Random Thoughts

[Rothman]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.  I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

Private businesses don't take out loans?  *facepalm*

They do, but banks kind of expect them paid back, with interest.  If you don't then your business can have a lien on it until you do (or declare bankruptcy).

Well, sure.  I'm sure one can find a case or two of local governments defaulting and going kaput over our history (not sure about states), but the federal government hasn't defaulted.

Anyway, the idea that private businesses don't spend more than they take in within a time period and therefore government shouldn't is an absolute fallacy when you take into account that everyone borrows money in amounts that are quite large compared to revenue -- you do so when you can afford the payments. 

[Scott5114]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.  I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

Then maybe we need to move past the concept of owning businesses.

It's been tried.  It's failed in many countries, time and time again.

Even the casino you have worked for is technically a private business (and in Las Vegas, they all are).  They have income streams from gambling, lodging, restaurants, drink sales, gift shops, etc.  But then, they have to make enough money from those to cover their expenses: utilities, payroll, supplies, taxes (sales, property, etc.), equipment, repairs to said equipment, and in the case of a casino, when someone wins a jackpot, especially a whale (who can put a major dent in their earnings).  If they don't have enough of an income stream, they will eventually fail (and some have in the past).

Maybe we should move on from the concept of money.

(Also, the casino I worked for was owned by the government—the top of the chain of the command was the democratically elected governor—and spent its profits on healthcare for private citizens, so...socialist. Boy was it unpopular when I pointed that out to my coworkers.)

[JayhawkCO]

No one likes socialism until they're on the receiving end.

"Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!"

[kphoger]

I feel like recycling would work better if there was a federal law that said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter how economical it is, you will recycle whenever it's physically possible, as much of the material as possible, including employing people to manually sort through, cut down, and clean items to make them suitable for recycling ... and if you don't, we will fine you so hard that you'll be beyond bankrupt".

It was more that the recycling center would be forced to clean etc. the items (instead of just sending everything that isn't pristine to a landfill)

If there's nobody to buy the material from the recycling center, then what good does that do?

The recycling center isn't the one that actually takes Mountain Dew bottles and grinds them into powder, melts that down, and extrudes it into moldable pellets.  And that's assuming the plastic was already cleaned.  Dirty margarine tubs or whatever would likely need to undergo chemical treatment to alter the polymer structure of their plastic to supplement the supply of virgin plastic.  All cleaning the plastic at that point would accomplish is to reduce the amount of it that requires chemical recycling and increase the amount that only requires mechanical recycling.  But neither process is actually done by the recycling center.  No, the recycling center is just a big sorting facility that bales up waste material by type and ships it off from there.

But where does recycled plastic go from that point?  Historically, it has gone to big recycling plants in south Asia, because the low wages there and the economy of scale made the process just barely financially feasible—even considering the huge amount of fuel oil used in transporting the material across the Pacific Ocean.  Elsewhere in the world, wages weren't low enough to support the industry.  And, once wages in south Asia started to rise and the price of fuel oil started to rise, it stopped being financially feasible in south Asia too.  Unless you're in favor of low wages and cheap oil, those conditions will not return.  For a while, nonetheless, ships full of "recycled" plastic were still being sent to Asia, but there hasn't really been anyone over there for several years now to actually do anything with it—other than just put it in an Asian landfill instead of a US landfill.  And nowadays those other countries are only less and less eager to take ships full of our garbage.

So passing a federal law to require the recycling centers to sort and cut down and clean everything wouldn't really do any good when it comes to plastic, nor would threatening with big fines.  The plastic can be sorted and broken down and cleaned to your liking, but the large majority of it is still going to end up in a landfill or an incinerator anyway.

[Brandon]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.  I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

Then maybe we need to move past the concept of owning businesses.

It's been tried.  It's failed in many countries, time and time again.

Even the casino you have worked for is technically a private business (and in Las Vegas, they all are).  They have income streams from gambling, lodging, restaurants, drink sales, gift shops, etc.  But then, they have to make enough money from those to cover their expenses: utilities, payroll, supplies, taxes (sales, property, etc.), equipment, repairs to said equipment, and in the case of a casino, when someone wins a jackpot, especially a whale (who can put a major dent in their earnings).  If they don't have enough of an income stream, they will eventually fail (and some have in the past).

Maybe we should move on from the concept of money.

(Also, the casino I worked for was owned by the government—the top of the chain of the command was the democratically elected governor—and spent its profits on healthcare for private citizens, so...socialist. Boy was it unpopular when I pointed that out to my coworkers.)

Would you rather we barter?  Because that's what money is used as a substitute for.  If you're not using some kind of monetary system, you're bartering for services and goods.  People have been using different things for money for thousands of years, from giant stones on some remote Pacific islands to precious metals (gold and silver being most common) to fiat money backed by mere trust in a system.  Currently, we use fiat money, backed by trust in the system, but people do tend to forget that money is just as much a commodity as gold, silver, orange juice, or wheat.  It just works in reverse.  The more money you print, the less value it has, and therefore, the higher prices go for other commodities such as orange juice and wheat.  You can't just print more to give out to people without consequences.

[Scott5114]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

[kphoger]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

Do you know anyone who will please come over and replace my car's catalytic converter and timing kit for free, please?

[Rothman]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

Do you know anyone who will please come over and replace my car's catalytic converter and timing kit for free, please?

That's why we should all just work in basic needs industries for free.  Everyone works for what is provided to everyone.

[kphoger]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

Do you know anyone who will please come over and replace my car's catalytic converter and timing kit for free, please?

That's why we should all just work in basic needs industries for free.  Everyone works for what is provided to everyone.

Tell you what.  I'll barter.  I'll trade several day's of the mechanic's time and specialized skill for a cake.  That I made myself.  From wheat that I grew in my back yard.  And eggs that my own chickens laid.  And oil that I pressed myself from olives from my own olive trees.  And sugar that I refined from my own sugarcane.  Just let me know what flavor of cake he wants.

[Brandon]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

Do you know anyone who will please come over and replace my car's catalytic converter and timing kit for free, please?

That's why we should all just work in basic needs industries for free.  Everyone works for what is provided to everyone.

We have had various groups that tried that.  The vast majority of them failed rather quickly.

[Brandon]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

That's just not going to happen.  Humans have done bartering for at least 100,000 years, and have have documented monetary systems for at least 3,000 years, probably longer.  Once you get outside the small tribe or family, people expect some sort of compensation for doing something for a stranger, be it trading food/supplies/other items, or trading a representative item that has value (i.e. money) so that they can go obtain those items for themselves.

Are you willing to perform your work for free?  And who pays (whether monetarily or otherwise) for the services and items you use?  Other people did make those things and do those things for you.

[Scott5114]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of making excuses for self-serving pieces of shit.

[kphoger]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of making excuses for self-serving pieces of shit.

As soon as you agree to take a job that doesn't pay you anything at all.

[thspfc]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

Maybe you should for once explain exactly how the hell this could ever work instead of just incessantly bitching about one of the most basic concepts of human history . . .

[Scott5114]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of making excuses for self-serving pieces of shit.

As soon as you agree to take a job that doesn't pay you anything at all.

I will as soon as everyone else does.

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

Maybe you should for once explain exactly how the hell this could ever work instead of just incessantly bitching about one of the most basic concepts of human history . . .

Sure. You'll have to pay my essay rate of $500/hour though.

[vdeane]

I feel like recycling would work better if there was a federal law that said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter how economical it is, you will recycle whenever it's physically possible, as much of the material as possible, including employing people to manually sort through, cut down, and clean items to make them suitable for recycling ... and if you don't, we will fine you so hard that you'll be beyond bankrupt".

It was more that the recycling center would be forced to clean etc. the items (instead of just sending everything that isn't pristine to a landfill)

If there's nobody to buy the material from the recycling center, then what good does that do?

The recycling center isn't the one that actually takes Mountain Dew bottles and grinds them into powder, melts that down, and extrudes it into moldable pellets.  And that's assuming the plastic was already cleaned.  Dirty margarine tubs or whatever would likely need to undergo chemical treatment to alter the polymer structure of their plastic to supplement the supply of virgin plastic.  All cleaning the plastic at that point would accomplish is to reduce the amount of it that requires chemical recycling and increase the amount that only requires mechanical recycling.  But neither process is actually done by the recycling center.  No, the recycling center is just a big sorting facility that bales up waste material by type and ships it off from there.

But where does recycled plastic go from that point?  Historically, it has gone to big recycling plants in south Asia, because the low wages there and the economy of scale made the process just barely financially feasible—even considering the huge amount of fuel oil used in transporting the material across the Pacific Ocean.  Elsewhere in the world, wages weren't low enough to support the industry.  And, once wages in south Asia started to rise and the price of fuel oil started to rise, it stopped being financially feasible in south Asia too.  Unless you're in favor of low wages and cheap oil, those conditions will not return.  For a while, nonetheless, ships full of "recycled" plastic were still being sent to Asia, but there hasn't really been anyone over there for several years now to actually do anything with it—other than just put it in an Asian landfill instead of a US landfill.  And nowadays those other countries are only less and less eager to take ships full of our garbage.

So passing a federal law to require the recycling centers to sort and cut down and clean everything wouldn't really do any good when it comes to plastic, nor would threatening with big fines.  The plastic can be sorted and broken down and cleaned to your liking, but the large majority of it is still going to end up in a landfill or an incinerator anyway.

I think I see the breakdown.  You're thinking in terms of capitalism and tweaking the existing system.  I'm thinking in terms of "if it doesn't work due to everyone making their decisions based on what is profitable, let's hypothetically mandate that the profit motive be removed from the equation and replaced with a motive for recycling as many goods as possible (as in actually recycling, not just sending to a landfill because people don't want to buy when it's cheaper to make goods from virgin material), and the businesses and organizations involves can make whatever adjustments are required to function in the new regime" (perhaps, for instance, the cost of goods is too low and needs to go up in order to make everything function).

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

Maybe you should for once explain exactly how the hell this could ever work instead of just incessantly bitching about one of the most basic concepts of human history . . .

Go watch Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

That's just not going to happen.  Humans have done bartering for at least 100,000 years, and have have documented monetary systems for at least 3,000 years, probably longer.  Once you get outside the small tribe or family, people expect some sort of compensation for doing something for a stranger, be it trading food/supplies/other items, or trading a representative item that has value (i.e. money) so that they can go obtain those items for themselves.

Are you willing to perform your work for free?  And who pays (whether monetarily or otherwise) for the services and items you use?  Other people did make those things and do those things for you.

What if people finally started thinking of all of humanity as one tribe, as we ultimately need to if we want to finally live in peace and harmony?

[Brandon]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

That's just not going to happen.  Humans have done bartering for at least 100,000 years, and have have documented monetary systems for at least 3,000 years, probably longer.  Once you get outside the small tribe or family, people expect some sort of compensation for doing something for a stranger, be it trading food/supplies/other items, or trading a representative item that has value (i.e. money) so that they can go obtain those items for themselves.

Are you willing to perform your work for free?  And who pays (whether monetarily or otherwise) for the services and items you use?  Other people did make those things and do those things for you.

What if people finally started thinking of all of humanity as one tribe, as we ultimately need to if we want to finally live in peace and harmony?

Then you deny human nature.  Humans are tribal by nature and tend to stick to their tribe.  They can be greedy, petty, irrational beings who look out for their own good and the good of their small tribe.

What you're talking about is the unconstrained vision of humanity, a belief that human nature is essentially good, and that man is perfectible.  I strongly disagree with it and believe more in the constrained vision of humanity, where human nature is unchanging and innate, and that people are inherently self-interested.  There's a book about it by Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions.  I have it on my bookshelf, and I would recommend it as a read whether you agree with the author or not.

Remember, there are no ideal solutions, there are only trade-offs; some are better trade-offs than others.  There also is no free lunch.

[kphoger]

I'm thinking in terms of "if it doesn't work due to everyone making their decisions based on what is profitable, let's hypothetically mandate that the profit motive be removed from the equation and replaced with a motive for recycling as many goods as possible (as in actually recycling, not just sending to a landfill because people don't want to buy when it's cheaper to make goods from virgin material), and the businesses and organizations involves can make whatever adjustments are required to function in the new regime" (perhaps, for instance, the cost of goods is too low and needs to go up in order to make everything function).

The recycling center does not set the cost of goods.

[Rothman]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

That's just not going to happen.  Humans have done bartering for at least 100,000 years, and have have documented monetary systems for at least 3,000 years, probably longer.  Once you get outside the small tribe or family, people expect some sort of compensation for doing something for a stranger, be it trading food/supplies/other items, or trading a representative item that has value (i.e. money) so that they can go obtain those items for themselves.

Are you willing to perform your work for free?  And who pays (whether monetarily or otherwise) for the services and items you use?  Other people did make those things and do those things for you.

What if people finally started thinking of all of humanity as one tribe, as we ultimately need to if we want to finally live in peace and harmony?

Then you deny human nature.  Humans are tribal by nature and tend to stick to their tribe.  They can be greedy, petty, irrational beings who look out for their own good and the good of their small tribe.

What you're talking about is the unconstrained vision of humanity, a belief that human nature is essentially good, and that man is perfectible.  I strongly disagree with it and believe more in the constrained vision of humanity, where human nature is unchanging and innate, and that people are inherently self-interested.  There's a book about it by Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions.  I have it on my bookshelf, and I would recommend it as a read whether you agree with the author or not.

Remember, there are no ideal solutions, there are only trade-offs; some are better trade-offs than others.  There also is no free lunch.

Pfft.  I suppose we have to account for the jerks.  They do seem to self-identify quite readily.

They are indeed the reason why we can't have nice things.

[Rothman]

Maybe we should move on from the concept of things and services requiring compensation.

Do you know anyone who will please come over and replace my car's catalytic converter and timing kit for free, please?

That's why we should all just work in basic needs industries for free.  Everyone works for what is provided to everyone.

We have had various groups that tried that.  The vast majority of them failed rather quickly.

Sissy.  Past performance is no indicator of future results.

[kphoger]

What if people finally started thinking of all of humanity as one tribe, as we ultimately need to if we want to finally live in peace and harmony?

Then you deny human nature.  Humans are tribal by nature and tend to stick to their tribe.  They can be greedy, petty, irrational beings who look out for their own good and the good of their small tribe.

What you're talking about is the unconstrained vision of humanity, a belief that human nature is essentially good, and that man is perfectible.  I strongly disagree with it and believe more in the constrained vision of humanity, where human nature is unchanging and innate, and that people are inherently self-interested.

From a religious perspective, my worldview accords with that:  human nature is rotten to its core, and selfishness is the fundamental nature of that rot.  Christians call it "original sin".  You can call it what you want.

From an evolutionary perspective, tribalism is baked into our DNA.  Going against one's tribe would likely have resulted in banishment from the community, which would have increased the likelihood of death, which may have been the end of that person's genetic line.

[Rothman]

What if people finally started thinking of all of humanity as one tribe, as we ultimately need to if we want to finally live in peace and harmony?

Then you deny human nature.  Humans are tribal by nature and tend to stick to their tribe.  They can be greedy, petty, irrational beings who look out for their own good and the good of their small tribe.

What you're talking about is the unconstrained vision of humanity, a belief that human nature is essentially good, and that man is perfectible.  I strongly disagree with it and believe more in the constrained vision of humanity, where human nature is unchanging and innate, and that people are inherently self-interested.

From a religious perspective, my worldview accords with that:  human nature is rotten to its core, and selfishness is the fundamental nature of that rot.  Christians call it "original sin".  You can call it what you want.

From an evolutionary perspective, tribalism is baked into our DNA.  Going against one's tribe would likely have resulted in banishment from the community, which would have increased the likelihood of death, which may have been the end of that person's genetic line.

Your religion sounds like a downer.

[kphoger]

Your religion sounds like a downer.

What is that every pessimist says?  "I'm just a realist."

[Rothman]

Your religion sounds like a downer.

What is that every pessimist says?  "I'm just a realist."

Given that you're rotten to the core, I'm not sure I want to adopt principles derived from such a core...

[kphoger]

Your religion sounds like a downer.

What is that every pessimist says?  "I'm just a realist."

Given that you're rotten to the core, I'm not sure I want to adopt principles derived from such a core...

Likewise.