User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 152

  1. #101
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Feeling good is an incentive - but it's low on the list of human preferences. Economic gains is not the incentive, exactly. But if I send money to help someone, it deprives me of what I could of done with the money. If I spend time doing something, it takes away time that I could of done something else.

    Of course, everything has to be made 'worth it', in order for it to be done. But, the only universal 'worth it' we can really say with any level of confidence is $. All other 'worth its' can be very subjective in definition, from person to person, even if we wanna comment on being worth it, in terms of resources.

    Finite amount of resource in the world (the whole, the denominator), who/how/when/where/why/how much do each of us get for our share of that piece of the pie (the numerator)?

    [hence, "sufficient" incentive to give part of our share away]

    That means there's a value placed on the share, that there's even an ownership (chance for ownership), of a share of the pie....most in Africa don't even get that.

  2. #102
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    That means there's a value placed on the share, that there's even an ownership (chance for ownership), of a share of the pie....most in Africa don't even get that.
    You cannot give them a share - the "share" is civilization, the means of production and the entire foundation of a modern economy. That cannot be given, it cannot be shared. No amount of money can do that, because money in itself isn't the goal. It's the means. Giving money goes against the means.

    In many cases, it's so against the means that the result is worse than before (ie: population boom mentioned above.)

  3. #103
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    You cannot give them a share - the "share" is civilization,
    That's quite in the realm of philosophy. And we can even question it existentially then - if those poorest of the poor died in some rural villages in Sub-Saharan Africa, if their baby didn't make it to its 27th birthday, and such areas, there is no national database for accounting for live births/children....then they could very well *never have existed* in the first place. Why should we care?

    We're, in a way, a self-determining civilization, we give definition to what we mean by 'civilization', because we've set up these sets of rules for a global society such as economical interplay, and then we say to them, you're lagging behind.

    No amount of money can do that, because money in itself isn't the goal. It's the means. Giving money goes against the means.
    Sorry, if you could clear up what I seem to be reading as a contradiction. If money in itself is not the goal, but a mean, then how does giving the mean/money, go against the mean? I cannot make that statement out.

    Or...are you saying that the means is the goal? Hence, giving money goes against the goal of having means? If so, I agree, and self-evident as giving doesn't allow for means because then you're making them always dependent on an external source (which jepordizes self-sustainability)

    Kinda like the saying: “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”**

    ** (although we can then go off on a topic of heirarchical attitudes/patronization, etc)

  4. #104
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    That's quite in the realm of philosophy. And we can even question it existentially then - if those poorest of the poor died in some rural villages in Sub-Saharan Africa, if their baby didn't make it to its 27th birthday, and such areas, there is no national database for accounting for live births/children....then they could very well *never existed* in the first place.
    It's not in the realm of philosophy. Quality of life = economics. Production, lifespan, health = economics. You cannot "hand" someone a piece of economics. It's not a piecemeal thing, to be handed out. It's not money, it's capital... it's wealth. It's the streets, that support our cars, that support transport, that support trade. It's the electricity that supports businesses that support customers that support workers that support trade. It's everything, put together. We are born into "millions of dollars" of wealth, but we cannot give this wealth. Our current status takes everything we have, working inside our economic framework. And that capital took hundreds of years of exponential growth to reach where we are. It's not because we want to hold onto it (although I'm sure we would - it'd be stupid not to), but because it simply doesn't work that way.

    If they want a share of that, they have to go through the same process.

    Kinda like the saying: “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”
    That's more or less it, although it's a simplistic version of the issue. You cannot teach a man to fish in a modern economy. I can no more build a steel boat with engines than they could - not even the most minor detail. And even supporting that boat - fuel and the like... a huge undertaking. I mean so huge that it cannot even be expressed in detail. Even the most simplistic things are beyond individual means now.

    Anyway, the economy is the goal. Trade is the goal. It's like saying that "government can create wealth by spending". They cannot give something they do not have. No amount of money will let Africa create their own medical supplies, or their own purification systems. Not because we couldn't build them, but because those individual pieces are not integrated into their economy. There is nothing to trade... well, technically they could. They could trade pure water, which would come from borrowing money to build a purification system. Sending money - be it in the form of medicine or other aid - does nothing in the long run. They never produce it, the capital never grows, the economy improves for a bit - like an injection of stimulus - then goes back to normal.

  5. #105
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    It's not in the realm of philosophy. Quality of life = economics. Production, lifespan, health = economics. You cannot "hand" someone a piece of economics. It's not a piecemeal thing, to be handed out. It's not money, it's capital... it's wealth. It's the streets, that support our cars, that support transport, that support trade. It's the electricity that supports businesses that support customers that support workers that support trade. It's everything, put together. We are born into "millions of dollars" of wealth, but we cannot give this wealth. Our current status takes everything we have, working inside our economic framework. And that capital took hundreds of years of exponential growth to reach where we are. It's not because we want to hold onto it (although I'm sure we would - it'd be stupid not to), but because it simply doesn't work that way.

    If they want a share of that, they have to go through the same process.



    That's more or less it, although it's a simplistic version of the issue. You cannot teach a man to fish in a modern economy. I can no more build a steel boat with engines than they could - not even the most minor detail. And even supporting that boat - fuel and the like... a huge undertaking. I mean so huge that it cannot even be expressed in detail. Even the most simplistic things are beyond individual means now.

    Anyway, the economy is the goal. Trade is the goal. It's like saying that "government can create wealth by spending". They cannot give something they do not have. No amount of money will let Africa create their own medical supplies, or their own purification systems. Not because we couldn't build them, but because those individual pieces are not integrated into their economy. There is nothing to trade... well, technically they could. They could trade pure water, which would come from borrowing money to build a purification system. Sending money - be it in the form of medicine or other aid - does nothing in the long run. They never produce it, the capital never grows, the economy improves for a bit - like an injection of stimulus - then goes back to normal.
    Like it. Any money flowing in That hasn't been used to buy supplys and is still money, could be used or transformed into a massive group of distibutions of wages to individuals who provide a labor or service utilizing any small usable infrastructure that may exist while also expanding that minimal infrastucture. Which would require a private sector.

    Problem with the un is they appear to eventually want something in return, if not as a whole then individually. But the media still makes folks think the christians are that way. Any good philosophy such as yours is deemed as speculation. If money was used as a wage, tell me some entity woulnd't tax it in some form or other. And it's SSA for Gods sake. Tax? That last Fe bit about tax was directed toward me.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  6. #106
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    It's not in the realm of philosophy. Quality of life = economics. Production, lifespan, health = economics. You cannot "hand" someone a piece of economics. It's not a piecemeal thing, to be handed out. It's not money, it's capital... it's wealth. It's the streets, that support our cars, that support transport, that support trade. It's the electricity that supports businesses that support customers that support workers that support trade. It's everything, put together. We are born into "millions of dollars" of wealth, but we cannot give this wealth. Our current status takes everything we have, working inside our economic framework. And that capital took hundreds of years of exponential growth to reach where we are. It's not because we want to hold onto it (although I'm sure we would - it'd be stupid not to), but because it simply doesn't work that way.

    If they want a share of that, they have to go through the same process.



    That's more or less it, although it's a simplistic version of the issue. You cannot teach a man to fish in a modern economy. I can no more build a steel boat with engines than they could - not even the most minor detail. And even supporting that boat - fuel and the like... a huge undertaking. I mean so huge that it cannot even be expressed in detail. Even the most simplistic things are beyond individual means now.

    Anyway, the economy is the goal. Trade is the goal. It's like saying that "government can create wealth by spending". They cannot give something they do not have. No amount of money will let Africa create their own medical supplies, or their own purification systems. Not because we couldn't build them, but because those individual pieces are not integrated into their economy. There is nothing to trade... well, technically they could. They could trade pure water, which would come from borrowing money to build a purification system. Sending money - be it in the form of medicine or other aid - does nothing in the long run. They never produce it, the capital never grows, the economy improves for a bit - like an injection of stimulus - then goes back to normal.
    I think if we evaluate the system at this level, then, inevitably we are backed into the corner of philosophy - or more specifically, a theoretical ideology that is dependent on psycho-social human factor.

    Not that I wanna go into the blame-game, but, the turmoil in Africa isn't a random thing - it took years of history to make, of which, instability due to colonization, conquering, slave trade, etc, still leaves its lingering mark. And, add to that the very real concept of a global whole, a global economy. We are more globally interconnected than ever before. We have reached the pockets of even the most isolated civilization - like the Amazon or the indigenous people of various regions (like Andaman and Nicobar Islands). Being isolated from the rest of the world for so long, maintaining their own 'economy' at their own 'societal level' - and then, global networking hits with a bang. And, whether we like or not, it cannot be escaped. Once contact made, there's an unspoken interchange/dialogue. Hegemony determines whose language the rest of the world adapts to. It is a dog eat dog world at a global scale (more so than ever before). Competition, resources, it all becomes OURS all of a sudden. Before, we stayed within our own pockets/bubbles. Now, this idea is almost obsolete.

    And, given this global milieu, we must consider economics at the human factor level. I.e., human motivation, anthropological, psycho-social level. What can we do to motivate them to understand what you just outlined?

    What motivation will you give to a rural subsistence farmer to participate in this ideology who is sucked into all this in the first place because of turmoil at his country's political level? Who, even though he doesn't want to play the game is still sucked into it as long as contact is made with the outside, the other (through no technology or motivation on his own, just the way history played out)?

    How do we create motivation for these people to enter a competitive market, 'for their own good', when their own good has worked well enough for centuries, until outsiders decided to uncover their little nook in the world?

  7. #107
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post

    What motivation will you give to a rural subsistence farmer to participate in this ideology who is sucked into all this in the first place because of turmoil at his country's political level?

    How do we create motivation for these people to enter a competitive market, 'for their own good', when their own good has worked well enough for centuries, until outsiders decided to uncover their little nook in the world?
    A wage.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  8. #108
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    A wage.
    I agree, and it won't be an act of charity, it'll be the money the person gets for selling their goods/services. Trade barriers are HUGE when it comes to the situation many in Africa are in.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  9. #109
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    A wage.
    Doesn't answer my question, stain:

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    What motivation will you give to a rural subsistence farmer to participate in this ideology who is sucked into all this in the first place because of turmoil at his country's political level? Who, even though he doesn't want to play the game is still sucked into it as long as contact is made with the outside, the other (through no technology or motivation on his own, just the way history played out)?

    How do we create motivation for these people to enter a competitive market, 'for their own good', when their own good has worked well enough for centuries, until outsiders decided to uncover their little nook in the world?
    Let me help you:

    subsistence farming
    Subsistence agriculture (also known as self sufficiency in terms of agriculture) is a method of farming in which farmers plan to grow only enough food to feed the family farming, pay taxes or feudal dues, and perhaps provide a small marketable surplus. Subsistence agriculture usually refers to a farm that is enough to feed the family but will not be enough for the family to participate extensively in the cash market.

    subsistence farming - Agriculture Dictionary and Research Guide

    So, they may enter the 'market', or there may be tax for the land used, but, for many, again, they were happy being in their bubble, until the others/outsiders forced themselves INTO their bubble, popping it. And, thus, engage them in the 'market'.

    There was no tax by govt asking indigenous tribes in the Amazon to 'pay for their land', nor in the rural isolated pockets of many areas in Sub-saharan Africa.


    So, I'll repeat, what do you say to them, as talking of a wage is irrelevant to such groups?

  10. #110
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Doesn't answer my question, stain:



    Let me help you:

    subsistence farming
    Subsistence agriculture (also known as self sufficiency in terms of agriculture) is a method of farming in which farmers plan to grow only enough food to feed the family farming, pay taxes or feudal dues, and perhaps provide a small marketable surplus. Subsistence agriculture usually refers to a farm that is enough to feed the family but will not be enough for the family to participate extensively in the cash market.

    subsistence farming - Agriculture Dictionary and Research Guide
    You just wrote a post ago that every nook has been exploited. This reads as if it is intact and any baggage from history completely missed this geographical spot.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

Similar Threads

  1. ENTJ or ENFJ?? is crying okay?
    By redink in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-03-2017, 06:31 AM
  2. My mother is whoring me out
    By paperoceans in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 01:51 PM
  3. MSN Home : Is it Okay to Cry at Work?
    By Anja in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO