I'm not following you on this one, please elaborate.mgnt8 wrote:It's nice to imagine that, if we all could just agree to share everything, we'd all end up with what we need. This just isn't realistic. We would then really have shortages.
the way I see it, if you have 1 cake and you throw a party with 20 people, you're going to have to share that cake with those 20 people, just the general idea. If you don't, you're going to lose friends .
Not the rule for most people but it happens a lot. It is profitable for resources to be scarce. If a company can convince the public that their product is “rare”, the more they can charge for that product. Like Ferraris for example, no reason why they can't build a million of them, would it be good for them? no.mgnt8 wrote:Scarcity and uneven distribution of resources is not something that comes about intentionally as if by some cartel of capitalists conspiring to pollute the world.
just an example.
Peoples interests and incentives are conditioned to the environment that they are living in. If you were to bring tap water to a small African tribe, instead of the woman having to walk all the way to the river to get it, they would ask you what would they do now with all the free time? New incentives would emerge.
mgnt8 wrote:Remove profit and self interest goes right with it
I see no problems with having self interests, as long as they aren't negative to someone else. People can profit in many ways, for example if I have a book you want, and you have a book I want, we would both "profit" by trading them. But the profit I refer to is a monetary payment. A monetary system’s foremost motivating principle is Profit (making money), not sustaining people or the environment.
The production of good and services is indispensable to our well-being and enrichment. I'm not against it what so ever. If anything, this system is only holding back a lot of the production potential we have. As of now,the technology that can free humans from meaningless tasks is stifled due to the monetary based labor system. This is unacceptable. The fact that technology is not being allowed to flourish for the benefit of human kind is, in fact, a Civil Rights issue on a certain level.
That's exactly what I'm advocating here, the problem today is that most people don't realize what is possible with current technology, and so they see what is out there as the best that money can buy, and that is somewhat true, but what about the best that money can't buy?mgnt8 wrote:People can and will demand more efficient and sustainable products and eventually producers will sell them.
”We call for a straightforward redesign of our culture, in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but also as totally unacceptable. Anything less simply results in a continuation of the same catalog of problems inherent in the present system.” – Jacque Fresco
As for currency let's leave it be for now.