A real buzzkill (seriously; the environment dudes)

[Monty3038]

I disagree. Even if you're expanding "greed" to its largest interpretation.

As far as greed for profits exclusively, the data of society strongly suggests that it's actually not that strong of an incentive at all. The dialogue just happens to be driven by those very few extremely powerful and greedy people.

The vast, vast majority of us just get by, and we care about other things so much more than our greed that we continue to just get by even though it hurts us

I find this hard to believe coming from someone who plays a game for profit to make a living. That is, if you are a professional poker player.

[wufwugy]

I find this hard to believe coming from someone who plays a game for profit to make a living. That is, if you are a professional poker player.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Also, while I do poker for a living, I hate it, and I'm dirt poor because I only do just enough to get by, probably because I hate it. Actually, that's more likely just a product of my stupid existential crisis crap I've been having, but that's a diff thing

I'm actually an excellent case for my point. I'm in a very tough spot in life because I have such difficulty being motivated by profits, yet that's such an important part of having a successful career

Hmm... and it can be argued that only people with money can think this way.

I don't have that much money. In fact, expanding my understanding of these things has provoked the difficulty I have in pursuing money in the first place. That really is a whole different issue though, and it's really just a fallacy anyways

True, scientific and artistic exploration and advances can be addressed to poorer persons on many counts, but can you really say that they did it out of 'goodness' or to make money? Did these artists die broke? Did they try to sell their work? Did the scientists die broke? Were they trying to make an advancement to accomplish a goal or sell what they made that accomplished that goal?

All of the above. You're making the mistake of thinking that pursuing money on some level = money is the root motivator.

Absolutely. It is your business. I also agree you should be able to run it however you want...

So as a business owner, you get to reap most of the profits of hiring employees yet few of the costs of firing them. Layoffs are enormously expensive to the society and economy as a whole. In a myopic world I guess business owners should have incredible autonomy, but in the real world the very system in which that business exists is very interdependent, and not devising policy to reflect that is a mistake

This is why a collective doesn't work well. Some will do their best, most will do something in between and some will do the bare minimum.

Actually, that's the opposite of what happens in a collective responsibility and opportunity paradigm. Curiously, you described what actually happens in our monopoly corporate market to a T

[Monty3038]

I'm in a very tough spot in life because I have such difficulty being motivated by profits, yet that's such an important part of having a successful career

So wait... define successful career for me then. Not one in poker, since you don't want to go that route obviously based upon the last few weeks discussions...

I don't have that much money. In fact, expanding my understanding of these things has provoked the difficulty I have in pursuing money in the first place. That really is a whole different issue though, and it's really just a fallacy anyways

I disagree. Coming from nothing and building yourself into a success leads to the time it takes to study and discover these things. What I'm driving at is more that it comes from being successful and having things in life and the desire to do charitable things that I think leads to this kind of discussion, as if you are struggling to get your next meal for your kids, you don't have the time to worry about the 'collective'.

All of the above. You're making the mistake of thinking that pursuing money on some level = money is the root motivator.

True... to a point. But... money is the method to get to all of the other motivators. Say I want to help my family move out of our one bedroom apartment where the 12 of us are living... how do I accomplish that? Money... Say I want my kids to be educated, to have more opportunities in life to understand the collective better than I do... how do I accomplish that? Money...

Also, the black market in a collective based society... what affect would it have?

So as a business owner, you get to reap most of the profits of hiring employees yet few of the costs of firing them. Layoffs are enormously expensive to the society and economy as a whole. In a myopic world I guess business owners should have incredible autonomy, but in the real world the very system in which that business exists is very interdependent, and not devising policy to reflect that is a mistake



Actually, that's the opposite of what happens in a collective responsibility and opportunity paradigm. Curiously, you described what actually happens in our monopoly corporate market to a T

Yes. I should reap the benefits of hiring people. They also reap the benefits of being employeed, of getting that paycheck, of the feeling of worth of contributing to something better than they were on their own, of providing for themselves and their family, of improving their lives by being able to afford a little luxury here and there... and if they suck at their job, or if business changes, I should reap the benefits of changing my business as necessary. What you seem to miss out on, is in a capitalistic society, there is more than profit motivating the business owner. The business owner wants to perform their business.

Let's go take my father in law for example. He is a self made man. He left an abusive poor back woods home at 15. He went out into the world, with little education, and built himself a life, a business and now depending on workload employs 7-10 people on average. He hires only those motivated to work. If you aren't motivated, aren't interested in learning and working, you are fired. He reaps all of the benefits of his knowledge, skills and ability to run a business and make money. He is not insanely profitable, but has been able to buy and now own his own home. He put food on the table and kept his kids motivated to go through school and become successful on their own. Does he do his job strictly for profits? No. But that is a primary goal. He also takes care of his workers, those that are willing to work and able to do the job. He pays them well, and in turn he reaps the value of their labor. They learn from him, either moving on and starting their own businesses in turn or staying with him and helping him expand his. His business supports at least three other types of business, in at least two areas of the country.

Now, is he rich? No, he makes about $50,000 per year. That is lower middle class in one of the areas he works, and middle class in the other. He makes enough to work as a snowbird, moving from the northern part of the country during the summer to Florida in the winter, so he can continue working year round. He is 58 years old and has helped at least 5 families move into the US. He cares about this employees, helping them find homes, fix their cars, throws cookouts and parties for them during the summer, and even purchased a temporary home for his crew that follows him south during the winter. They stay rent free so they can send money back north to their families while they work for the winter.

So... yes, that is one example only. But if he was not able to layoff those who don't work, or who can't do the work effectively, he would work slower, less efficiently, have fewer jobs and eventually go out of business. In a collective style society on the other hand, he would do the job he was told to do, let's say he is lucky and gets to do this job. He would not be able to use superior materials of his choosing. he would have to work with whatever crew he was given. He would not reap the profits of good word of mouth for his extended efforts, he would not own his business and not have the ability to grow that business, his motivator would be (hopefully) to do his job well, but once he tired of not advancing because of doing his job well, even though benefitting the people he did it for, he would lapse into just doing his job well enough to keep his job. At that point, the job loses value because of lack of motivation, etc... and it spirals down from there, to the point where his morale is horrible and his motivation is gone.

Anyway, I think I strayed quite a bit off your point, but let me try to get back there...

The way you describe a collectively responsible society is wonderful wuf, if EVERYONE IN IT is 'responsible'.

How do you propose you keep people 'responsible' and keep them from being motivated by their own interests above the society?

[wufwugy]

Yes. I should reap the benefits of hiring people. They also reap the benefits of being employeed, of getting that paycheck, of the feeling of worth of contributing to something better than they were on their own, of providing for themselves and their family, of improving their lives by being able to afford a little luxury here and there... and if they suck at their job, or if business changes, I should reap the benefits of changing my business as necessary. What you seem to miss out on, is in a capitalistic society, there is more than profit motivating the business owner. The business owner wants to perform their business.

Let's go take my father in law for example. He is a self made man. He left an abusive poor back woods home at 15. He went out into the world, with little education, and built himself a life, a business and now depending on workload employs 7-10 people on average. He hires only those motivated to work. If you aren't motivated, aren't interested in learning and working, you are fired. He reaps all of the benefits of his knowledge, skills and ability to run a business and make money. He is not insanely profitable, but has been able to buy and now own his own home. He put food on the table and kept his kids motivated to go through school and become successful on their own. Does he do his job strictly for profits? No. But that is a primary goal. He also takes care of his workers, those that are willing to work and able to do the job. He pays them well, and in turn he reaps the value of their labor. They learn from him, either moving on and starting their own businesses in turn or staying with him and helping him expand his. His business supports at least three other types of business, in at least two areas of the country.

Now, is he rich? No, he makes about $50,000 per year. That is lower middle class in one of the areas he works, and middle class in the other. He makes enough to work as a snowbird, moving from the northern part of the country during the summer to Florida in the winter, so he can continue working year round. He is 58 years old and has helped at least 5 families move into the US. He cares about this employees, helping them find homes, fix their cars, throws cookouts and parties for them during the summer, and even purchased a temporary home for his crew that follows him south during the winter. They stay rent free so they can send money back north to their families while they work for the winter.

So... yes, that is one example only. But if he was not able to layoff those who don't work, or who can't do the work effectively, he would work slower, less efficiently, have fewer jobs and eventually go out of business. In a collective style society on the other hand, he would do the job he was told to do, let's say he is lucky and gets to do this job. He would not be able to use superior materials of his choosing. he would have to work with whatever crew he was given. He would not reap the profits of good word of mouth for his extended efforts, he would not own his business and not have the ability to grow that business, his motivator would be (hopefully) to do his job well, but once he tired of not advancing because of doing his job well, even though benefitting the people he did it for, he would lapse into just doing his job well enough to keep his job. At that point, the job loses value because of lack of motivation, etc... and it spirals down from there, to the point where his morale is horrible and his motivation is gone.

I'd say this discussion is probably over. This is a straw man and a red herring, and doesn't address the point I made. Your view is correct, but only in myopia. When you scale your view to meet the economy as a whole, your idea breaks down. I already explained two ways this happens and is currently happening.


I have made this point so many times, but it is virtually never understood by those who need to understand it. Libertaria is a megacorp special interest wet dream. The free marketeer branch of the right-wing has no idea what they're arguing for. They're arguing for policy that turns governing powers into the hands of the very few with the gold and the power. Libertaria is no different than a plutocracy with a handful of uber wealthy, a depressed poor/middle class, and a whole shitload of slaves. There is virtually no difference between the arguments for totalitarianism and right-wing economics