Living basic to save on bills
- Thread starter Biker
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Indeed - we dream of people as we wish them to be, but we function by understanding how they actually are.
No it doesn't. It needs desire to function. People buy things because they desire them.
Desire.
If they didn't desire the profit the or recipient having the thing, or both, then they wouldn't do it.
Trade is what happens when people who have compatible desires meet.
Trade will not begin to happen until there is a surplus of consumable goods to take to the market. It's not enough to have a desire for something but that is the motivation. That's the basic reason; it's not necessarily the reason we spend a few hours at the shopping mall on Saturday afternoon. People existing as a very basic subsistence level, as some do around the world, there is no trading taking place. But it doesn't follow that people existing at a primitive level will not generate anything to trade with. In fact, trade occurred during the stone age. Even the material for a decent flint arrowhead isn't found just any old place and for those lucky enough to be near a source, there existed the means for trading. The trading itself may have been an involved affair, to be sure, but everything takes more effort than is generally appreciated, particularly by those who never have to lift a finger to do anything. Anyway, the basic motivation for trade is to get something you otherwise don't have and for which you have a need or desire. That's also the basic motivation for the Viking raids, other than just to get out of the house.
And it's inequality that creates desire - someone wants something they don't have or need more of. Someone else has that thing. Imagine a world where everyone is a millionaire - what then is the value of a loaf of bread? The baker has no motivation to bake the bread - he is a millionaire after all.
Last edited:
I don't believe you. For these reasons.
1. I have plenty of desires, very few of them come from any inequality or any illusion of inequality.
I have a desire to spend time with my kids. What inequality creates that desire?
My kid desired a Lego Castle, where was the inquality that created that?
I have plenty of desires, very few of them come from any inequality or any illusion of inequality.
Any inequality worthy of note would come form a shortage and most shortages come from greed.
Greed would be built from, desire without compasssion.
Sharing comes from desire with compassion.
2. The world is not filling with ipads due to a need.
3. Trade only happens when the seller and the buyer agreed that the exchange is equal in value. So it is equality not inequality is what is needed for trade.
4. What the Baker does when they become a millionare will depend a very great deal on why they were a Baker in the first place. It the main reason was money then they won't continue baking. If the main reason was they enjoy baking and enjoy people enjoying their baking and the money was a secondarly issue, then they may well do a lot more baking. And they may well do a lot more interesting baking as well. Their desires don't really change.
I have a desire to spend time with my kids. What inequality creates that desire?
You don't have enough time currently - you want more time. There is an inequality of time. Perhaps you could work less to devote more time to your kids. But then you would have less cash. Why do you need more cash?
My kid desired a Lego Castle, where was the inquality that created that?
Your kid doesn't have enough lego to build a castle and desires the lego that someone else has. They have, you have not. Inequality.
I have plenty of desires, very few of them come from any inequality or any illusion of inequality.
Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.
Any inequality worthy of note would come form a shortage and most shortages come from greed.
Greed is a survival trait driven by risk, it's part of the human condition.
Greed would be built from, desire without compasssion.
Or fear that a situation will change, stockpiling more than you need for example.
Sharing comes from desire with compassion.
Sharing is also a survival trait. It stems from the hope that others may do the same for you. It is rarely without motive even though we may think it is.
2. The world is not filling with ipads due to a need.
This is a statement of fact, however it's nothing to do with my argument. Ipads are fashionable. People see others with them and want one too. If they weren't fashionable people wouldn't desire them. There is a percieved inequality. To become more fashionable (ie. equal) I need that item. Thus iPads sell.
3. Trade only happens when the seller and the buyer agreed that the exchange is equal in value. So it is equality not inequality is what is needed for trade.
But value is dependant on circumstance. And trades aren't always honest. A seller can lie about the value to create profit and thus inequality. The human condition dictates that we'll always try and get something for nothing - back to that survival trait again.
4. What the Baker does when they become a millionare will depend a very great deal on why they were a Baker in the first place. It the main reason was money then they won't continue baking. If the main reason was they enjoy baking and enjoy people enjoying their baking and the money was a secondarly issue, then they may well do a lot more baking. And they may well do a lot more interesting baking as well. Their desires don't really change.
You're missing my point a bit here. If everyone was rich there would inevitably be hyper inflation and the system would in essence reboot. Those that can work smart or cheat hard would prosper. Those who don't would be exploited. Even if by the smallest degree. Inequality would develop in the system once more.
You don't have enough time currently - you want more time. There is an inequality of time. Perhaps you could work less to devote more time to your kids. But then you would have less cash. Why do you need more cash?
My kid desired a Lego Castle, where was the inquality that created that?
Your kid doesn't have enough lego to build a castle and desires the lego that someone else has. They have, you have not. Inequality.
I have plenty of desires, very few of them come from any inequality or any illusion of inequality.
Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.
Any inequality worthy of note would come form a shortage and most shortages come from greed.
Greed is a survival trait driven by risk, it's part of the human condition.
Greed would be built from, desire without compasssion.
Or fear that a situation will change, stockpiling more than you need for example.
Sharing comes from desire with compassion.
Sharing is also a survival trait. It stems from the hope that others may do the same for you. It is rarely without motive even though we may think it is.
2. The world is not filling with ipads due to a need.
This is a statement of fact, however it's nothing to do with my argument. Ipads are fashionable. People see others with them and want one too. If they weren't fashionable people wouldn't desire them. There is a percieved inequality. To become more fashionable (ie. equal) I need that item. Thus iPads sell.
3. Trade only happens when the seller and the buyer agreed that the exchange is equal in value. So it is equality not inequality is what is needed for trade.
But value is dependant on circumstance. And trades aren't always honest. A seller can lie about the value to create profit and thus inequality. The human condition dictates that we'll always try and get something for nothing - back to that survival trait again.
4. What the Baker does when they become a millionare will depend a very great deal on why they were a Baker in the first place. It the main reason was money then they won't continue baking. If the main reason was they enjoy baking and enjoy people enjoying their baking and the money was a secondarly issue, then they may well do a lot more baking. And they may well do a lot more interesting baking as well. Their desires don't really change.
You're missing my point a bit here. If everyone was rich there would inevitably be hyper inflation and the system would in essence reboot. Those that can work smart or cheat hard would prosper. Those who don't would be exploited. Even if by the smallest degree. Inequality would develop in the system once more.
Last edited:
No - but economies are driven by inequality. You can't have an economy where everyone is equal. Money moves.
No. They are driven by trade, which is movement. And trade is driven by desire (good or bad). And as pointed to earlier in order to make a trade both parties need to agree that the trade is of equal value. So equality drives trade. Inequality on the other hand drives theft.
Can't disagree with that but I would say its forced by our particular economic model rather than driven - it doesn't have to be that way though...
In an ideal world.
Take communism. Wouldn't it be great if we all just pulled together? But not everyone wants to be Comrade1 working the factory. Comrade2 doing Rocket science thinks his job is more skilled and worth more. Meanwhile Comrade3 is in a position of power and feels that he should really use his position to look after and protect his family and close friends.
Thus inequality creeps into the system, because we're individuals. And because at the end of the day we look out for ourselves and our family above all others.
Very strange jump and tangent away from what I actually said.
If you agree the value of item and you give that value for it, where is the inequality?
Remember your orginal statement was that Inequality was necessary for an enconomy to funcation and you have yet to back this statement up with anything tangible, or even a definition of what you mean by inequality.
Let's go back to our bakers.
Baker 1 can create an outstanding loaf in an hour
He trades his loaves with weaver for baskets - 1 loaf = 2 baskets.
Baker 2 comes along and through skill can create a loaf in half an hour, he offers the weaver a deal. 1 loaf = 1 basket.
The weaver accepts.
Baker 1 approaches the weaver to try and do an exchange - at this point the weaver will only offer 1 basket in exchange. Baker 1 cannot compete with Baker 2 and is now "not equal" despite the fact the value he puts on his loaf is fair.
A different scenario could involve baker2 still taking two baskets but then using his surplus baskets to barter for other things.
Inequality - driven by the desire to profit.
Really? I think it's a bit pointless progressing with what I thought was a reasonable philosophical debate if you feel that way. You're looking for tangability in economics? It sounds to me you subscribe to a barter or LTV system which my example below shows the flaws in.
Last edited:
I don't think inequality is necessary for an economy to function but it may depend on what you mean by inequality. Primitive societies and their economies survived for a very long time and some are still going, with everyone being virtually equal. Mentioning a hypothetical situation where everyone is a millionaire is not helping anything, although they would for sure be equal. But the price of bread is surely going to go up and someone is still going to have to bake it (see thread on baking bread). The point is, you have to make a living and if you're going to have the things you can't produce yourself because the raw materials are absent where you happen to be, or you lack skill at doing something or you're too busy producing things you can produce yourself, then you have to trade for them. And to trade, you have to have something to trade with, generally the surplus of the things you do produce beyond what you actually consume. This ignores any higher social organization like complicated tribal structures, kingdoms, principalities or other forms of intentional communities. And most of this sort of thing requires community. A trapper in the North Woods still depends on community for that is where his market lies.
Also, you have to ascribe higher notions of humanity to people than seems to be recognized here. Even now, people are frequently doing totally illogical things which help complete strangers, sometimes even of lower social rank and who are unfashonably dressed. People really do that even if you wouldn't. I realize there are people who won't give you the time of day but I think we have less to fear from other people than is recognized, even though to think that way is bad for the survivalist industry.
Also, you have to ascribe higher notions of humanity to people than seems to be recognized here. Even now, people are frequently doing totally illogical things which help complete strangers, sometimes even of lower social rank and who are unfashonably dressed. People really do that even if you wouldn't. I realize there are people who won't give you the time of day but I think we have less to fear from other people than is recognized, even though to think that way is bad for the survivalist industry.
