The Rich...

[Winchester]

And we have unwittingly come to the truth about who really benefits from (and has always fought for) inflation.

[Papist]

I love rich people.

 

[spoiler]I love poor people.[/spoiler]

Edited December 24, 2012 by Papist

[Era Might]

The earth never provided these things, you gotta be confused. These things were present on the earth, yet it took hard work to come by them. A roof over ones head could be found in a cave, yet one would have to make that cave inhabitable, by removing whatever else may have chosen to live there, bats animals, insects etc. A thatched roof or a hut had to have materials collected and assembled and maintained. Food grew on the earth, that which could be harvested had to be collected and transported and prepared in some way to be eaten, that which was alive such as meat had to be captured or killed, cut up and eaten. You ever see any cave drawings depicting fat cave men?

 

These days we pay others to do our collecting, preparation, cooking, building etc. and of course this takes money. Either we steal that money or we do honest labor to obtain it, the modern day equivalance of hunting and gathering.

 

ed

 

Of course it required work, but it didn't require rich people to create industries that do the work for us. There's a difference between "housing" and "dwelling." Today we are housed, whereas when people created their own homes, however simple, it was a dwelling, an expression of their ability to act in their world, as well as an expression of culture, etc. Today we are "housed" in standardized apartments, massive buildings, etc. It's more efficient and it's necessary for our highly industrial society, but that doesn't make it necessary to humanity. It's only necessary because that's the course we've chosen.

 

In other words, our society is based on concepts like technique, efficiency, standardization, etc. Our society is based on the creation of "wants" and "needs" that are then able to be filled by other people. That's what marketing is, convincing people that they have either a want or a need, and getting them to buy into your product and service.

 

The idea of "unemployment" doesn't make sense in older societies where "work" was not something related to a wage economy separate from real life. People worked hard, they built houses, they prepared food, they made clothes, but it was all part of being human. What we see today is "Homo economicus" or economic man, where we no longer understand anything except in light of our economic system. Learning, for example, is invalid unless it's measured in a school with certified professionals who have a monopoly on learning. Even death has become a service industry.

 

Are there also practical reasons for the structure of our society? Of course. But at root, our society is not built to make us independent. Free markets and capitalism, while they are in some sense geared toward freedom, are still based on an economic system of products, services, wants, needs. Entrepreneurship is great for the limited few who can convince others to depend on them.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Era Might

[Winchester]

Convince?

 

It's the reality of opportunity cost. I'd rather depend on the many, many clothing producers out there than depend on my own labor. The trade-off is great, in my opinion.

[Anomaly]

 Unequivocally, stereotypes are usually inaccurate, but generally effective.

[Anomaly]

Of course it required work, but it didn't require rich people to create industries that do the work for us. There's a difference between "housing" and "dwelling." Today we are housed, whereas when people created their own homes, however simple, it was a dwelling, an expression of their ability to act in their world, as well as an expression of culture, etc. Today we are "housed" in standardized apartments, massive buildings, etc. It's more efficient and it's necessary for our highly industrial society, but that doesn't make it necessary to humanity. It's only necessary because that's the course we've chosen.

 

In other words, our society is based on concepts like technique, efficiency, standardization, etc. Our society is based on the creation of "wants" and "needs" that are then able to be filled by other people. That's what marketing is, convincing people that they have either a want or a need, and getting them to buy into your product and service.

 

The idea of "unemployment" doesn't make sense in older societies where "work" was not something related to a wage economy separate from real life. People worked hard, they built houses, they prepared food, they made clothes, but it was all part of being human. What we see today is "Homo economicus" or economic man, where we no longer understand anything except in light of our economic system. Learning, for example, is invalid unless it's measured in a school with certified professionals who have a monopoly on learning. Even death has become a service industry.

 

Are there also practical reasons for the structure of our society? Of course. But at root, our society is not built to make us independent. Free markets and capitalism, while they are in some sense geared toward freedom, are still based on an economic system of products, services, wants, needs. Entrepreneurship is great for the limited few who can convince others to depend on them.

In what way would society and humanity be better if a person spent all their efforts providing a dwelling and farming instead of being a surgeon or sculptor?

[Era Might]

Convince?

 

It's the reality of opportunity cost. I'd rather depend on the many, many clothing producers out there than depend on my own labor. The trade-off is great, in my opinion.

 

Not sure if this is addressed to me, but if it is I guess we just see life differently. I would rather live in a society where clothes produced within community, rather than a society where I am branded like a cow with a logo on my chest, and where dress is given significance by vanguard fashionistas rather than religious / cultural values.

 

That being said, we don't live in such a society, so of course I'm going to rely on clothing producers. But I do it with full awareness of what we've lost, including the basic ability (and joy) to clothe ourselves.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Era Might

[Winchester]

Not sure if this is addressed to me, but if it is I guess we just see life differently. I would rather live in a society where clothes produced within community, rather than a society where I am branded like a cow with a logo on my chest, and where dress is given significance by vanguard fashionistas rather than religious / cultural values.

 

That being said, we don't live in such a society, so of course I'm going to rely on clothing producers. But I do it with full awareness of what we've lost, including the basic ability (and joy) to clothe ourselves.

 

Apparently you don't want this enough. It would take a lot of effort, but you could form such a society. You would work a lot more, and probably have far fewer clothes, but you could do it. You enjoy far more variety under the current system than you would if you had fewer producers. And if you were custom ordering clothing made, you'd also be paying far more, in all likelihood. I choose the logos (if any) I wish to wear from a bewildering array.

 

You will rely on production by yourself or by others. But you cannot escape reliance.

[Era Might]

In what way would society and humanity be better if a person spent all their efforts providing a dwelling and farming instead of being a surgeon or sculptor?

 

They had surgeons and sculptors in ancient societies.

 

The question is not what we can do, but whether we want to define ourselves in terms of products and services. Your example of a surgeon is a good example...what it means to be a physician today is different even from what it meant just a couple hundred years ago. These professions are not just matters of skill but are socially defined as well. A scholar in the middle ages was embarking on a path of poverty. A scholar today is embarking on a path to wealth. Different societies, different values.

 

 

Apparently you don't want this enough. It would take a lot of effort, but you could form such a society. You would work a lot more, and probably have far fewer clothes, but you could do it. You enjoy far more variety under the current system than you would if you had fewer producers. And if you were custom ordering clothing made, you'd also be paying far more, in all likelihood. I choose the logos (if any) I wish to wear from a bewildering array.

 

You will rely on production by yourself or by others. But you cannot escape reliance.

 

I am not against reliance. There's a church where I sometimes go to Mass, and there's an old friar in a wheelchair who is wheeled around by another young friar. It's a beautiful example of reliance, but it takes on a very different cast when the person doing the wheeling is a "professional" getting paid.

 

And you're right that I could turn my life around and live the life I want to lead, and I admire people who do that. But I've accepted the fact that I live in many contradictions. I'm more a believer in choosing your battles and looking for small ways to live against the grain. Maybe that's the coward's way out, I'm not sure.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Era Might

[Winchester]

I'm more a believer in choosing your battles and looking for small ways to live against the grain. Maybe that's the coward's way out, I'm not sure.

 

Everyone believes in this. It's called preference, and there's nothing wrong with it.

[Era Might]

Everyone believes in this. It's called preference, and there's nothing wrong with it.

 

A preference is something you prefer to something else. Given the choice between a society where we can act and a society where we are dependent on others to act for us, I would prefer the former.

[Winchester]

A preference is something you prefer to something else. Given the choice between a society where we can act and a society where we are dependent on others to act for us, I would prefer the former.

 

Cost is an inseparable part of that preference.

[Era Might]

Cost is an inseparable part of that preference.

 

In our system, sure. But "cost" is itself a concept of homo economicus. It's defined by how much we earn by wage labor, and measuring ourselves against cost. A house is beyond my "cost," and that inability to afford a house is part of my social definition. The idea that a HOUSE of all things, the ability to create our own dwelling in this world, is limited by "cost" says everything to me about what's wrong with how Western society has developed. Another example is "healthcare." Someone who doesn't have a hospital is defined as "underprivileged" or "underdeveloped." Health, life, and dying are defined by a medical institution, rather than by the empowering web of healing, medicines, support, culture, etc. that could be developed if we didn't define healthcare by an institution. The sign of health in our society is avoiding death...whereas, in my opinion, the sign of health should be the ability to die well (and I mean "die" in a broad sense, whether it takes 1 or 75 years).

 

None of what I'm saying means I'm against science or technology or even industry. It's a matter of how we use and define these things, and how we limit them. The goal, I think, is to have a human-scaled society, rather than endless consumption and production for the sake of consumption and production.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Era Might

[PhuturePriest]

[Nihil Obstat]

I want everybody to be rich. :proud: