Salaries
Fabio Cecin
something that others want done, in the way they want it done, and you
get "social trade points" that you can use to do the same to others.
And odds are most people's desires overlap pretty badly with the
desires of whoever they have to please to get money.
The only ethical way to use the legal institution of Salaries is to
subvert that system. To pay people for them to do whatever they truly
want to do.
The notion that some people (money holders) know what has to be done,
whereas the vast majority doesn't, has to die.
However, every person knows what the *planet* needs, not what a
particular society or tribe needs. Most non-sociopath humans are not
fit for trade, because trade requires them to relinquish their
instincts that allow them to know what the whole, the entire planet,
needs them to do, as opposed to climbing some greedy local-maxima
which is what Trade Thinking does.
The only thing that money holders (hoarders? "businesspeople") know
better than other humans is how to please the system of trade. They
are useful in interfacing with it. In an human community, they would
emulate state/legal institutions like "Salaries" on behalf of others
so that the community would appear as "successful", and therefore not
be destroyed, by trade society.
The only use of business and trade is as a recognition of our language
and communication limitations. If we didn't have to synchronize
mentally with others, we'd just silently operate out of our hearts and
do whatever the entire planet, of which we are part, needs done.
Fabio
Jay Scott ANDERSON
The notion that some people (money holders) know what has to be done,
whereas the vast majority doesn't, has to die.
Particularly: "You're not to think you are smarter than we are."
Has to do with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_knowledge
Demonstrated in this phenomena: http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/wisdom-crowds-why-many-are-smarter-few
"If one asks a large enough number of people to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar, the averaged answer is likely to be very close to the correct number."
Regarding salaries, and I'm not ruling out super-political solutions, but as far as political solutions go, basic income makes sense to me. I think that would flip the tables on that work for hire equation. Rather than the one with the financial resources having the advantage, the one with the work would have the advantage, and now the "hire" side of the equation would have the burden of enticing people who don't need to work to survive to perform the work they want done. And I think in most cases, if not all, financial resources would not be the primary enticement. I seem to recall that's been discussed on this group.
The only thing that money holders (hoarders?...
What makes hoarding financial resources effective? One can hoard things that are not valuable, like air or clay, or trinkets, but it doesn't give them an advantage over others. Again, with basic income "money" would not be valuable, but rather a bookkeeping mechanism to help distribute resources. If no one needs "money" to survive, then you can't control people with it.
After all, if one is alive on this earth don't they have a natural right to survive sharing the resources of the earth with others? Regardless if they make a meaningful contribution or not? Or at least what anyone else thinks is a meaningful contribution? (I think there's an argument that just living: breathing, eating, crapping, is making meaningful contribution.)
... If we didn't have to synchronize
mentally with others, we'd just silently operate out of our hearts and
do whatever the entire planet, of which we are part, needs done.
That rings true, but maybe better said, if we don't think we "have to synchronize ... with others" to survive. As I implied before, my hope is there are super-political solutions, but until those are realized, and while political solutions seem necessary, I think it's possible and necessary for us to exercise our natural right, in the political arena, to survive and thrive while we are dwelling in this physical realm. Not a privilege, to be applied for, but a right, to be claimed.
Jay Scott.
Slawek Rogulski
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reinventing-Business" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reinventing-busi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Sławek
Fabio Cecin
On Dec 7, 2015 1:23 PM, "Jay Scott ANDERSON"
>
> What makes hoarding financial resources effective? One can hoard things that are not valuable, like air or clay, or trinkets, but it doesn't give them an advantage over others. Again, with basic income "money" would not be valuable, but rather a bookkeeping mechanism to help distribute resources. If no one needs "money" to survive, then you can't control people with it.
Making it an actual bookkeeping mechanism of some already not-so-great effectiveness (at least trivial to implement). Instead of a social chokehold of e.g. 1% over 99% of people (being simplistic.)
> After all, if one is alive on this earth don't they have a natural right to survive sharing the resources of the earth with others? Regardless if they make a meaningful contribution or not? Or at least what anyone else thinks is a meaningful contribution? (I think there's an argument that just living: breathing, eating, crapping, is making meaningful contribution.)
At an abstract, social story level, absolutely. And lovers of Capitalism and all isms will claim that's what they are doing with their wonderful system. Capitalism claims "you can do whatever you want" *because* everyone has to fight for that something with others, not in spite of.
However *that* strategy only works for deciding what 1,000 unimportant trinkets get made out of all possible combinations. Salaries make a competition of activity-whitelisting, which is a VERY BAD idea at the social level; it only makes sense if underlying society GUARANTEES you never *need* to fit into an activity-whitelisting industry.
> (...) while political solutions seem necessary, I think it's possible and necessary for us to exercise our natural right, in the political arena, to survive and thrive while we are dwelling in this physical realm. Not a privilege, to be applied for, but a right, to be claimed.
>
> Jay Scott.
Nobody can quit "this" ("Earthly") game here it seems. Politically fighting for your biological trap's need to survive/thrive is already a polite concession to existing societal games and traditions. Salaries and such are offered both as political humiliation and as a bribe to continue tolerating such humiliation. People take them as they are, or with some here-but-not-of-it detachment; in any case, the story (mythology) of the system remains mostly unchallenged -- nobody says it is a filthy bribe, though everyone quietly realizes it at some point and to some extent.
Fabio