You need to register and login to create and read (some) posts

What is money video series

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS_OGW0T24g2E3FmGd545fUuqb1FsseBm

Part two of the series is now live.

-- All you need is love...

I have trouble believing that anybody would really accept the idea that money represents labor time in anything other than an idealistic or abstract sense.

Maybe I am way off base with my observation.

But what you are saying maybe makes sense when one has the new energy LP archetypes in mind, which promote the egalitarian idea that every soul is infinitely valuable.

But it seems like most people watching this video would not really have internalized "new energy" ideas like that.

So how could somebody really accept that one hour of a brain surgeon's time is worth one hour of a janitor's time?

Wouldn't the 12+ years of advanced education that goes into a brain surgeon's preparation mean that her time is more valuable?

And isn't it somewhat of a "cold hard, cruel fact" that people have differing ability levels? Is it really true that under "new energy" conditions, everyone will be equally beautiful, and equally capable?

And even if so, don't we have to admit that under current extant conditions, we are not all equally capable, equally driven, equally beautiful, or equally able to be brain surgeons?

https://www.kundalinisoftware.com May the people of this world be free.

I'll respoknd to these a bit later. Just quick question. Did yo uwatch the second video?

-- All you need is love...

These are good observations. It might be worthwhile to ask these questions in the comment section of the YouTube videos, since I"m sure others would have these questions as well.

We can address them here as well.

So how could somebody really accept that one hour of a brain surgeon's time is worth one hour of a janitor's time?

Wouldn't the 12+ years of advanced education that goes into a brain surgeon's preparation mean that her time is more valuable?

Why? What makes that labour more valuable than, say, someone who picks up trash for a living. The investment in education? What if that education was free, as it is in some countries.

And isn't it somewhat of a "cold hard, cruel fact" that people have differing ability levels? Is it really true that under "new energy" conditions, everyone will be equally beautiful, and equally capable?

Well, I think characterizing the fact that people are different as a "cold hard, cruel fact" betrays an ideological meritocracy. I mean, so what?  Does somebody with less talent, or somebody who isn't supermodel status, somehow worth less? Is the "shell" what you are basing your evaluation of worth on. The shell, the physical unit, is just a vehicle. Isn't it true that what counts is the soul inside? So what if the physical unit is different? In a society that values the "being inside," the skills and ability of the physical unit are irrelevant. In a society that values the being inside, the focus would be on creating conditions that would enable everyone to make a healthy and valuable contribution.

Also, we've all got talents and abilities. I think one of the basic premises of the LP is that Toxic Socialization undermines ability and potential. So what would humans be like, collectively, if all Seven Essential Needs were met from day one? I don't think we really know what they would be like, or what their full potential would be. Though note that even Adam Smith, so-called "father of Capitalism, felt that "talent" was delusionary and just the result of better upbringing. I rather think that if we created a healthy socialization system that all people would find a way to make a valuable contribution to society.

And even if so, don't we have to admit that under current extant conditions, we are not all equally capable, equally driven, equally beautiful, or equally able to be brain surgeons?

Well, being a brain surgeon is only one possible contribution to society. What about somebody who walks amongst the homeless and tries to help them? Is one hour of their time worth less than one our of brain surgeon time? What about a mother who raises children? Is her labour less valuable or any less important?

What makes a brain surgeon's labour more "valuable" than the labour time of a mother who raises children? Is fixing somebody's brain more important than raising healthy children?

 

 

 

 

-- All you need is love...

Also, I wanted to add one other  thing.

One, even if you want to value somebody's labour more than other, that's not really the point of the videos. The point is to expose capitalism as a parasitic system and wealth as an unfair accumulation of labour time, which capitalists don't really deserve. I mean, sure they deserve something. But there's a "trick" built into the system that allows them to accumulate way beyond the most outrageous claims that their labour might be more valuable.

 

-- All you need is love...
Quote from Michael.S on September 4, 2020, 5:43 pm

Did yo uwatch the second video?

Yes. However, I had trouble with the central assertion of the video that economic text books and the WWW in general somehow intentionally obscure the "real nature of money" as a way to prevent people from asking "difficult questions."

It doesn't seem likely that a type of coordinated effort like that could be launched across 1000s of websites or 100s of Economic Textbooks from different publishers.

Again it is not my intention to be rude or contrary, but you asked for feedback, and I wanted to provide it.

Additionally, I felt it is sort of a strawman type argument to mention that Jeff Bezos makes millions of dollars per hour while many people make more like 12 dollars an hour.

I totally get it that very few people would say that is "fair."

However, to me it doesn't necessarily follow that therefore all people's time should somehow be valued equally.

In theory I do get the argument that everybody's time should be valued the same.

But I do not think you could really get too many people to agree that a brain surgeon and the janitor should somehow be paid the same amount of money.

To me it is definitely a "cruel hard fact" that people have differing ability levels, and not everybody is equally beautiful.

I wonder if it comes across like I am being argumentative.  But when I watch the videos, it doesn't come across to me like they are somehow "revealing to me" the secret of money.

Instead, it is more like a utopian vision that doesn't jive at all with my own experience of the world as it actually exists.

https://www.kundalinisoftware.com May the people of this world be free.

I find it funny that janitor/manual labour type of work is always looked down upon as being less important and therefore less valued. What would happen if suddenly no one would be driving the garbagetrucks or cleaning public spaces? We´d have a huge mess everywhere.
Ben, honestly, do you think that the work of a janitor is less valuable? Or more specifically, do you think their time is less valuable than the brain surgeons? I´m trying to find what it is about the janitor or common man that you (it seems)think less of.

I used to have this same issue until I truly realized that we are all equally important. Even more specifically, I had this issue until I realized that MY time is not worth anymore than anybody elses time. I am not above anyone, nor below. Everybody should get paid a fair wage, and if somebody wants to be a brain surgeon, good. They should get paid and not have to worry about their money. As should everybody else.

 

The issue I do have, is that it takes time to get good at something. A beginner is nowhere near the level of a professional within any field. So should that be taken into account? Well, yes, I think so.

I am now running my own carpentry business, if I stumble upon something that is completely new to me, I will not charge the same way as if it is something that I am used to. I chalk it up to a learning experience, make a bit less, but next time I´ll be ready for it. It feels best that way.

Hi Ben, hope you've been doing fine 🙂

Just a couple of notes on what you wrote:

I have trouble believing that anybody would really accept the idea that money represents labor time in anything other than an idealistic or abstract sense.

I can attest to the contrary there. My estimate is that about 60% of the people I am acquainted with would not only subscribe to the view that money is an abstract container for labor (=time), but also try their best to fashion their lives according to this idea. Those who are in the position to do so, ALL strive to work less, even if it means less money. Why? Because they realized the connection between money and labor-time in some sense or another. They realize that what they offer to the boss, or to society is their LIFE-time. Since most of these people have other things they want to do except work, they take however much free time for themselves they can afford. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but in Europe the new generation really strives to create a society that does not keep us 40 hours per week in check. That is the main argument behind many a movement here. Again, to emphasize, it is the labor-time they want to reduce. I do believe that our average citizen is deeply concerned with precisely this topic, and put in a clear and grounded way, most of us would agree to the idea that money equals labor-time.

You have some counter arguments, or let's say intuitions that this would in some sense not be fair. To pay a brain-surgeon equally much as a janitor would deprive us of all "reason" to strive to get "better" jobs, many would say.

I agree with Mike here. Money is labor-time. Nothing more, nor less. We argue that a brain-surgeon, needed to invest so and so much time for the education, so and so much talent to get the job done. We argue that the brain surgeon has so and so much responsibility on his/her shoulders. We argue that the top-manager, or the top-politician, has an immense responsibility to carry, which can be related straight to stress. We feel it's fair to offer at least some monetary recompense for the "services" they offer us.

Indeed. But what about the cashier at the supermarket? The cashier, whose every day looks the same, repetitive manual work where not a second passes where the cashier must not focus on the repetitive, boring task. Where is the recompense there? There is none. Not monetarily at least. Imagine, what a crazy SACRIFICE these people do. It is a true sacrifice. They sacrifice their life-time in a dull and repetitive task that is needed for our societies to function. Wouldn't you think that these people deserve more than minimum wage? As far as I am concerned, I would ask for more money for a cashier job than I would ask from a job as a programmer. Why? Because at least then my sacrifice would be recompensed according to the magnitude of my sacrifice. It is easy to work when the work is fun, or in any way enticing and fulfilling. It is a sacrifice to do work that is necessary but not fun.

Higher education is, unfortunately, a privilege. That is already more enticing than the ill-paid jobs that do not need a higher education. It is thus by definition more fun and enticing. More suited to the fulfillment of human needs. That is already a recompense in itself.

Without a doubt, we need to change many things in our society. Doctors, for instance, desperately need more free time, like just about everybody else. We simply work too much. If we reduced our workload to about 40% of what we work right now, I'm quite sure your opinion on remuneration would change drastically. Because then, the true sacrifice of those working in factories, in shopping malls, in jails, in courier services would be seen for what they are more clearly. Those who do highly-paid jobs that require almost 0-error-tolerance would not be so stressed and would be more efficient. They would love their job a lot more, and have little reason to require a high recompense for the sacrifice they do. But it would be different for the currently ill-paid jobs. Even if the workload is reduced to 40%, the jobs are still dull, numbing, and repetitive. To equate this unfairness, higher remuneration is suitable. And voila, we envision a world where the monetary recompense would be almost inverted.

That, in my humble opinion, would be a world that is a lot more healthy than our current one.

Yes. However, I had trouble with the central assertion of the video that economic text books and the WWW in general somehow intentionally obscure the "real nature of money" as a way to prevent people from asking "difficult questions."

It doesn't seem likely that a type of coordinated effort like that could be launched across 1000s of websites or 100s of Economic Textbooks from different publishers.

It is interesting. I keep seeing the same argument again and again. The argument that states that it is unlikely that such a coordinated effort could be launched across well, the entirety of human information sources.

To that, I say this: You don't need to coordinate anything. Just take away the truth for a small moment, and the rest enfolds totally from alone. The blind lead the blind. And from blindness more blindness spreads, in a ever increasing complexity of fragments. These fragments are truth fragments. Focus on a single fragment, disregarding the whole, and that fragment becomes misaligned, creating "falsehood". And after a while, next to nobody can recognize the source of the fragmentation, and next to nobody knows the simple truths that were hidden at the beginning. It is seriously difficult to infer the big picture from those fragments, mainly because so many actors offered their peculiar focus, and because so many new things and thoughts and rules have been created based on those fragments.

To me it is definitely a "cruel hard fact" that people have differing ability levels, and not everybody is equally beautiful.

I agree that it is a fact that we all have different abilities. And? Why is that cruel? Is it cruel that orange is orange, and blue is blue? It would be absurd to maintain that.

The cruelness comes from the fact that we have intensely incorporated ideas of meritocracy based on competition. Only with the assumption that we live in a competitive world, red in tooth and claw, is the adjective "cruel" a correct descriptor of the current status of our world. Only by the power of our own beliefs do we, as a society, create the cruelty you describe.

The universe is not cruel. It offers us everything we need. We should stop blaming stuff on "the world", "the universe", "reality", or place there any word you want. We should start realizing that WE are the ones that create that cruelty. With our belief systems, with our minds.

Yours, Aim

Quote from benjamin pritchard on September 5, 2020, 11:08 am

 

Yes. However, I had trouble with the central assertion of the video that economic text books and the WWW in general somehow intentionally obscure the "real nature of money" as a way to prevent people from asking "difficult questions."

It doesn't seem likely that a type of coordinated effort like that could be launched across 1000s of websites or 100s of Economic Textbooks from different publishers.

Well I don't know. If an economics professor defines money properly, and then the students start asking questions about the value of labour, inequality, the foundations of capitalism, and so on, they may entirely on their own stop defining money like that. And really, when there are only a handful of dictionaries in the world, how "co-ordinated" must the effort really be. Just get the top dictionaries to define money without the notion of labour time and that would propagate pretty naturally through the cybersphere of this planet.

And let's ask the question, why is this basic truth taught in grade five? The answer is that  governments, which are capitalist at this point, control school curriculum. Why would they introduce a concept that would lead people to question the legitimacy of the system which they protect.

Additionally, I felt it is sort of a strawman type argument to mention that Jeff Bezos makes millions of dollars per hour while many people make more like 12 dollars an hour.

That's not a straw man. That is pointing out how excessive the extraction and accumulation can be. Remember, Bezos makes that simply because he owns amazon and therefore has the power to extract a portion of the worker's labour time.

 

I totally get it that very few people would say that is "fair."

However, to me it doesn't necessarily follow that therefore all people's time should somehow be valued equally.

See I have a different problem. I don't see how one person's labour should be more valued than another just because they have different abilities and talents. You think your position is self-evident, but it require you to already accept as "sacred" truth certain propositions that are in fact arguable.

Like let's ask the question, why does a brain surgeon deserve more money per hour than a mother raising five children?

o me it is definitely a "cruel hard fact" that people have differing ability levels, and not everybody is equally beautiful.

It is only cruel and hard because you value certain people over others. If you value all life equally, differences would neither be cruel nor hard nor used as a justification for some people to accumulate more than others.

I wonder if it comes across like I am being argumentative.  But when I watch the videos, it doesn't come across to me like they are somehow "revealing to me" the secret of money.

Instead, it is more like a utopian vision that doesn't jive at all with my own experience of the world as it actually exists.

Well, I didn't say revealing the secret of money, I said revealing the parasitic nature of capitalism.

Ya, I guess if one of the messages in the videos is that we should reconsider capitalism in the context of a proper understanding of money, value, and human existence, then that's utopian. But that characterization seems like a bit of a reduction.

What do you think the LP is about if not supporting a transition to a utopian "divine world order."

Also, I don't think it's as utopian as you think. There is already a growing global movement for a universal basic income. And if people under 30 had their way, we'd be a lot farther along on the path than we already are.

 

 

-- All you need is love...
Quote from redxviii on September 5, 2020, 11:58 am

The issue I do have, is that it takes time to get good at something. A beginner is nowhere near the level of a professional within any field. So should that be taken into account? Well, yes, I think so.

I am now running my own carpentry business, if I stumble upon something that is completely new to me, I will not charge the same way as if it is something that I am used to. I chalk it up to a learning experience, make a bit less, but next time I´ll be ready for it. It feels best that way.

I think this is a reasonable position. If you put in time and effort to develop skills, you should be rewarded. But again we ask questions about how and why? When we ask those "difficult" questions, questions which become possible when we understand the value of money, it becomes hard to justify extreme differentials.

In the case of Bezos,  what exactly are we rewarding Bezos or other of the uber-rich for?  Jeff makes that money without ever lifting a finger. He makes it because he lives in a country where the System is specifically designed to enable him to accumulate a portion of the work of every worker he employs. How exactly is that justifiable?

 

 

-- All you need is love...

Also, I don't think it's as utopian as you think. There is already a growing global movement for a universal basic income. And if people under 30 had their way, we'd be a lot farther along on the path than we already are.

Hell yeah!

That's certainly what I experience in my surroundings.

Apropos this discussion

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/06/michael-sandel-the-populist-backlash-has-been-a-revolt-against-the-tyranny-of-merit

-- All you need is love...

Recent forum posts

building a better and more inclus …
building a better and more inclus …
building a better and more inclus …
building a better and more inclus …
building a better and more inclus …
building a better and more inclus …
Coordinated efforts to suppress p …
Skip to toolbar