Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/29/12 03:47 PM, StarPaladin wrote: This topic is now about soda.

Here's one from an old photoshop thread.

At 10/29/12 05:03 PM, Insanctuary wrote: How does it have any value compared to the gold standard?

The same way gold has value: humans value it. Paper money is agreed upon as a unit of exchange and that's where it's value comes from.

At 10/29/12 05:06 PM, Entice wrote: The same way gold has value: humans value it. Paper money is agreed upon as a unit of exchange and that's where it's value comes from.

The thing is, it isn't like there is an infinite supply of gold, while they can keep on copying dollar bills and inflating the economy with a trade item that they have an endless supply of. This leads to serious economic problems.

At 10/29/12 05:05 PM, koopahermit wrote:

At 10/29/12 03:47 PM, StarPaladin wrote: This topic is now about soda.

Here's one from an old photoshop thread.

Hmmm. Would have thought it would look more, well, fabulous really. Because this does not make me want to drink it. This looks like it's more for the type of person that would saw off your own cock and then fuck you with it kind.

At 10/29/12 05:14 PM, Confucianism wrote:

At 10/29/12 05:05 PM, koopahermit wrote:

At 10/29/12 03:47 PM, StarPaladin wrote: This topic is now about soda.

Here's one from an old photoshop thread.

Super long critique.

Come on. Just drink it.

At 10/29/12 05:17 PM, koopahermit wrote: Come on. Just drink it.

I'd rather not. But I'm sure you would love some. Go on. DRINK!

It's so funny seeing all you angsty teenagers pretending you know everything.

At 10/29/12 05:36 PM, MrSoxfan wrote: It's so funny seeing all you angsty teenagers pretending you know everything.

You know, you didn't have to go and actually say that. It makes you somewhat lesser. So to speak.

At 10/29/12 05:03 PM, Insanctuary wrote: They just make more paper money.

How does it have any value compared to the gold standard?

Gold and the various other precious metals are valuable because of the amount of labour required to extract them from the earth. Before humans came up with "money" as a way of representing expended labour, the value of any commodity was measured in terms of the amount/intensity of labour required to extract/manufacture it.

People quickly came to realise that it's far more practical to use a common currency (i.e. money) as a way of measuring the value of a commodity, and it just happens that gold/silver/etc are "worth more money" only because money represents labour already expended.

Money is a representation of labour expended in exactly the same way any commodity is a representation of labour expended.

At 10/29/12 06:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Money is a representation of labour expended in exactly the same way any commodity is a representation of labour expended.

Money fuels the same representated labour, but it sure isn't even close to the legitimacy of value as gold.

Would you agree? Machines that can print unlimited amount of paper money is going to result in serious economic problems? If not, then why?

At 10/29/12 03:47 PM, StarPaladin wrote: This topic is now about soda.

Not even your powers as an '04er can stop this shitty, misplaced thread. Since the mods are asleep at the wheel again, I'll end this post with an unrelated picture.

At 10/29/12 05:21 PM, Confucianism wrote:

At 10/29/12 05:17 PM, koopahermit wrote: Come on. Just drink it.

I'd rather not. But I'm sure you would love some. Go on. DRINK!

How bout some ramune? I love this shit.

At 10/29/12 08:00 PM, koopahermit wrote: How bout some ramune? I love this shit.

Yeah, sure whatever.

Insantuary, I don't have to listen to what you say!

After all, I could say all of what you said is subjective.

At 10/29/12 08:02 PM, 4761 wrote: Insantuary, I don't have to listen to what you say!

After all, I could say all of what you said is subjective.

Former is true (generally condones retardation, though), latter is you being a retard.

At 10/29/12 07:08 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Money fuels the same representated labour,

I don't know what point you're trying to convey here.

but it sure isn't even close to the legitimacy of value as gold.

Like I said, money is a representation of value (i.e. labour expended) in the same way that any commodity (gold, whatever) is a representation of its own value (i.e. the labour required to extract/manufacture it).

If what you're trying to say is that a piece of paper with $10 printed on it isn't actually worth $10 at its most basic level of labour-value, then you are correct and this is obvious to anyone. But that is why money exists only as a representation of value, not of value itself.

It is impractical and stupid to expect any society to be able to trade and grow without the use of some sort of common currency that is relatively cheap and easy to manufacture.

Would you agree? Machines that can print unlimited amount of paper money is going to result in serious economic problems?

Temporarily yes. But that's why the mint doesn't just continuously print money without keeping an eye on the economic climate.

cheddah is my best friend i got it i got bitches

At 10/29/12 03:14 PM, wankwest wrote: Every problem you've listed so far isn't caused by Capitalism or can be solved with any system other than capitalism.
Most of the things you listed shouldn't be blamed on capitalism, but human greed.

Isn't that what capitalism is all about? "Profit motive" is just a codeword for greed.

At 10/29/12 09:36 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: It is impractical and stupid to expect any society to be able to trade and grow without the use of some sort of common currency that is relatively cheap and easy to manufacture.

Alright, tell me how it is highly impractical and stupid to not have any sense of trade in a society in a world where all values exist inside of our heads. The fact that we have to pay people to get them to do things tells you they were all doing it wrong. People need a voice, and a system that isn't mounted on the epitome of greed. If people need incentives, then we are going the wrong way with Capitalism. Although, this is simple a clear thought in a dysfunctional world, so it could might aswell be too late to consider starting it from scratch.

At 10/30/12 03:14 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Alright, tell me how it is highly impractical and stupid to not have any sense of trade

Show me the exact bit of my post/s where I said that.

I've maintained that money is a representation of value. If I am correct, this means that money is capable of being traded for other commodities. How you got "no sense of trade" from this is baffling.

The fact that we have to pay people to get them to do things tells you they were all doing it wrong.

"...they were all doing it wrong."
Who were all doing what wrong?

If people need incentives, then we are going the wrong way with Capitalism. Although, this is simple a clear thought in a dysfunctional world, so it could might aswell be too late to consider starting it from scratch.

You're welcome to suggest an alternative to capitalism at any point, but from what you've posted so far I don't think for a second that you actually know what capitalism is.

At 10/30/12 01:14 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 03:14 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Alright, tell me how it is highly impractical and stupid to not have any sense of trade

Show me the exact bit of my post/s where I said that.

Where you've stated that it was impractical for a society to think they could prosper without the means of trade.

I've maintained that money is a representation of value. If I am correct, this means that money is capable of being traded for other commodities. How you got "no sense of trade" from this is baffling.

''No sense of trade'' was representing the optional counterpoint that what if society did not have to resort to trade and fictional value sets?

The fact that we have to pay people to get them to do things tells you they were all doing it wrong.

"...they were all doing it wrong."
Who were all doing what wrong?

The people who put people to work, while they made profit off of their labour. However you place this in a perspective, there will always be someone mooching off of other people's hardwork in capitalism. Why do we have to have capitalism to survive? The problem was not trade. The problem was the fear of our world being owned by nobody.

If people need incentives, then we are going the wrong way with Capitalism. Although, this is simple a clear thought in a dysfunctional world, so it could might aswell be too late to consider starting it from scratch.

You're welcome to suggest an alternative to capitalism at any point, but from what you've posted so far I don't think for a second that you actually know what capitalism is.

I'm suggesting that before this world became too complicated, there would a forked path we could've taken that did not resort to fictional values and humans being exchanged for labour and commodities.

At 10/30/12 01:20 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:14 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Show me the exact bit of my post/s where I said that.

Where you've stated that it was impractical for a society to think they could prosper without the means of trade.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said, originally, that:

"It is impractical and stupid to expect any society to be able to trade and grow without the use of some sort of common currency"

You've skewed this into me saying that without the use of money as a representation of value, we have no sense of trade. This is nonsense, and not remotely what I said. Pre-capitalist society still had a sense of trade based on the labour theory of value. Any commodity is its own representation of value (i.e. labour expended).
The problem is that if we are to trade commodities with one another, it is impractical for us not to use some common currency as a representation of value (i.e. labour expended).

''No sense of trade'' was representing the optional counterpoint that what if society did not have to resort to trade and fictional value sets?

What are you even suggesting? Are you honestly claiming that a society can grow without trade? Do you even know what "trade" means? Even the most ardent ardent communist theorist acknowledges trade as a fundamental tenet of societal growth.

Who were all doing what wrong?

The people who put people to work, while they made profit off of their labour.

Okay.

The problem was not trade. The problem was the fear of our world being owned by nobody.

Meaningless.

I'm suggesting that before this world became too complicated,

I presume you're referring to pre-capitalist society at this point.

there would a forked path we could've taken that did not resort to fictional values and humans being exchanged for labour and commodities.

Unfortunately the industrial revolution and the explosion of capitalism was necessary for us to be able to form a good understanding of economics and the implications of the collectivisation of labour.
Now that we have an understanding of this, you're welcome to educate yourself and theorise an alternative to capitalism that hasn't already been tried dozens of times in the past with disastrous results.

You keep alluding to this idea that "we could be doing something else". Well, what?
What are you suggesting? What is your brilliant alternative?

At 10/30/12 01:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:20 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:14 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Show me the exact bit of my post/s where I said that.

Where you've stated that it was impractical for a society to think they could prosper without the means of trade.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said, originally, that:

You did this on your own.

"It is impractical and stupid to expect any society to be able to trade and grow without the use of some sort of common currency"

You've skewed this into me saying that without the use of money as a representation of value, we have no sense of trade. This is nonsense, and not remotely what I said. Pre-capitalist society still had a sense of trade based on the labour theory of value. Any commodity is its own representation of value (i.e. labour expended).
The problem is that if we are to trade commodities with one another, it is impractical for us not to use some common currency as a representation of value (i.e. labour expended).

I'm expressing the idea that why does the world need any concept of trade? Why does the world have to be projected unto with false value system? Why was the system based off of people taking advantage of other people's labour at face value? Was this system a practical system or a sinister system?

''No sense of trade'' was representing the optional counterpoint that what if society did not have to resort to trade and fictional value sets?

What are you even suggesting? Are you honestly claiming that a society can grow without trade? Do you even know what "trade" means? Even the most ardent ardent communist theorist acknowledges trade as a fundamental tenet of societal growth.

We came before trade. We were here to prosper without trade. How is trade mandatory? It's a humanly constructed concept founded on the same nature corporations have today.

Who were all doing what wrong?

The people who put people to work, while they made profit off of their labour.

Okay.

The problem was not trade. The problem was the fear of our world being owned by nobody.

Meaningless.

Ownership is another humanly constructed concept.

I'm suggesting that before this world became too complicated,

I presume you're referring to pre-capitalist society at this point.

I am referring to pre-capatalistic, capitalistic and non-capitalistic concepts.

there would a forked path we could've taken that did not resort to fictional values and humans being exchanged for labour and commodities.

Unfortunately the industrial revolution and the explosion of capitalism was necessary for us to be able to form a good understanding of economics and the implications of the collectivisation of labour.
Now that we have an understanding of this, you're welcome to educate yourself and theorise an alternative to capitalism that hasn't already been tried dozens of times in the past with disastrous results.

First, answer my question. Do we really need capitalism, socialism or the government? All of this came before us, and the real problem is ourselves. These falsely mandatory applicants in society were conditioned into us into depending on them, when we existed before all of this. There was a forked pathway, and there was a better means of developing a society.

You keep alluding to this idea that "we could be doing something else". Well, what?
What are you suggesting? What is your brilliant alternative?

I don't have one, but I do hope that my conceptual contemplation may influence a brilliant alternative in another person's mind who is more advanced in economics than I am.

At 10/30/12 02:13 PM, MonthlyVolatile wrote: Brilliant.

I understand the skin of economics, but I do not take the time to get into all of the fat. The bone that holds it all together is being eaten away by myelogenous leukemia. I know economics enough to understand how the system generally works, but there are people who could do much more with my economical ideologies than I can. I'm only providing a conceptual, contemplative side-project of thought to consider.

At 10/30/12 02:09 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm expressing the idea that why does the world need any concept of trade?

It is necessary for growth. This is demonstrable fact.

Why does the world have to be projected unto with false value system?

Explain why the labour theory of value is false, and if you manage to do this, suggest an alternative (i.e., whatever you consider to be a "true" value system)

Why was the system based off of people taking advantage of other people's labour at face value?

What system are you talking about? Trade? Capitalism? You started off your paragraph by talking about trade at its most basic level, and are now apparently talking about the negative implications of capitalism. They are not one and the same.

We came before trade. We were here to prosper without trade. How is trade mandatory? It's a humanly constructed concept founded on the same nature corporations have today.

Explain how it is possible for society to prosper without the use of trade, whether it be done under capitalism or communism or otherwise.
Explain why pre-capitalist society, without the influence of consumer-capitalism, didn't reach the heights it eventually reached when capitalism exploded.

Ownership is another humanly constructed concept.

So what?

I am referring to pre-capatalistic, capitalistic and non-capitalistic concepts.

So you're referring to every possible economic theory and/or system capable of being imagined, yet you're unable to identify one in particular that you think might work as an alternative to capitalism. Good job.

First, answer my question.

First, educate yourself. Go read a book that explains to you in basic terms these concepts that you clearly do not understand. I am not arguing for or against capitalism at all in this thread, because it's blatantly apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't have one, but I do hope that my conceptual contemplation may influence a brilliant alternative

It won't, because so far all you've done is say "I don't really know what capitalism means but I think it's bad so let's do something else k."

At 10/29/12 05:36 PM, MrSoxfan wrote: It's so funny seeing all you angsty teenagers pretending you know everything.

Let's point and laugh at them.

Rants are like television. They're pointless, vaguely on a meaningful topic, will rot your brain, and kill some time. So let's have fun.

Economics trickles down to value. Value can depend on what is put into it. The idea that paper is more worthy of gold, assuming gold cannot serve it's usefulness. There are rarer metals than gold, more conductive properties than gold, and so on. Value can depend on the purpose; which is usually relative to people. Art is meaningful to a sensitive man than science is useful to a practical man. So how do you put value into anything? I have to acknowledge the value of material goods driven from the ideals of non material goods. I have to put value into food driven by the my motivation from hunger. I have to put value into a good bed based on my senses and reasons for liking a firm or soft cushion. The laws of value also appear to trickle down to an arbitrary nature.

So should I have any value? Myself a man driven by self interests will need value into whatever. Which usually is consideration of others. Which usually based on the meaningful necessaries of human character. Which usually trickles down to whatever the person needs to suffer at proper times to strengthen themselves in a education cycle of karma and life.

Never have I witness a animal that unadapted to a unchanging environment. No will to work when not needed, no need to learn without a motive, and no need to life without the plenty of death. Capitalism doesn't capture all of the unknowable's of human character, but it's more effective of all the other crap out there.

At 10/29/12 06:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/29/12 05:03 PM, Insanctuary wrote: They just make more paper money.

How does it have any value compared to the gold standard?

Gold and the various other precious metals are valuable because of the amount of labour required to extract them from the earth. Before humans came up with "money"...

you're actually trying to reason with insanctuary

i thought i was new to the site

At 10/30/12 02:27 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:09 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm expressing the idea that why does the world need any concept of trade?

It is necessary for growth. This is demonstrable fact.

What growth? All of our advancements did not come from Capitalism. It came from the actions of human beings. People built and developed themselves without incentives. You are assuming the falsifiable tenent that we will do nothing if there is no incentive or drive.

Why does the world have to be projected unto with false value system?

Explain why the labour theory of value is false, and if you manage to do this, suggest an alternative (i.e., whatever you consider to be a "true" value system)

Our founding fathers alone built a society with their minds. It wasn't money that built all of what they've built -- only for us to dismantle it all in a few decades.

Why was the system based off of people taking advantage of other people's labour at face value?

What system are you talking about? Trade? Capitalism? You started off your paragraph by talking about trade at its most basic level, and are now apparently talking about the negative implications of capitalism. They are not one and the same.

Capitalism is synonymous to trade. Is is built on making profits. Inorder to make profit, someone has to take the blow. This system is the mechanical version of the school-yard bully.

We came before trade. We were here to prosper without trade. How is trade mandatory? It's a humanly constructed concept founded on the same nature corporations have today.

Explain how it is possible for society to prosper without the use of trade, whether it be done under capitalism or communism or otherwise.
Explain why pre-capitalist society, without the influence of consumer-capitalism, didn't reach the heights it eventually reached when capitalism exploded.

The same way religion did. It was forced. People did not have any choice. 1% benefited, while the rest suffered. Profit is a way of saying ''making fortunate off of the misfortunate''.

Ownership is another humanly constructed concept.

So what?

Everything.

I am referring to pre-capatalistic, capitalistic and non-capitalistic concepts.

So you're referring to every possible economic theory and/or system capable of being imagined, yet you're unable to identify one in particular that you think might work as an alternative to capitalism. Good job.

The idea I'm expressing here, is that the system is rigged. The system is not mandatory. We can do better than this. We do not need incentives if we don't look for incentives. We need progress. This system is not progress, the people are making progress. If we are going to focus on development, then we should focus on the people and not the system we've built with a turpid and sinister nature in mind.

First, answer my question.

First, educate yourself. Go read a book that explains to you in basic terms these concepts that you clearly do not understand. I am not arguing for or against capitalism at all in this thread, because it's blatantly apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I understand it enough to say my piece.

I don't have one, but I do hope that my conceptual contemplation may influence a brilliant alternative

It won't, because so far all you've done is say "I don't really know what capitalism means but I think it's bad so let's do something else k."

That's very innappropiate of you to say. I've clearly expressed my ideas. You clearly are hung up on the tenet that Capitalism is an absolute must-have system. I'm contesting against this, and you resort to ad hominems and the counter-intuitive''So what?''.

At 10/30/12 02:43 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

I'm expressing the idea that why does the world need any concept of trade?

What growth? All of our advancements did not come from Capitalism.

Trade and capitalism are not one and the same. This has already been explained to you.

People built and developed themselves without incentives.

Wrong entirely. The incentive for doing work is the result of that work.

You are assuming the falsifiable tenent that we will do nothing if there is no incentive or drive.

Explain why any sane human would commit themselves to a task if they had no incentive or apprent reason to do so.

Our founding fathers alone built a society with their minds. It wasn't money that built all of what they've built -- only for us to dismantle it all in a few decades.

Explain how your founding fathers built a society without the use of trade, bearing in mind that trade does not equate to capitalism.

Capitalism is synonymous to trade.

Completely wrong. Trade is a fundamental tenet of any society that wants to last more than a week. It does not necessarily imply or equate to capitalism. Three times now have I explained this to you.

Explain how it is possible for society to prosper without the use of trade, whether it be done under capitalism or communism or otherwise.
Explain why pre-capitalist society, without the influence of consumer-capitalism, didn't reach the heights it eventually reached when capitalism exploded.

The same way religion did. It was forced. People did not have any choice.

In no way does that answer anything I have asked you, and it doesn't even make sense as a response.
I asked you to explain how it is possible for a society to prosper (i.e. grow) without the use of trade of any kind.
I asked you to explain why pre-capitalist society didn't grow with the speed and intensity of capitalist society.

The idea I'm expressing here, is that the system is rigged.

Again, which system? You said yourself that you are referring to pre-capitalist, capitalist and non-capitalist systems. Therefore you claim you are referring to literally every economic and socio-economic that has ever existed, ever will exist and that are capable of being imagined.

The system is not mandatory. We can do better than this.

Once again, I ask you to offer an example.
I don't expect you to come up with an all-encompassing solution for the problems of capitalism, but seriously, any suggestion will do. You have suggested nothing so far.

We do not need incentives if we don't look for incentives. We need progress.

Progress is an incentive itself. Progress necessarily implies positive results.

If we are going to focus on development, then we should focus on the people and not the system we've built with a turpid and sinister nature in mind.

And your suggestion is...?

I understand it enough to say my piece.

You seriously don't.

That's very innappropiate of you to say. I've clearly expressed my ideas.

No, you haven't. You think that trade and capitalism are one and the same. You think that trade (i.e. the exchange of commodities) is somehow not necessary for progress, but won't explain why. You claim that every economic system possible is "rigged" and yet you've demonstrated how little you actually know about the subject.
So for these reasons as well as others, it's entirely appropriate for me to accuse you of not knowing what capitalism is and having no argument.

You clearly are hung up on the tenet that Capitalism is an absolute must-have system.

Show me the quote where I said this, bearing in mind that I have explained to you three times that "trade" does not equate to "capitalism."