (music), or reading, or otherwise relaxing. But shouldn’t I make time for something this important you might say? Well secondly, and maybe this is a failure of imagination on my part, but I can’t see how we get from here to there. Until I can see a way, it will remain nothing more than a curious pipe-dream to me.

          I think perhaps you don’t see how either, (only describing the desired end result), and you are simply hoping that others will figure that part out by working backwards from that desired end result to determine how to proceed. But the barriers are huge.

          You want to use the internet to spread awareness about an alternative vision for society? Take a number. You want to use the current political system to dismantle and replace the current political system? The current political system is owned by rich and powerful people who work actively to preserve the status quo. Check out this insightful comment from someone trying to run as a 3rd party option in the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3SfivTK8m4

          When you speak of bringing it up at the constitutional review I can only see that as hopelessly naive. Some guy talking about a society with no money, little or no work, and everyone getting everything for free is just too easy to dismiss as a nut. Whether your idea is actually any good or not is irrelevant.

          As for just trying to spread awareness any way you can, I can’t see it. If by some miracle you do manage to start getting a following, you’ll be hit hard by a relentless propaganda campaign against you. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the power elites will do whatever it takes to protect their position. Look at how the US media did their best to portray the Occupy movement as a bunch of lazy urban hippies with no clear purpose. Look how the general population still thinks that scientists can’t agree about climate change because of a well funded propaganda campaign from vested interests. How easy do you think it will be for them to make fun of an untested proposal to radically restructure the entire society from top to bottom to achieve a world that sounds like disneyland? You’ll find yourself in a Fox news item next to this guy.

          Maybe, just maybe, in the event of a total societal collapse, or massive revolution, (both possible the way things are heading), you might get your chance, but even then it’s a long shot.

          Aside from all that. My point about failing to cater to the psychopaths was more about the concern that this ideal society has a rather one-size-fits-all feeling to it. One man’s dream is another’s nightmare. I guess you say anyone who doesn’t like it can just leave.

          I also worry about this (somewhat self-righteously named) ‘true democracy’. (I’m more familiar with it being called ‘direct democracy’.) Isn’t the obvious problem with it that the herd mentality will always win? The minority will always be at the mercy of the majority. This can lead to persecution.

          Also the most popular opinion is not always best, and is prone to manipulation by appeals to emotion, especially fear. Issues or objections that an intelligent minority understand could be ignored. You will inevitably resort to having officials with more influence and decision making power than others. Popular opinion is the political psychopath’s plaything. And remember it’s not money that motivates them, it’s power and control over others that turns them on. So I don’t see how a direct democracy is an answer to the problem of political psychopaths, if anything plays to their strength – manipulation of others. And you could reply that you will have a constitution, but they can be amended, subverted, ignored, or otherwise got around. (Just take a look at how the psychos are doing just that in the US.)

          Just add compulsory education on psychopathic manipulation tactics and on the principles of a well thought out constitution for all citizens to your system and I’ll be happy. Since that’s the no.1 threat to your (and every) society.

          (Also everybody having an input and a vote on everything sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to me, I don’t care how many Mac computers you have.)

          • Polish Pride 20.1.3.1.1
            13 August 2012 at 9:51 pm

            With the constitutional review. I would not look at presenting the system. More just ensure that the people have a say in what the constitution contains and perhaps a binding vote on it.
            I would also take the opportunity to have referendums in this country changed so that they are binding on the govt. This is critical. Get this through and you can begin to change things.
            I would even use the forum to begin the discussion around true democracy or direct democracy, they are on and the same, just different terminology thats all.
            I wouldn’t go any further in that forum.

          • Polish Pride 20.1.3.1.2
            13 August 2012 at 10:31 pm

            “First I’m just too busy………”

            I don’t doubt that at all. The system is this way by design. Even if you wake up to the fact that change is needed and something is wrong with the system. You are too busy just doing what you need to do to provide for you and your family than to be able to take the time and give serious thought to problems and their solutions. Then even if you get that far, taking action to effect change requires a whole new level of time and energy again.

            “I think perhaps you don’t see how either” –

            I see how, but only so far as the steps that are needed without obstacles or If I was ruler of the world perhaps.. I believe the landscape is changing. and until it is in a position to facilitate change more easily then we need to discuss alternatives and what we want to see so that when the opportunity comes as many people as possibly understand what is really needed in a good system. Maybe that point in time will be when things collapse. If so, then so be it.

            If enough people buy into the concepts then the propaganda gets harder and harder to sell. Example many people are now actively looking for the next ‘false flag’ attack by the powers that be. What I would say is don’t be disillusioned. talk to people use social media use the internet not to say hey look this is what we should do. Just to raise awareness and get more and more people understanding what is really going on. Yes many people bought the propaganda the system put out about the occupy movement. But A: its still going, as is Anonymous, As is Wikileaks and a hell of a lot of people actually woke up after they saw what was done to the peaceful protesters in the Occupy Movement. You are playing a part by giving someone a link to zietgiest or anything else that shows them a better alternative. My personal favourite to give someone to watch is the movie ‘Thrive’. It has a more positive tone but still lets people know whats really going on. Not enough to scare them half to death just enough to open their eyes. After that I trust they will seek out and find the information they need to. If nothing else they are looking at the world with a new set of eyes.

            “Aside from all that. My point about failing to cater to the psychopaths was more about the concern that this ideal society has a rather one-size-fits-all feeling to it. One man’s dream is another’s nightmare. I guess you say anyone who doesn’t like it can just leave.”

            I like to think of it more as a world you have greater control over as far as your life is concerned and what you choose to do as opposed to one size fits all.

            “I also worry about this (somewhat self-righteously named) ‘true democracy’. (I’m more familiar with it being called ‘direct democracy’.) Isn’t the obvious problem with it that the herd mentality will always win? The minority will always be at the mercy of the majority. This can lead to persecution.”

            I worry about this aspect too – and I think that this is why a well thought out governing constitution is a key ingredient, not fool proof but still very important.
            I have also from time to time thought maybe 51% support is not enough of a mandate for change. Surely if an idea is truly a good one and of benefit to society it would have more than 51% support . If not then perhaps it is not quite good enough. What the figure should be I don’t know. 65% maybe?? more??

            “Also the most popular opinion is not always best, and is prone to manipulation by appeals to emotion, especially fear. Issues or objections that an intelligent minority understand could be ignored.”

            This concerns me too and as yet I have not been able to think of an acceptable solution to the problem.
            Yes their would be a constitution. The American constitution has been subverted from the top. This wouldn’t happen as easily with this system because change would have to be via direct democracy. You could even set the change level required quite high. 75% more. This goes someway to mitigating this risk.

          • Draco T Bastard 20.1.3.1.3
            13 August 2012 at 10:33 pm

            I think perhaps you don’t see how either, (only describing the desired end result), and you are simply hoping that others will figure that part out by working backwards from that desired end result to determine how to proceed.

            Nothing wrong with that. The imagination of all of us is far greater than the imagination of a few of us.

            How easy do you think it will be for them to make fun of an untested proposal to radically restructure the entire society from top to bottom to achieve a world that sounds like disneyland?

            And so you think we shouldn’t try?

            Isn’t the obvious problem with it that the herd mentality will always win? The minority will always be at the mercy of the majority.

            That’s why we have laws and constitutions.

            Also the most popular opinion is not always best, and is prone to manipulation by appeals to emotion, especially fear.

            Opinion is worthless unless based upon facts. If people are given the facts and still make a stupid decision then they get to live with the results. Given that they will be reminded that it was their decision, I suspect that decision making will, over time, move away from being based solely upon emotion which really is what the psychopaths rely upon and which makes representative democracy their play thing.

            • mike 20.1.3.1.3.1
              14 August 2012 at 2:40 am

              “Nothing wrong with that. The imagination of all of us is far greater than the imagination of a few of us.”

              I didn’t say nor mean to imply there is anything wrong with that.

              “And so you think we shouldn’t try?”

              I didn’t say that either. Personally I applaud and am interested in theories and ideas that go against the mainstream. I think ideas that challenge the current paradigm and question assumptions, in any field, should be keenly considered. (Obviously that means there is a lot of garbage to wade through, but so be it.) Part of doing so however, is being sceptical and playing devil’s advocate. I was simply pointing out a major obstacle that would require some kind of major strategy.

              “That’s why we have laws and constitutions.”

              Wouldn’t we be voting on those to? Laws and constitutions are surely only as good as the process and intention that creates them, and how they are interpreted and enforced. And if you take those things away from the people whose hands do you put them in? Also, as I said you only have to look around to see how laws and constitutions can be abused. (And no that doesn’t mean I think they have no value, I just don’t see how a direct democracy would be any less vulnerable in this regard.)

              “Opinion is worthless unless based upon facts. If people are given the facts and still make a stupid decision then they get to live with the results. Given that they will be reminded that it was their decision, I suspect that decision making will, over time, move away from being based solely upon emotion which really is what the psychopaths rely upon and which makes representative democracy their play thing.”

              Representative democracy and public opinion are both the play-things of political psychopaths. Again I don’t see how a direct democracy would be any less vulnerable to propaganda, disinformation, and demagogues. We don’t make decisions based solely on emotion, we always have and always will use a combination of emotion and logic. There is however evidence that emotion superceding logic might be hard-wired in our brains. Good news for psychopaths, bad news for your suspicion.

    • mike e 20.2
      13 August 2012 at 11:14 am

      Polish pride you obviously are a johnny come lately to this site.
      CV has put up plenty of ideas anbd solutions he is sick and tired of the tyrade of meaningless piffle
      such as yours and the likes of pete george goose etc who continually denigrate without putting up one well researched solution.
      Vampire capitalist propaganda is the usual fare.
      Where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
      Tell me some countries where your solution works read a lot more widely as most here have.

      • Polish Pride 20.2.1
        13 August 2012 at 11:36 am

        This solution has not been tried anywhere to the best of my knowledge.

        …but then at a point in time neither had Capitalism or Socialism.

        As for well researched
        I can only say what I have done which is come to the conclusion that the current and any previous systems do not work, then taken a blank slate approach to determining what we should have in any new system.

        I am making an assumption here but the ‘well researched’ information is likely to come from Academics or professionals in fields such as economics many of which will be working within the constructs of the current monetary system or at the very least a system that has money still.

        I think that the system needs to come from intelligent real people such as yourselves. Listening to so called professional economists among others has led us to where we are today.

  21. gnomic 21
    12 August 2012 at 2:36 am

    Oh dear – YATHT – aka yet another thread hijacking troll. Why not head off back to Whaleshmoil or No Minister where your meagre talents might get applause. The non-word f**ktard was the clue, only total nonentities descend to that level. Now go away, and let the adults have a discussion.

    • Polish Pride 21.1
      12 August 2012 at 10:47 am

      noun

      an extremely stupid person. From the contraction of “fucking retard.”
      That fucktard couldn’t find his asshole with both hands.
      See more words with the same meaning: uncool person, jerk, asshole (general insults – list of).
      See more words with the same meaning: unintelligent person, idiot.

      http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/fucktard

      unfortunately when it is 2am in the morning my tolerance levels drop significantly as does my spelling and word correction capability.

      Why don’t I fuck off back to whaleoil – interesting when you are calling me out for the use of the word ‘fucktard’ – perhaps try the word hypocrite.

      Don’t worry I have dealt with many muppets (there’s another one for you) like you and colonial in my time. Guys who are only to happy to bring the hate but can never articulate the problem with an argument and most certainly never bring a solution.

      When I grew up, if you were going to complain about something you had better damn well have at least thought about some possible solutions to the problem.

      As for thread hijacking – if you were intelligent as you think you are you would have realized that this was a thread about ‘Unemployment’. The system presented effectively says rather thn thinking of unemployment as a bad thing, we could change the system so we can make more people unemployed but ensure that their needs and wants are catered for and they can get on with spending time on the important things in life. Do you think that conversations should just remain within the constructs of the current system because it seems to be working so awesomely for everyone and everything is heading in the right direction…!?!

      • KJT 21.1.1
        12 August 2012 at 11:34 am

        I think PP has just discovered Maslow and had a rush of blood to the brain.

        Well we read him 30 years ago and many more since.

        I do not disagree that we could maintain our society and a decent standard of living for everyone, while keeping within sustainable limits, provided we limited the amount that the wealthy take from us.

        Even that Democracy is an answer. Which is why the wealthy are so scared of it.

        There is, however, no simplistic way of getting there.

        The closest are the Social Democratic societies of Switzerland, Scandinavia, Switzerland, France and Belgium.
        The BRIC’s are heading there.

        We, along with the UK, USA, Greece. Ireland and the other Neo-Liberal failures are heading in the opposite direction.

        PP. I suggest you go away, do some reading and research, and catch up!

        • Polish Pride 21.1.1.1
          12 August 2012 at 12:13 pm

          KJT I have been where you are now for 10 years up until about 3 years ago. 20 years ago I was on the Right.
          It is clear that neither side can fix the problems and this is largely due to the nature of the system.
          If you think that the answer is to continue to persist with something that hasn’t been able to fix real problems facing us then I’d submit that your not as clever as you think you are.

          You are right in that there is no simplistic way of getting there. But the two ways are change the minds of the politicians so that they take us there or change the system to true democracy o we can get there ourselves.

          “The closest are the Social Democratic societies of Switzerland, Scandinavia, Switzerland, France and Belgium.
          The BRIC’s are heading there.”

          If you’re looking for existing examples around the world, then my friend you are looking in the wrong place.

          Perhaps it is I who need to wait until you ‘catch up’ and come to the realization that the current system does not work and cannot solve problems we need to because of its very nature.

          A better way to spend your time would be thinking about of the problems that you want to solve, which ones dose the proposed system not solve….

          • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.1.1
            12 August 2012 at 3:42 pm

            Your ‘start over with a clean sheet’ approach is attractive, but purely academic.

            Perhaps it is I who need to wait until you ‘catch up’ and come to the realization that the current system does not work and cannot solve problems we need to because of its very nature.

            What do you mean it doesn’t work? I look out my window and I see at last some good stuff happening.

            • Polish Pride 21.1.1.1.1.1
              12 August 2012 at 9:32 pm

              Then stop take your rose tinted lenses and start to see and understand how the world really is.

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 August 2012 at 9:35 pm

                More platitudes? Acting like the enlightened one spreading the light?

                • Polish Pride …
                  13 August 2012 at 11:30 am

                  Would it have been better to say there are many good things happening in the world. But at the moment the world still needs to be fixed as there are many, many problems. A statement I am sure anyone would agree with.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    13 August 2012 at 11:36 am

                    Fixes require actionable solutions, not clean-sheet-of-paper distractions.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      13 August 2012 at 7:54 pm

                      See I think The first thing that is critical is to determine the ideal end goal so that you know where you want to get to. Then and only then can you determine the actionable steps that you need to take. Otherwise you are wandering aimlessly through the wilderness simply reacting to whatever comes ….sort of like we are now in todays system.

            • Polish Pride 21.1.1.1.1.2
              13 August 2012 at 11:31 am

              Sorry in that particular example I was referring to the current political system of Left vs Right in the form of Representative Democracy.

        • prism 21.1.1.2
          12 August 2012 at 9:16 pm

          KJT Is Switzerland twice as important as the others? Or were you going to insert another country there and had a brainstorm?

          • KJT 21.1.1.2.1
            12 August 2012 at 10:19 pm

            Switzerland is important because it is the closest to a functioning Democracy on earth at present. Note Switzerland is run for the Swiss, not offshore corporates.

            • Polish Pride 21.1.1.2.1.1
              13 August 2012 at 9:24 am

              I completely agree with this and their very tight immigration policy is key to this

              • mike e …
                13 August 2012 at 11:20 am

                Polish prejudice what tosh thats fascism yoir talking & fermenting.
                We need fresh ideas fresh inspiration more Asian entrepeneurs to market higher end exports.Genetic strenghtening for our National good .Isolating our gene pool is wrong &racist And Naive like your thinking.

                • Polish Pride …
                  13 August 2012 at 11:25 am

                  Mike e see my comment below on this. This is merely an observation on what happens now. I do not see this as part of any new system.
                  I have spent my entire life fighting racism and bigotry.

            • prism 21.1.1.2.1.2
              13 August 2012 at 10:26 am

              KJT You didn’t answer my question. Which was included in two very short sentences. This makes me feel that your ideas might be askew. Have you properly understood the true situation of what you state here and appear so certain about?

              • Polish Pride …
                13 August 2012 at 11:23 am

                Is the second part of this for me or KJT?
                If it was for me. I merely see it as a key reason that Switzerland is a country with a better standard of living than many other countries under the present system. It is merely an observation.
                In fact it is part of understanding the nature of a mechanism that the Right use to shift wealth from the working class. I.e. if you bring in people from poorer countries who are prepared to do the same jobs for less money and longer hours. Then by doing so you create competition in the labour market that has an effect of putting downward pressure on wages. Thus resulting in more of the money a company earns being available for shareholders and Upper Management. Restructures that remove middle management are another mechanism that does this.
                Corporate welfare is another (essentially paid for by the taxes of the worker).

              • KJT …
                13 August 2012 at 11:50 am

                I am not sure what your question is?

                It seemed more rhetorical than a request for information.

                If your question is, why include Switzerland?
                Switzerland is the best example of a functioning democracy. Where the majority, not politicians have political power.
                It is also an example of democratically regulated socialism at work.

                They make their corporates work for them.

                PP. Immigration has something to do with it only in that corporates in Switzerland are not allowed to bring in immigrants simply to put downward pressure on wages. Which is the “unstated, but real, aims of our immigration policy.

            • Polish Pride 21.1.1.2.1.3
              13 August 2012 at 11:27 am

              Sorry I should clarify

              “Note Switzerland is run for the Swiss, not offshore corporates.”

              This is the part I agree with.

    • prism 21.2
      12 August 2012 at 10:56 am

      gnomic
      Who are you taking a pot shot at? It would be good to state name so that others can follow the discussion and see who you consider a YATHT, (handy acronym.)

      • Polish Pride 21.2.1
        12 August 2012 at 11:23 am

        I couldn’t find it either – but assumed it was directed at me,

      • gnomic 21.2.2
        12 August 2012 at 5:53 pm

        Hi there, guess I should have made my comment a reply to PP, but I thought it might be obvious that someone who has made more than half the posts in this thread by number and given forth to more than half the total volume of words was a strong suspect as a thread hog. Oddly enough I don’t recall seeing this id on the Standard hitherto, perhaps I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong there. So this appears to be a previously unknown commenter who suddenly feels the urge to share his purported wisdom with the world at quite undue length.

        As to the Zeitgeist, isn’t this simplistic twaddle with a sinister undercurrent? Perhaps the intention is sincere, I can agree that this sad old world needs making over, but it won’t be the Zeitgeist movement that accomplishes that massive task, if indeed it is even possible.

        If it carries on like a troll, perhaps it is a troll? And there is no conceivable reason to use the ftard word, if word it must be. It’s a ugly and meaningless expression.

        • prism 21.2.2.1
          12 August 2012 at 6:53 pm

          gnomic
          Don’t be too quick to heave ‘arf a brick … When it comes to discussing philosophies the path gets murky. I’ve read some things seriously suggested by some guys and they’re wacky. And of course we have dear Ayn Rand and her vampire ilk.

          PP is like me getting older and wondering how come when we’re all so smart that we can’t get a better-working world. Don’t diss a seeker after truth. I don’t think he is on the right path but I don’t see him as a troll. Now Peter G he pops out of a different box.

  22. Bill 22
    12 August 2012 at 1:40 pm

    How the hell could you guys have had such a long conversation on our present system and not even have got around to naming it?

    The left/right divide stems from the fact that the market is the arena that determines who will control resources, production and distribution. And in a market scenario, those who have the power to make those decisions will tend to be ‘right wing’ in their political outlook. (Insofar as right wing politics tends to view the market, and therfore the comparative advantages and disadvantages it confers, as natural)

    And on the other side, in the constant competition for resources, or the manufacturing fruits of those resources, ‘the left’ will attempt to secure more distributive benefits for those who have no say in, or control over, resources or resource use.

    The solution is deadly simple then (whilst immensely problematic)… develop and use an economic system that is not market based. And what should underpin that economy if it is not to throw up new elites who will favour themselves through the decisions they make?

    Answer: Democracy.

    That’s my tuppence worth anyway.

    • blue leopard 22.1
      12 August 2012 at 1:46 pm

      @Bill
      +1

    • Polish Pride 22.2
      13 August 2012 at 9:51 am

      I think I agree with you on this. I think what you have said is probably very key and central to the problem.

      I still do not like left vs right or representative politics. It is too easily co-opted and corrupted.
      Democracy should be handed back to the people with a new constitution determined.

      Lastly I do think the system I am talking about is exactly that – an economic system that is not market based. As in it is set up to supply resources and meet demand without the need to have a market to facilitate a transaction.

      • Bill 22.2.1
        13 August 2012 at 10:07 am

        What the hell are you on about – constitutions? To who and over what geographicla area would this constitution apply? Regardless, it’s a heirarchy and a node of potential control and power waiting to be occupied by some clique.. Who interpretates the constitution and determines if it has been transgressed? And who determines what sanction should apply in such an instance? And what about the people who never agreed with the constitution in the first place?

        • Polish Pride 22.2.1.1
          13 August 2012 at 11:01 am

          I do think you need a constitution more so to protect peoples freedom rather than to constrain them.

          I don’t see us getting away from having laws and a court system at least not initially I mean I can conceptualise not having one in the scenario where society has evolved because everyones needs and wants are met to an acceptable level and as such people are happy and working together co-operatively.

          So I would see it being determined by courts or a similar function.
          Penalties would be determined by the people in theory although I do see problems with this.
          Such as people wanting a sense of retribution through the penalty (even to the point of a death penalty) rather than a fair penalty or sanction for the crime.

  23. Polish Pride 23
    13 August 2012 at 9:32 am

    Look guys – It was not my intention to come off in any particular way. It was merely to present some things or the basis for a system that will solve many of our problems. It seems many of you get what I am talking about but some can see problems.
    This is a good thing and a big part of why I took the opportunity to post some of it on the standard. I really need people to identify the weaknesses and then once they have figure out solutions to fix them. This is not ‘My’ system and should not be. It should be thought of as a system that works for pretty much everyone. It should remove the haves and the have nots.
    It should remove all poverty and 80% of crime with ease. Any system that can do this is worth working with, improving any weaknesses and the determining how we get to it from where we are today.

    In short I need your help on this. I need you to take ownership as well.

    • Polish Pride 23.1
      13 August 2012 at 9:44 am

      It needs people with the mental capacity to identify and work through any weaknesses or problems and determine workable solutions. You guys clearly have that mental capacity.

      • Bill 23.1.1
        13 August 2012 at 10:13 am

        Go to here PP and have a read … a very thorough read. I believe you’ll find it very helpful insofar as it offers substance (concrete analysis of the present and potential pitfalls of proposed alternatives) as well as soberly considered strategies for getting from *here* to *there* http://www.zcommunications.org/topics/parecon

      • mike e 23.1.2
        13 August 2012 at 11:31 am

        OK polish pride Gareth Morgan is a start.
        Unemployement the subject we are talking about is here to stay while we have this neo liberal agenda .
        The greens have a simple solution building 6,000 more house a year to start with this would kill the property boom bust over investment in the non productive sector.
        CGT on everything at a lower rate than labour and the greens proposed so home owners are not squeezed to badly. With the extra tax generated going to pay down debt and lower taxes on low to middle income earners , which will offset the outrage Nactional are stirring to help those who don’t pay any tax on Capital Gained income.Capital Gaingsters are having a free ride while Borrowing Bills English runs up mountains of debt to allow the Capital Class a free ride while the cattle class pay through the nose.

        • Polish Pride 23.1.2.1
          13 August 2012 at 12:11 pm

          See this is one of the very things that started me thinking about this. Unemployment.
          I have spent 20 years being part of projects that design systems that often displace people from jobs only for them have to find another one to survive. At best I see this paradigm as a failing of the system. At worst it is sheer lunacy.

          This is one of the things that we have to change the way we think about in order to really progress as a society.

          • Draco T Bastard 23.1.2.1.1
            13 August 2012 at 1:01 pm

            At best I see this paradigm as a failing of the system. At worst it is sheer lunacy.

            And yet it’s a purposeful aspect of the capitalist system as it allows more wealth to be channelled to the already rich. It needs to be addressed but minuscule changes to the present system won’t address it because the present system is designed around enriching a few.

            And by now I’m getting rather pissed off with the politicians saying that we need growth to create more jobs when we’re already producing far more than we need. What we really need to do is change the focus of society from denigrating those who are out of work to one where we accept that work hours will be going down for everyone.

            • prism 23.1.2.1.1.1
              13 August 2012 at 1:53 pm

              DTB
              Many of us would be happy at doing a job for many hours for just a reasonable living wage that provided goods for domestic consumption instead of importing everything. The lack of tariffs and the promiscuity of our import market has throttled ordinary necessary businesses providing work that we could carry out for each other.

              • Polish Pride …
                13 August 2012 at 2:14 pm

                Prism – many would but this is at odds with society maximising opportunities for what is arguably the most important thing to human beings in any society. The opportunity to spend time with friends and family. As such this is the second thing that I took into account when trying to design a new system.

                Our current system fails significantly in this area. Today to attain maximum success in society it is better for both parents to work and put their children into day care and sadly many do just this so they can get ahead.

                • prism …
                  13 August 2012 at 3:37 pm

                  PP
                  It is good to have choice. Many women would like to get out of their house and away from their children FOR A WHILE not just all the time arriving home grumpy tired and having battled with the mean supervisors at work. Same I guess with men though often they will have work or be getting out and about.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    13 August 2012 at 7:48 pm

                    True choice is good unfortunately it is having to choose between family and getting ahead in many cases.
                    What I was trying to say was that the system is geared to reward NOT spending time with your family. At best it merely pays lip service to the importance of family but then facilitates the opposite behavior.

          • blue leopard 23.1.2.1.2
            13 August 2012 at 5:22 pm

            Why invent an entirely new system?

            I think the one we have would work pretty damn well if we addressed the corruption that has been eating away at it for quite a few decades now; half a century even.

            It appears to me that CORRUPTION and DISTRIBUTION are the problems.

            As others have commented
            There is enough food, there are enough resources (for basic needs; not greed)
            There is PLENTY of money. TRILLIONS

            It’s distribution that is failing.

            I had a strange notion that a governments raison d’être had AT LEAST something to do with creating balance in society.

            Why are they not doing so?

            Corruption

            Corruption of what?
            Corruption of the intelligent notion that when more people’s basic needs are attended to ultimately EVERYONE benefits.

            Address corruption first and then see if our system requires renewal

            • Polish Pride 23.1.2.1.2.1
              13 August 2012 at 7:44 pm

              Because If you can address the corruption yet stay with the current system then over time it will again be manipulated, over time the corruption will return and overtime you risk ending up back where we are today. Maybe not my generation, maybe not yours but perhaps the next or the one after that. But it will be back.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 August 2012 at 7:50 pm

                The systems and the corrupt people are not two separate things mate. You said you were basically retired or retiring.

                How can you not know these basics.

                • Polish Pride …
                  13 August 2012 at 8:19 pm

                  If you are talking about the system being the way that it is ‘by design’ then yes I do know this.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    13 August 2012 at 8:28 pm

                    And it can’t be a surprise to you that the people in power designed that system to advantage themselves.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      13 August 2012 at 10:39 pm

                      It is not.

                      CV You and I from reading many of your posts are more alike in our view of many things than you know…

              • blue leopard …
                13 August 2012 at 9:48 pm

                It seems fair to say that corruption develops in any system; it is part of the nature of people…to find a “short cut” or “easy way around things”. This is humans’ strength as well as our weakness-part of our intelligence: opportunism.

                A system requires to acknowledge this.

                I was of the impression that the system we have is quite capable of addressing this issue of corruption, however it requires people to start developing a spine, or at least eyes, in order to see what is going on.

                People don’t want to see what is occurring; they would rather close their eyes and pretend all is fine…or make films presenting fallacious reasons for what is failing and present questionable answers to the problem.

                You have to have a grasp on what the problem is for an appropriate solution to arise.

                Personally I think the problem is us and our unwillingness to address things as they are.
                This is very much encouraged by those in a position to influence opinions.

                We would rather find elaborate arguments to discuss than get to the point.

                • Polish Pride …
                  13 August 2012 at 10:42 pm

                  Blue – I think you have enough faith in humanity which is a good thing, but possibly a little to much faith in the system. 🙂

  24. Polish Pride 24
    14 August 2012 at 12:34 pm

    I could be wrong on this but it strikes me that perhaps Unions, who are supposed to have workers best interests as their reason for being, might be a strong force to press for such a system at multiple levels.

    It is a pretty compelling argument to put to them – ” so you say you care about the workers” Well here’s a system where workers would have to work far less yet in doing so have an increase in the amount of needs and wants they are able to meet.

    If unions were to understand and start pushing this message the entire system or parts of it may get traction through the existing political process via pressure on certain parties.

    Just a thought….. But if at all possible it could result in significant strides towards it.

    If they weren’t interested they can easily be accused of wanting to keep workers enslaved to line their own pockets…..Not a good look.