fwee anal.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Don't need to take him too seriously...
The whole idea of this particular thread is for Atobe to indulge in another of his personal attacks.
Don't you think you're coming to a premature conclusion when that hasnt happened yet?
In any case, I hope that other people, like you, reading this would take the time to discover the socially retarding effect of our so-called economic growth.
Originally posted by freedomclub:Don't you think you're coming to a premature conclusion when that hasnt happened yet?
In any case, I hope that other people, like you, reading this would take the time to discover the socially retarding effect of our so-called economic growth.
I would think his first post in the thread would have been more than sufficient to provide the conclusion.
Oh i have already known the effects of our so called economic growth. We just have disagreements on who the culpurits really are.
But in the words of the late George Carlin, i don't have a stake in the outcome either way.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:I would think his first post in the thread would have been more than sufficient to provide the conclusion.
Oh i have already known the effects of our so called economic growth. We just have disagreements on who the culpurits really are.
But in the words of the late George Carlin, i don't have a stake in the outcome either way.
Haha, that was an absent minded reply. I was of the impression that the tirade between those two belonged to another thread. Oh well...
Anyway, its interesting that you say you have no stake in the outcome of the present financial crisis or the consequence of our distorted economic system. Either you are implying that you're going to die soon or have found a way to live a hermetic life separated from the modern money system.
On another note, I guess George Carlin was right about how the public sucks. Our apathy is going to take away our future.
Originally posted by freedomclub:Haha, that was an absent minded reply. I was of the impression that the tirade between those two belonged to another thread. Oh well...
Anyway, its interesting that you say you have no stake in the outcome of the present financial crisis or the consequence of our distorted economic system. Either you are implying that you're going to die soon or have found a way to live a hermetic life separated from the modern money system.
On another note, I guess George Carlin was right about how the public sucks. Our apathy is going to take away our future.
Perhaps no stake would been the wrong choice of words. But i certainly do not wish to bring any more life into this world. Since then i have no investments for the future, it's not really in my interest to bother about obscure ideals and utopian delusions.
But i frankly have no more interest in the outcome, the alternatives seemed to be just as delusional as the problem. We're not going to use freedom, justice and equality to get ourselves out of this mess, precisely now because we are already begining to treat it like a religion.
There are no difference in our opinions frankly, both you, me and George Carlin. We can all agree that the system is rotting you merely believe that it is from the top down while i believe that it is from the bottoms up.
But i think we are hijacking this thread. We can move this to PM if you wish.
Originally posted by freedomclub:Has anyone really considered why are the implications of growth fueled by consumption? In a world with finite resources, our so-called economic growth through consumption is merely short-term gratification with production of goods solely for profit with no thought for the environmental (See Story of Stuff), not to mention psychological impact on society.
To quote from an article from The New Scientist:
...
But there's another, more recent factor that's making things even worse, and it's an invention of human culture rather than an evolved trait. According to Rees, the change took place after the second world war in the US, when factories previously producing weapons lay idle, and soldiers were returning with no jobs to go to.
American economists and the government of the day decided to revive economic activity by creating a culture in which people were encouraged to accumulate and show off material wealth, to the point where it defined their status in society and their self-image.
Rees quotes economist Victor Lebow as saying in 1955: "Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction and our ego satisfaction in consumption. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever-increasing rate".
In today's world, such rhetoric seems beyond belief. Yet the consumer spree carries on regardless, and few of us are aware that we're still willing slaves to a completely artificial injunction to consume, and to define ourselves by what we consume.
"Lebow and his cronies got together to 'create' the modern advertising industry, which plays to primitive beliefs," says Rees. "It makes you feel insecure, because the advertising industry turned our sense of self-worth into a symbolic presentation of the possessions we have," he told me. "We've turned consumption into a necessity, and how we define ourselves."
The result is a world in which rampant consumption in rich countries is rapidly outstripping the resources in the world needed to satisfy demand.
...
"Advertising is an instrument for construction of people's everyday reality, so we could use the same media to construct a cultural paradigm in which conspicuous consumption is despised," he says. "We've got to make people ashamed to be seen as a 'future eater'."
It all depends on how you look at 'consumption' - which from the perspective you are looking at is from an environmentalist point of view towards wasteful consumption that strips the earth's resources, contributing to environmental polution in terms of global warming and garbage.
From the economic point of view, one has to look at the consumption driven economy that is geared towards specific goals that can stimulate the economy at the same time as removing or reducing the contributing effects of wasteful consumption that affects our environment.
In the present context of this thread, it was started from the points raised by the remarkable "swei-siao hog" in the other thread ‘Democrats establish 14-member CEC to lead growing party’ - which were referred to in this thread.
As matters stand, the PAP Government has moved to open the doors to an increase to our population size so as to boost economic activities, which can only have positve effects to the GDP.
At the end of it all, in the face of a sinking industrial output, the increase in new migrants to boost the GDP can only strain the existing resources available to Singaporeans.
While the PAP Government pats its own back for a seeming miraculous upturn in statistics, this is done at the expense of the existing 3.5 Million Singaporeans already burden with 1 million over foreigners living as Permanent Residents and on Work Permit or Social Visit Passes.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Don't need to take him too seriously...
The whole idea of this particular thread is for Atobe to indulge in another of his personal attacks.
Should anyone take you seriously for your abilities to discern between your right and your left. ?
Obviously you know too little about hijacking a thread when the remarks were made by the "swei-siao-hog" in the other thread - ‘Democrats establish 14-member CEC to lead growing party’ - that require it to be challenged in a new thread of its own.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:I would think his first post in the thread would have been more than sufficient to provide the conclusion.
Oh i have already known the effects of our so called economic growth. We just have disagreements on who the culpurits really are.
But in the words of the late George Carlin, i don't have a stake in the outcome either way.
Should we be surprised that your remarkable intelligence will depend on borrowing simple thoughts that could not come forth from your own mind ?
Can we depend on the accuracy of your ability to discern the contents in the first post of this thread to form your conclusion ?
Your brilliance can already be seen in the remark that you made - (in the other thread as the "swei-siao-hog" had made) when you stated "Arguing on the Internet - Is like running in the Special Olympics; Even if you win, you're still a retard"
Is there any point for you to indulge in any controversies, even as you are controversial with your remarks that insult those who are retarded due to no fault of themselves ?
Now, should we not begin to wonder who the real retards in society should be ?
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Perhaps no stake would been the wrong choice of words. But i certainly do not wish to bring any more life into this world. Since then i have no investments for the future, it's not really in my interest to bother about obscure ideals and utopian delusions.
But i frankly have no more interest in the outcome, the alternatives seemed to be just as delusional as the problem. We're not going to use freedom, justice and equality to get ourselves out of this mess, precisely now because we are already begining to treat it like a religion.
There are no difference in our opinions frankly, both you, me and George Carlin. We can all agree that the system is rotting you merely believe that it is from the top down while i believe that it is from the bottoms up.
But i think we are hijacking this thread. We can move this to PM if you wish.
Can we help the retarded to understand how the monopoly of the PAP should be broken, when the PAP insist on making Singaporeans believe that it is natural to be retarded from having freedom, justice and equaility to question the PAP's methods ?
Is it not pathetic that the innocent who were born retarded should be derided by those who has the opportunity to be better that what they can be, but will prefer to resign to the retarded status quo imposed by the PAP ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
Should anyone take you seriously for your abilities to discern between your right and your left. ?
Obviously you know too little about hijacking a thread when the remarks were made by the "swei-siao-hog" in the other thread - ‘Democrats establish 14-member CEC to lead growing party’ - that require it to be challenged in a new thread of its own.
Should we be surprised that your remarkable intelligence will depend on borrowing simple thoughts that could not come forth from your own mind ?
Can we depend on the accuracy of your ability to discern the contents in the first post of this thread to form your conclusion ?
Your brilliance can already be seen in the remark that you made - (in the other thread as the "swei-siao-hog" had made) when you stated "Arguing on the Internet - Is like running in the Special Olympics; Even if you win, you're still a retard"
Is there any point for you to indulge in any controversies, even as you are controversial with your remarks that insult those who are retarded due to no fault of themselves ?
Now, should we not begin to wonder who the real retards in society should be ?
Can we help the retarded to understand how the monopoly of the PAP should be broken, when the PAP insist on making Singaporeans believe that it is natural to be retarded from having freedom, justice and equaility to question the PAP's methods ?
Is it not pathetic that the innocent who were born retarded should be derided by those who has the opportunity to be better that what they can be, but will prefer to resign to the retarded status quo imposed by the PAP ?
Seriously, Uncle, to you, anyone who support PAP is a retard, but how come the oppositions is not making any great leap or do something that can easily overtake retard peoples. It is either the oppositions are more retarded calling other retard..
Hope i am not retard to see my bankshares rising...
Originally posted by Atobe:
It all depends on how you look at 'consumption' - which from the perspective you are looking at is from an environmentalist point of view towards wasteful consumption that strips the earth's resources, contributing to environmental polution in terms of global warming and garbage.From the economic point of view, one has to look at the consumption driven economy that is geared towards specific goals that can stimulate the economy at the same time as removing or reducing the contributing effects of wasteful consumption that affects our environment.
In the present context of this thread, it was started from the points raised by the remarkable "swei-siao hog" in the other thread ‘Democrats establish 14-member CEC to lead growing party’ - which were referred to in this thread.
As matters stand, the PAP Government has moved to open the doors to an increase to our population size so as to boost economic activities, which can only have positve effects to the GDP.
At the end of it all, in the face of a sinking industrial output, the increase in new migrants to boost the GDP can only strain the existing resources available to Singaporeans.
While the PAP Government pats its own back for a seeming miraculous upturn in statistics, this is done at the expense of the existing 3.5 Million Singaporeans already burden with 1 million over foreigners living as Permanent Residents and on Work Permit or Social Visit Passes.
How can it depend on how I define consumption? Because the term "consumption driven economy" cannot possibly be environmentally sustainable given that the process of extraction of materials, processing, consumption and disposal of goods is almost a linear one, it is inevitably self-destructive when we are living in a finite world.
At the same time, because economic activity, in the sense of production of goods to be consumed, is based on the profit motive, whatever efforts at recycling is minute compared to the enormous amount of waste being generated each day.
I would really recommend everyone to watch the 20 min presentation at Story of Stuff. While I can only describe the flaw of our economic system in very abstract terms, the presentation is extremely simple to understand.
Originally posted by Atobe:
It all depends on how you look at 'consumption' - which from the perspective you are looking at is from an environmentalist point of view towards wasteful consumption that strips the earth's resources, contributing to environmental polution in terms of global warming and garbage.From the economic point of view, one has to look at the consumption driven economy that is geared towards specific goals that can stimulate the economy at the same time as removing or reducing the contributing effects of wasteful consumption that affects our environment.
In the present context of this thread, it was started from the points raised by the remarkable "swei-siao hog" in the other thread ‘Democrats establish 14-member CEC to lead growing party’ - which were referred to in this thread.
As matters stand, the PAP Government has moved to open the doors to an increase to our population size so as to boost economic activities, which can only have positve effects to the GDP.
At the end of it all, in the face of a sinking industrial output, the increase in new migrants to boost the GDP can only strain the existing resources available to Singaporeans.
While the PAP Government pats its own back for a seeming miraculous upturn in statistics, this is done at the expense of the existing 3.5 Million Singaporeans already burden with 1 million over foreigners living as Permanent Residents and on Work Permit or Social Visit Passes.
Atobe,
Please, make sure you are a bloody Malay and not any other race before you cow father cow mother about immigrants coming into Singapore as new citizens. So what even if GDP is increased due to immigrant population, the increase is not sustainable in a long term. The Sinkapore Acrobatics Party isn't the smartest alternative party in Singapore as it can only question about the policies in Singapore while not coming up with any good solutions. If the GST is removed, who is going to bear the income tax increase? It will be still the people. Jobs are not resources so please do not claim that existing resources are taken up by foreigners. Next, we should create variable pay for MPs and ministers, like the variable bonus. If the GDP screws up for that year, the MPs and ministers recieve pay of the lowest portion of the lowest quanta of the Singapore population and vice versa if the GDP goes up for the year.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Atobe,
Please, make sure you are a bloody Malay and not any other race before you cow father cow mother about immigrants coming into Singapore as new citizens. So what even if GDP is increased due to immigrant population, the increase is not sustainable in a long term. The Sinkapore Acrobatics Party isn't the smartest alternative party in Singapore as it can only question about the policies in Singapore while not coming up with any good solutions. If the GST is removed, who is going to bear the income tax increase? It will be still the people. Jobs are not resources so please do not claim that existing resources are taken up by foreigners. Next, we should create variable pay for MPs and ministers, like the variable bonus. If the GDP screws up for that year, the MPs and ministers recieve pay of the lowest portion of the lowest quanta of the Singapore population and vice versa if the GDP goes up for the year.
Can a 'swei-siao hog' with an IQ of 2 be taught how to grunt - when the effort will need an IQ of 3?
Should we be surprised at the hog's familiarity with the politics at the Animal Farm ?
Only a hog's mind with an IQ of 2 will think of Singapore's human resource by exporting our people.
Can humans depend on a hog's knowledge in the value of the Human Resource ?
Originally posted by freedomclub:How can it depend on how I define consumption? Because the term "consumption driven economy" cannot possibly be environmentally sustainable given that the process of extraction of materials, processing, consumption and disposal of goods is almost a linear one, it is inevitably self-destructive when we are living in a finite world.
At the same time, because economic activity, in the sense of production of goods to be consumed, is based on the profit motive, whatever efforts at recycling is minute compared to the enormous amount of waste being generated each day.
I would really recommend everyone to watch the 20 min presentation at Story of Stuff. While I can only describe the flaw of our economic system in very abstract terms, the presentation is extremely simple to understand.
If consumption is seen as all wasteful and all being environmentally unsustainable - what is your next best alternative - if you do not wish to narrow your all encompassing interpretation?
Can mankind survive without consumption ?
My response mentioned clearly that an economic recovery driven by consumption need not necessarily be wasteful - (in the manner that you have projected) - as the process can be focus to help change wasteful habits and at the same time preserve our own future.
Obama's plan to stimulate the US economy, and help save jobs at the motor industry PLUS improving the environment was achieved by the "cash for clunkers" program - in which old fuel guzzling cars that pollute the environment were taken off the road with a Cash Rebate to get the owners to change to a more fuel efficient vehicle that is less polluting.
Public expenditures to stimulate the economy can also take similar paths that improve our Standards of Living and at the same time protect the environment.
Originally posted by Atobe:
If consumption is seen as all wasteful and all being environmentally unsustainable - what is your next best alternative - if you do not wish to narrow your all encompassing interpretation?
Can mankind survive without consumption ?
My response mentioned clearly that an economic recovery driven by consumption need not necessarily be wasteful - (in the manner that you have projected) - as the process can be focus to help change wasteful habits and at the same time preserve our own future.
Obama's plan to stimulate the US economy, and help save jobs at the motor industry PLUS improving the environment was achieved by the "cash for clunkers" program - in which old fuel guzzling cars that pollute the environment were taken off the road with a Cash Rebate to get the owners to change to a more fuel efficient vehicle that is less polluting.
Public expenditures to stimulate the economy can also take similar paths that improve our Standards of Living and at the same time protect the environment.
Nope, I'm not saying that people have to give up consumption of goods, just that a consumption-driven economy is a road to destruction.
A better alternative could be a world where resources are directed toward bettering the human condition rather than to make a profit that we see in today's economy. Not only would this be the beginning of a resource-based economy where consumption is geared towards the carrying capacity of the Earth, but the distortions in our culture created by the pursuit of profit would be eliminated.
While it is true that the examples you quoted such as the Cash for Clunkers program would reduce pollution relatively, it still does not solve the root of the problem. In a world that is bound by budgets, the most effective solution to problems in our society will only be solved in as much as profits can be reaped by doing so. Even if improved fuel standards reduce pollution, why not go fuel-less? The technology exists for air-powered cars, water-powered cars or electric cars powered totally by renewable sources.
An economy whose functioning depends on constant consumption can never "protect the environment" because it is not designed to do so.
A better alternative could be a world where resources are directed toward bettering the human condition rather than to make a profit that we see in today's economy.
That is more left wing.
By the way, you might be interested in below video:
Originally posted by Ah Chia:That is more left wing.
By the way, you might be interested in below video:
Why do you still cling to the false Left/Right paradigm? It only serves to confuse people since there are many different descriptions of the so-called "Left" or "Right" that makes communication on such topics difficult.
It only serves to confuse people since there are many different descriptions of the so-called "Left" or "Right" that makes communication on such topics difficult.
Not so if you define your terms properly.
That is a rather confused and distortion of Carroll Quigley's writings. This Alex Jones has good intentions but holds many confused idiotic beliefs.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Not so if you define your terms properly.
That is a rather confused and distortion of Carroll Quigley's writings. This Alex Jones has good intentions but holds many confused idiotic beliefs.
Yeah, and which part of that presentation do you disagree with?
Yeah, and which part of that presentation do you disagree with?
Don't agree with the so called left/right political bullshit argument.
If he says that both parties are bullshit and hold similar policies then that is nothing new, for example the Bear here in sgfoums sees all political parties as bullshit.
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Nope, I'm not saying that people have to give up consumption of goods, just that a consumption-driven economy is a road to destruction.
A narrow view that "a consumption-driven economy" will certainly be a road to destruction - as was already repeated.
A better alternative could be a world where resources are directed toward bettering the human condition rather than to make a profit that we see in today's economy. Not only would this be the beginning of a resource-based economy where consumption is geared towards the carrying capacity of the Earth, but the distortions in our culture created by the pursuit of profit would be eliminated.
If "Profit" or "Profitability" is taken out of the equation - what is the next best method in the allocation of finite resources so as to better protect the environment ?
While it is true that the examples you quoted such as the Cash for Clunkers program would reduce pollution relatively, it still does not solve the root of the problem. In a world that is bound by budgets, the most effective solution to problems in our society will only be solved in as much as profits can be reaped by doing so. Even if improved fuel standards reduce pollution, why not go fuel-less? The technology exists for air-powered cars, water-powered cars or electric cars powered totally by renewable sources.
An economy whose functioning depends on constant consumption can never "protect the environment" because it is not designed to do so.
Over time "responsible consumption" can be cultivated to reform and replace the habit of "wasteful consumption".
"Wasteful consumption" has been developed by creative marketing that plant suggestions into the consumers' minds to stimulate demands that do not exist.
The same marketing tools can also be recruited to develop responsible consumption at multiple levels from the consumers, manufacturers, resource producers, and the government.
Originally posted by Atobe:
A narrow view that "a consumption-driven economy" will certainly be a road to destruction - as was already repeated.
If "Profit" or "Profitability" is taken out of the equation - what is the next best method in the allocation of finite resources so as to better protect the environment ?
Over time "responsible consumption" can be cultivated to reform and replace the habit of "wasteful consumption".
"Wasteful consumption" has been developed by creative marketing that plant suggestions into the consumers' minds to stimulate demands that do not exist.
The same marketing tools can also be recruited to develop responsible consumption at multiple levels from the consumers, manufacturers, resource producers, and the government.
I've already said that a better alternative would be a resource-based economy where production and consumption would be geared towards the carrying capacity of the Earth. In other words, goods would be designed with the intent of making the most efficient use of resources and technology rather than the simplistic motivation of making a profit that we see today. Of course, that would imply the elimination of monetary system which has many guardians benefiting from its corrupting influences.
"Wasteful consumption" has been developed by creative marketing that plant suggestions into the consumers' minds to stimulate demands that do not exist.
The same marketing tools can also be recruited to develop responsible consumption at multiple levels from the consumers, manufacturers, resource producers, and the government.
I agree, that is indeed the state of consciousness that exists in today's society. And when consumption means profits to corporations, seeing how they hire the top psychologists in the world to produce advertisements to create insecure and perpetual consumers, how would you suggest those marketing tools be used to develop a "responsible consumption". In today's system, that is purely an oxymoron.
Originally posted by freedomclub:
I've already said that a better alternative would be a resource-based economy where production and consumption would be geared towards the carrying capacity of the Earth. In other words, goods would be designed with the intent of making the most efficient use of resources and technology rather than the simplistic motivation of making a profit that we see today. Of course, that would imply the elimination of monetary system which has many guardians benefiting from its corrupting influences.
Yes, you have said what you have said with some persistence but have you considered what, or how, or who shall decide what resources should be tapped to produce what, or how, or which type of goods that allow production and consumption to be meshed towards the carrying capacity of the Earth ?
Someone did suggest that your approach is the same as the inefficient Central Planning approach of the defunct Soviet Communist State.
Are you not indulging in a silly exercise of utopian idealism with your suggestions in the elimination of the monetary system, and also denying the profit element to be one of a few determinants to decide how best the limited resources should be used ?
"Wasteful consumption" has been developed by creative marketing that plant suggestions into the consumers' minds to stimulate demands that do not exist.
The same marketing tools can also be recruited to develop responsible consumption at multiple levels from the consumers, manufacturers, resource producers, and the government.
I agree, that is indeed the state of consciousness that exists in today's society. And when consumption means profits to corporations, seeing how they hire the top psychologists in the world to produce advertisements to create insecure and perpetual consumers, how would you suggest those marketing tools be used to develop a "responsible consumption". In today's system, that is purely an oxymoron.
Government has at its disposal to use different incentives and regulations to move Corporations to fine tune the need of profits in their manufacturing process by also considering the effects of their processes to the Environment.
Have you not observed the marketing tools employed by the PAP Government in reaching out to Singaporeans to modify attitudes, social behaviour and the selling of "Government programmes" ?
If you insist on being locked in the present set of circumstance that is causing wastes and will prefer to delve in helpless lamentation of what should be, or could be - then perhaps it is time for you to start thinking how best to overcome the Present so as to save the Future.
It is no use indulging in utopian idealism.
where got no resource? So many walking kidneys for sale. In due time we should run campaigns overseas. Need organs? Come to Singapore where organs are locally produced and specimens are still walking.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Yes, you have said what you have said with some persistence but have you considered what, or how, or who shall decide what resources should be tapped to produce what, or how, or which type of goods that allow production and consumption to be meshed towards the carrying capacity of the Earth ?
Someone did suggest that your approach is the same as the inefficient Central Planning approach of the defunct Soviet Communist State.
Are you not indulging in a silly exercise of utopian idealism with your suggestions in the elimination of the monetary system, and also denying the profit element to be one of a few determinants to decide how best the limited resources should be used ?
Government has at its disposal to use different incentives and regulations to move Corporations to fine tune the need of profits in their manufacturing process by also considering the effects of their processes to the Environment.
Have you not observed the marketing tools employed by the PAP Government in reaching out to Singaporeans to modify attitudes, social behaviour and the selling of "Government programmes" ?
If you insist on being locked in the present set of circumstance that is causing wastes and will prefer to delve in helpless lamentation of what should be, or could be - then perhaps it is time for you to start thinking how best to overcome the Present so as to save the Future.
It is no use indulging in utopian idealism.
"Utopian idealism"?
First of all, you need to understand what is really relevant for human survival (not to be confused with the perpetuation of the establishment). There can never be such things as utopia because all social systems are always in a state of evolution. I'm sure you've heard of the saying that the only constant is change, though its sad our social system doesnt promote that. Its just that progress has been stiffled by the monetary system and the pursuit of profit because problems will never be solved in our world if they don't allow someone to make a profit.
In our monetary system, I said that our need for perpetual consumption drives our so-called economic growth because there is always a need to buy stuff, allowing companies to pay their workers, who then repeat the cycle by buying more stuff. In a finite world, such a cycle is extremely distorted because the focus is solely on making a profit, not geared to how much resources we have. It has to be, otherwise the whole system will crash due to inadequate economic 'growth'. The human and environmental condition will always remain secondary, if at all, in such a system. As is the case, how can anyone hope for a humane world if we live in this monetary system?
Whatever the PAP does, how can it hope to successfully wipe out today's consumerist culture? For our economy to be sustained, consumerism has to be sustained as a so-called engine of growth. If people do not feel insecure about themselves or do not attach their self-worth to material objects, then how do we sustain our economic growth when they dont buy unnecessary stuff impulsively? They are two diametrically opposed courses of action; it just isnt in line with the nature of our monetary system. But I don't know what the government is doing, perhaps you could provide some information on that.
You're confusing this idea of abolishing money with a label that has so much negative associations, and of which many people disagree on its definition- communism. That why using labels can distort communication, its better to describe what a particular system does. You got to know what the communism ideology advocated and did first. It always involved class warfare to get rid of possible opposition, which is why Soviet Russia and China exterminated tens of millions of their middle class. While communism advocated the abolishing of money for an equitable world, it couldnt do this and hence, remained in the paralysing monetary system. Of course there are more, but it would suffice with these two.
When I say that abolishing money would allow the creation of a better world, I say so under circumstances vastly different from when communism as I've described above. Thats why its inaccurate and dangerous to communication to label something today with yesterday's label. Today, tremendous advances in technology- something only relevant today- has allowed us to create an abundance of energy, clean water and food and adequate shelter and clothing necessary for human survival. While I acknowledge that this is still a finite world, resources are only as limited as is the availability of a synthetic substitute once the need for profit or profit enhanced by scarcity is eliminated.
But this line of reasoning doesnt apply to today's world because it is threatening to the very nature of the monetary system. It wouldnt make sense to charge for energy if it were as plentiful as the water in the oceans. A world where the necessities of life are abundant, regulating its distribution through money would be ridiculous, retarded (as in impeding social progress) and irrelevant to human survival. Thats why today, it is in the interest of the human condition, money should be abolished as its no longer needed and at the same time, our technological potential would be able to be used to its maximum, free from the need to generate irrelevant "economic growth".
The
nature of the economy and economic growth today is not only
unsustainable, environmentally degrading but it is also perverting our
social system. Semantically, it is not even "growth", but stagnation
for the establishment to preserve itself. Furthermore, we dont even
need it today due to Humanity's advances in technology; it is an
outdated system which needs to be replaced with a better one. You should really take 20 mins to watch The Story of Stuff in order for you to abandon this self-preserving reaction when the monetary system is questioned.
Originally posted by freedomclub:
"Utopian idealism"?
First of all, you need to understand what is really relevant for human survival (not to be confused with the perpetuation of the establishment). There can never be such things as utopia because all social systems are always in a state of evolution. I'm sure you've heard of the saying that the only constant is change, though its sad our social system doesnt promote that. Its just that progress has been stiffled by the monetary system and the pursuit of profit because problems will never be solved in our world if they don't allow someone to make a profit.
If all social systems are always in a state of evolution due to "change which is a constant in Life" - what do you think is the purpose for such changes to be made that result in evolution ?
Has the need for constant change and evolution to occur not been a result of society's need to progress and improve - in pursuit of betterment in Life ?
Is it not part of man's idealism for a perfect world, or somewhere closer to it ?
Has it not been your stated or implied position for such a perfect world to exist - where human consumption find an equilibrium with the preservation of nature's available resources ?
In our monetary system, I said that our need for perpetual consumption drives our so-called economic growth because there is always a need to buy stuff, allowing companies to pay their workers, who then repeat the cycle by buying more stuff. In a finite world, such a cycle is extremely distorted because the focus is solely on making a profit, not geared to how much resources we have. It has to be, otherwise the whole system will crash due to inadequate economic 'growth'. The human and environmental condition will always remain secondary, if at all, in such a system. As is the case, how can anyone hope for a humane world if we live in this monetary system?
With the clear detailing of the oxymoron system that you had described, what is the next best alternative to resolve the status quo ?
Whatever the PAP does, how can it hope to successfully wipe out today's consumerist culture? For our economy to be sustained, consumerism has to be sustained as a so-called engine of growth. If people do not feel insecure about themselves or do not attach their self-worth to material objects, then how do we sustain our economic growth when they dont buy unnecessary stuff impulsively? They are two diametrically opposed courses of action; it just isnt in line with the nature of our monetary system. But I don't know what the government is doing, perhaps you could provide some information on that.
Can anyone in Singapore know what the Singapore Government has in mind, when all decisions are made in the cloistered and rarefied environment of fhe CEC ?
The consumerist culture was already spoken as early as 1981 - by one of the most intellectual of Singapore's founding father - the late S. Rajaratnam, who was the longest serving Singapore Foreign Minister - when he spoke at a Havard Club Anniversary Dinner in Singapore.
You may wish to delve into his speech about - “Happy Pigs and Unhappy Men (*1)” - and determine for yourself the state of the Singapore Government today.
In his retirement in 1988, he spoke out against the materialistic culture in Singapore, when he spoke out at ‘...the decline of intellectualism and clear thinking, and was troubled by the phenomenon – which he attributed the decline with its underlying dynamic being a global one and formed part of the sweeping tide of history. It is the undesired consequences of steady economic growth, technological progress, and the burgeoning raw consumer culture which drives societies today and has help spawn its attendant shallow materialism’. (*2)
You're confusing this idea of abolishing money with a label that has so much negative associations, and of which many people disagree on its definition- communism. That why using labels can distort communication, its better to describe what a particular system does. You got to know what the communism ideology advocated and did first. It always involved class warfare to get rid of possible opposition, which is why Soviet Russia and China exterminated tens of millions of their middle class. While communism advocated the abolishing of money for an equitable world, it couldnt do this and hence, remained in the paralysing monetary system. Of course there are more, but it would suffice with these two.
Did Karl Marx and-or Lenin attempt to do away with the monetary system, or were their underlying philosophy being a struggle for a Class-less and Equitable Society ?
Without a monetary system, can any society develop to a higher level based purely on a system of bartering goods and services ?
When I say that abolishing money would allow the creation of a better world, I say so under circumstances vastly different from when communism as I've described above. Thats why its inaccurate and dangerous to communication to label something today with yesterday's label. Today, tremendous advances in technology- something only relevant today- has allowed us to create an abundance of energy, clean water and food and adequate shelter and clothing necessary for human survival. While I acknowledge that this is still a finite world, resources are only as limited as is the availability of a synthetic substitute once the need for profit or profit enhanced by scarcity is eliminated.
But this line of reasoning doesnt apply to today's world because it is threatening to the very nature of the monetary system. It wouldnt make sense to charge for energy if it were as plentiful as the water in the oceans. A world where the necessities of life are abundant, regulating its distribution through money would be ridiculous, retarded (as in impeding social progress) and irrelevant to human survival. Thats why today, it is in the interest of the human condition, money should be abolished as its no longer needed and at the same time, our technological potential would be able to be used to its maximum, free from the need to generate irrelevant "economic growth".
Regretably, I am amazed at the 'wishy-washy' position that you have adopted in this wasteful and supposedly intellectual exercise.
Mankind has evolved over centuries to arrive at the most efficient form of transaction of economic exchanges between societies, and it is with disbelief to read your claim that "regulating the distribution [of resources] through money would be ridiculous, retarded (impeding social progress) and irrelevant to human survival".
Have you ignored that all economic activity - and the resources that you recognised to be finite - will need to be determined in one form or another in terms of priorities ?
Without the element of "PROFITABILITY" and "MONETARY VALUATION" as tools for measurement - how would you propose to allocate resources - even if you desire to produce the synthetic alternatives for your proposed solution ?
Did you miss out the part mentioned in my response that legislations will have to be effected in parallel with social education - to nudge, incentivise, or as punitive measures - to have all parties act responsibly to preserve the environment when acting in their respective roles as consumers, manufacturers, and natural resource producers ?
The nature of the economy and economic growth today is not only unsustainable, environmentally degrading but it is also perverting our social system. Semantically, it is not even "growth", but stagnation for the establishment to preserve itself. Furthermore, we dont even need it today due to Humanity's advances in technology; it is an outdated system which needs to be replaced with a better one. You should really take 20 mins to watch The Story of Stuff in order for you to abandon this self-preserving reaction when the monetary system is questioned.
The Story of Stuff presents only a narrow central theme - can it be the holy grail panacea for the reconciliation of man and its environment ?
Did it offer any workable alternative for societies to advance forward towards the ideal standards for mankind in this 21st Century, and into the future ?
Questions still remain unanswered as to how to priorities and allocate the use of the finite resources as the various communities go about their economic activities, and to protect the environment at the same time.
walau, didn't know there is alots of peoples here in singapore dun have to work one leh, got time to post so long stuff..wee! ithot i am the only one free,...so free to post somemore said Singapore no good.