How much is the world worth?

[xuanman]

in terms of monetary value, the world has infinite worth b/c of a scarcity of resources.

 

[308nato]

Deduct my farm from the total. I'm not selling today thanks.

 

[Moonbeam]

And besides, we're aiming for investments that yield a pot big enough to pay, at first, US citizens a living wage from birth. That would mean, eventually that parents would get additionally only the actual cost of raising children and at maturity the kids would then get their own living wage. If you what to be rich, you can still do what it takes now. The big difference would be that there would be a huge pool of capital available for investment and no welfare or social services, etc. Everybody would have enough to live.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ELFenix, I mean that just because a person has money doesn't mean they are willing to do relevant things. I vacuum my house occasionally, for example.

So you think if everyone was rich, they would still do all the jobs that nobody wants to do? Why? There's no incentive for them to do their best, no incentive to improve, etc.

Gates was born "rich".

the key word is jobs no one wants to do. computers was and is gates' hobby.

Perhaps we should all do our hobbies, I do, pleasant work is itself a human need.

 

[Moonbeam]

xuanman, that's what I thought, and when you cut infinity 6 billion ways it's still infinity. No?

 

[Moonbeam]

Pleasant work is indeed a human need, Carbonyl. I was thinking of the railroad. Imagine if you told all the moddle railroad people, ok folks, you can have the real thing. Form a railroading club and have at it.

 

[Vic]

Moonbeam, did you fail economics?

There will NEVER be a point where everyone could stop working because most services and goods have to be provided on a daily basis.

As for the earth itself, it is beyond monetary value. First, in order for something to have a value, there must be both a buyer and a seller with an agreed upon price or, lacking those, there must be similar comparable sales for reference. The earth has neither of those. Second, everything humankind has (and at this point, will have) is contained within the earth. The loss of the earth would be devastating and irreplacable to humankind. Hence, the earth is priceless.
If you're looking for the sum total of all the human economies on earth, then I would place that value (guessing) at roughly $100 trillion, but that would be only the value of humans, not the earth itself.

 

[stebesplace]

Actually. . .it is possible to have an approximate value of the earth, just like the value of the human body.

If you think about it at the material level, and rates for current material, then think of it in structure expense, etc etc. then you can get a pretty good ballpark figure.

-Steve

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Pleasant work is indeed a human need, Carbonyl. I was thinking of the railroad. Imagine if you told all the moddle railroad people, ok folks, you can have the real thing. Form a railroading club and have at it.

Because we are insane and chase things we are programmed to believe we need rather than what we really need. This constantly chasing is why it's best to own your own business (if money is your primary modivator) and let the others do the chasing for you in made up jobs while you take a cut. This brings me to your point about "why can't all the babys be born rich eventually".. Because rich by definition is more than others have and to get there you need to make more money selling what the workers have produced than the workers cost to buy on the labor market. Someone under this system HAS to work, actually more has to work than own the business, and workers arnt rich.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I do an excellent job of vacuuming. The incentive is that it's my floor. How is the world different than my floor?

Well the fact of life is that if everybody is wealthy from birth, they aren't going to want to do things like work in factories or farm or pick up my garbage. Sure, you'll have a few that do it for sh!ts and giggles, but not nearly enough. Plus, what will happen to the children they have? Every generation, the workforce will decrese more and more, as skills won't be passed down.

It wouldn't work, don't try.

Funny thing is there was a thread recently floating around "if money did'nt matter what job would you choose" Survey says, almost all were the types of jobs you seem to think no one wants. You need to think outside the box, money means nothing under moonbeams society.

None of the jobs listed in that thread fall under what I was saying. Nobody said they wanted to work in a factory, nobody wanted to collect garbage, nobody wanted to be a janitor, nobody wanted to work at a grocery store. The closest thing I saw was 2 people who wanted to be farmers. Money means nothing in moonbeam's society, so how many people do you think will actually want to take these jobs?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Vic
Moonbeam, did you fail economics?

There will NEVER be a point where everyone could stop working because most services and goods have to be provided on a daily basis.
.

We could have 98% unemployment and provide all of our basic needs.. Most everyone here works in a made up job to make other people rich. Think about it. What do you do and could society live without it?

 

[Moonbeam]

How about instead of born rich, born with a living wage at 18?

 

[Moonbeam]

And don't forget the machines are comming. Moores law puts machines of human intelligence not too far into the future. They may be persuaded to do tasks humans don't want to. If they run the world and make everything you want, what will be the use of being rich? Most of that is just trying not to notice how bad we feel.

 

[GasX]

EVERYTHING

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
We could have 98% unemployment and provide all of our basic needs.. Most everyone here works in a made up job to make other people rich. Think about it. What do you do and could society live without it?

Basic needs = humanity reduced to stone age
Then there's the question, who would be the unlucky 2% who would be the slaves to everyone else?

As for myself, society needs my job unless everyone in the world can buy a home with cash in hand. Or would we not need homes anymore?
Bah... socialists... :disgust:

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I do an excellent job of vacuuming. The incentive is that it's my floor. How is the world different than my floor?

Well the fact of life is that if everybody is wealthy from birth, they aren't going to want to do things like work in factories or farm or pick up my garbage. Sure, you'll have a few that do it for sh!ts and giggles, but not nearly enough. Plus, what will happen to the children they have? Every generation, the workforce will decrese more and more, as skills won't be passed down.

It wouldn't work, don't try.

Funny thing is there was a thread recently floating around "if money did'nt matter what job would you choose" Survey says, almost all were the types of jobs you seem to think no one wants. You need to think outside the box, money means nothing under moonbeams society.

None of the jobs listed in that thread fall under what I was saying. Nobody said they wanted to work in a factory, nobody wanted to collect garbage, nobody wanted to be a janitor, nobody wanted to work at a grocery store. The closest thing I saw was 2 people who wanted to be farmers. Money means nothing in moonbeam's society, so how many people do you think will actually want to take these jobs?

My point was the majority were all blue collar jobs, the type you seem to think no one wants. I believe we hardwired to working with our hands because of 400000 years of evolution that's all we've done.


I don't know if you could walk into the supermarket get what you needed for free what price would you be willing to pay for that? 2 hours a week sweeping? I would.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good grief, Vic. If humans built to last, which they clearly can, in the last five thousand years or so we could have built palaces for everybody.

Bah...planned obsolence!

 

[Moonbeam]

2 hrs a week sweeping. Somebody showed a tribe somewhere that lives in the worst most resource scarce place on earth and it takes them 26 hours a week to do everything required to live. The rest is leasure.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
We could have 98% unemployment and provide all of our basic needs.. Most everyone here works in a made up job to make other people rich. Think about it. What do you do and could society live without it?

Basic needs = humanity reduced to stone age
Then there's the question, who would be the unlucky 2% who would be the slaves to everyone else?

As for myself, society needs my job unless everyone in the world can buy a home with cash in hand. Or would we not need homes anymore?
Bah... socialists... :disgust:

I have a better idea, I think. How about instead of 2% doing all the work for our needs we all work 2%of the time

 

[Zebo]

Stone age? I consider electricy, indoor plumming and gas a nessesity and frankly love automation vacuums and dishwasers and such. No we would still have factorties but much different since thiers no money to be made exchanged or had:

-slower work pace
-more automation
-non-polluting technology
-democratic decision-making and supervisor electorate


I'm sweeping MacBaines street on tuesday but I'll design the gaskets there on Saturdays on that diswaher what wouyld you like to do?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good grief, Vic. If humans built to last, which they clearly can, in the last five thousand years or so we could have built palaces for everybody.

Bah...planned obsolence!

Planned obsolesence doesn't have to exist, I agree. The shining example of this is the 1907 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost. Some of those have millions of miles on them and have yet to have any unscheduled maintainence, still driving like brand new. Could we all afford one?
Or commercial jetliners... they have over a million parts and yet can run nearly non-stop for 40 years if properly maintained. But like all things, cost = reliability. The more reliable a product is, the longer it will last, the more it will cost.

One question I have, Moonie: in your moneyless society, what exchange will humans use to trade with?

edit:

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Stone age? I consider electricy, indoor plumming and gas a nessesity and frankly love automation vacuums and dishwasers and such. No we would still have factorties but much different since thiers no money to be made exchanged or had:

-slower work pace
-more automation
-non-polluting technology
-democratic decision-making and supervisor electorate

I'll design the gaskets on that diswaher what wouyld you like to do?

You are delusional. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
How do you think we got what we have? Do you really believe that we can maintain our current level of afluence and not have to work (or not much) too?
My only advice is that if you don't like working, then either quit or find a job you actually like. Work is good. In fact, my definition of happiness is working long hard hours doing something I really enjoy doing, and being successful at it.

 

[BooGiMaN]

I asked GOD and he said the earth isnt for sale today but he has a slightly used mars he is willing to part with..

Besides why would u want to buy the earth....dont you realize what kinda people live there?
and think of how much mowing youll have to do!

 

[Moonbeam]

On the contrary, Vic. Isn't the system you favor supported by one huge delusion that the paper in your hand is worth something. I'm trying to make sense of your system. Apparently wealth is defined and of necessity depends on the poverty of others. Have I got that right? Is it essential that not everybody be rich?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
On the contrary, Vic. Isn't the system you favor supported by one huge delusion that the paper in your hand is worth something. I'm trying to make sense of your system. Apparently wealth is defined and of necessity depends on the poverty of others. Have I got that right? Is it essential that not everybody be rich?

That's not my system, Moonie, that's THE system. That's the way all people, all cultures, have been since the beginning of recorded history. I didn't make it, I don't like it, but that's the way it is. It would be foolish to ignore reality, IMO.
As for that paper in my wallet, it really does represent something. It represents the exchange of human labor in an equation of time (man-hours). Because of the ongoing scarcity of resources, human have found it necessary to trade with one another throughout all of history. Unfortunately, this has always led to problems, arguments, and wars because an exact and fair barter system could never be arranged. Then there was the problem that many resources are perishable. Finally, a common, exact, and fair exchange was discovered: money. It's not the cure for everything (far from it) but it's better than any other system we have had before.
As I see it, your system is a step backwards instead of forwards. If you want advancement, people need to work more, not less. We just need to redefine what work is (most of what people think of "vacations" or leisure is actually the source of others' incomes, think of both Disney and Disneyland). And we need to become more efficient, not less. This way we can have time to be productive and still smell the roses.

 

[Moonbeam]

I didn't call it your system, Vic, I called it the system you favor, the one you are invested in whether you like it or not. What gives it value are theoretical ideas you hold, I think, just like the ones behind your paper. In THE SYSTEM, as you really put it what real value do you have? Who depends on you for what you do. How are you anything but a machine, a cog in a wheel? How much are mothers paid? Why are there things like social security and retirement? Where's the logic of that? Effciency can't be too important if we're going to keep the unproductive around. What is scarcity? Why not just make more. Why is there advertizment? What happens when you get replaced by a machine?