Debt Slavery

[Ego Tripping]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

What the hell is wrong with money?

Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise its no surprise that theyre
Giving none away.

Read between the lines, duder.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

No. There is not.

An hours worth of work in America is worth way more than an hours work of work in Mexico. It's a matter of productivity. America has the infrastructure and skilled workers, otherwise known as human and technological capital, that allows us to produce far more in the same amount of time.

Quantity of production dictates the amount of money one should make?

An hour of work in America is worth the same as an hour of work in Mexico in terms of the laborer. So are you saying the laborer in mexico doesn't deserve as much as the laborer in America, simply because of where he was born or what language he speaks? And the only reason America has a skilled workforce is because we have millions of people in other countries doing the grunt work because we hold all the chips.

You asked what's wrong with money. Nothing is wrong with money...money is paper and metal. It's a completely neutral thing.

What's wrong with money is that it leads people like you to believe that because you make more, your work means more.

[Waves]

Originally Posted by JcP

And the only reason America has a skilled workforce is because we have millions of people in other countries doing the grunt work because we hold all the chips.

not to mention the differing historical backgrounds...americ a was settled and invaded by rich white men who kept the land and founded a separate society than was already on american soil. mexico was invaded by rich white men who were eventually overthrown by the populace and breeded with them, setting the country on a crash course to be in political turmoil for the foreseeable future, and things are only starting to get better nowadays. two totally different situations.

what im trying to brainstorm is a way to equalize national resources and a labor force peacefully. of course its a pipe-dream currently but imo its bound to happen as globalization continues. the world needs to get a bit smaller before people realize their neighbors are broke and eating dirt-pies.

what do you guys foresee for the international economy in the next, say 50 years? do you think as globalization continues, countries like the united states who are going around hogging all the resources will increase or do you think people will start actually co-operating on some level?

interesting thread

[DubStyle311]

Originally Posted by JcP

Quantity of production dictates the amount of money one should make?

Does. Quantity of production dictates the amount of money one does make.

Originally Posted by JcP

An hour of work in America is worth the same as an hour of work in Mexico in terms of the laborer.

Nope. An hour of work in America is worth more. The US has better productivity than any place in the world last time i checked.

Originally Posted by JcP

So are you saying the laborer in mexico doesn't deserve as much as the laborer in America, simply because of where he was born or what language he speaks?

Unfortunately yes. And it's because of the low productivity of mexican labor, not some sort of racism.

Originally Posted by JcP

And the only reason America has a skilled workforce is because we have millions of people in other countries doing the grunt work because we hold all the chips.

Lots of countries have skilled workforces. The US still has the most productive. You attribute productivity to us holding all the chips?

[DubStyle311]

Originally Posted by Waves

what do you guys foresee for the international economy in the next, say 50 years? do you think as globalization continues, countries like the united states who are going around hogging all the resources will increase or do you think people will start actually co-operating on some level?

interesting thread

Globalization WILL help Mexico move along the development curve. This will increase their productivity and their wages. There is some complex macro mechanism at work that I dont remember the details of. But yeah, thats what happens. They'll gain more capital and greater productivity.

[SpankyMcLankey]

Originally Posted by Canuck Wisdom

If you want to enter the middle class its important to go to post-secondary education. If you do that, for many people in North America it is not affordable, and so you get student loan debt, which enters you into the debt economy for years to come.

Yeah I bet you my Dad would be able to tell you more about this than I could even try. But if you go to the school for the right thing and you use your education, it's not supposed to be insanely hard to get out of after school.

My Dad and his father and some people he knows all used the military for their education. They didn't have to go till after school, but still. I know that my grandma was supported by the government because of my grandfather in her later years. My Dad has suggested the military to me if I really wanted to keep my dream of flying; behind my moms back.

[SpankyMcLankey]

As for monopolies, they are supposed to give their money away basically to recirculate it. Do you guys think some one like bill gates, and a lot of the other infamous millionaires have made a big impact on our economy if a fraction of the world hoards the money?

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Does. Quantity of production dictates the amount of money one does make.?

make this cohesive with the fact that workers in southeast Asia produce huge amounts of the world's clothing/goods and yet make shockingly less than workers in the united states, please.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Nope. An hour of work in America is worth more. The US has better productivity than any place in the world last time i checked.?

So again, the amount of money...the life you can hope to lead...everything is dependent upon whether or not you are born into a rich country and, by association, a rich family? Do you see the illegitimacy of money now?

A man in Mexico does one hour of work picking tomatoes and makes 10 cents (for the sake of argument). A man in California does one hour of work picking tomatoes and makes 6 dollars.
In fact, lets say the man in Mexico picks 10 times as many tomatoes as the man in California. Your theory of productivity should imply that the man in mexico worked harder, was more productive, and should therefore make more money than the man in the United States...

Of course what you're really arguing is the argument of the bourgeoisie that has been made for centuries to the same result. You have what you want, the system works for you, so fuck everyone else.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Unfortunately yes. And it's because of the low productivity of mexican labor, not some sort of racism.?

this argument is crap. A man working 100% at his job at McDonalds makes the same amount as a man working 20% at his job as McDonalds.
And that same job in Mexico, regardless of how productive the individual is, pays less.

If money was a direct proportion to productivity, I doubt there would be such corruption surrounding it.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Lots of countries have skilled workforces. The US still has the most productive. You attribute productivity to us holding all the chips?

I question your entire logic that suggests America has the most productive workforce. America might have the most PRODUCT, but in terms of the WORKFORCE (IE the workers who are working), I don't think America even comes close to the work ethic and labor efforts of many many other countries.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

assuming desire is irrelevant, why not? What's your attachment to 'stuff' about?

Just survival first. Then independence. Then personal growth.

assuming desire is irrelevant, why not simply give?

That seems suicidal.

This is fine, snapshot. My point is that I sensed a quality of resignation in your post in terms of money...that it's something we have to deal with because humanity won't evolve past the point of needing it.
My reply to that is: until you do, you're correct. If you believe money to be a force of good, and if you believe desire to be a quality that increases your compassion and the general well-being of humanity, that's fine.

Cool.

The thing that occurs with money, I think, is the same thing that occurs when people say communism is bad. It's not the money, it's not the capitalism, it's always the violent means used to control people through such a medium. It seems to me whenever people are talking about the evils money, capitalism, communism, religion, etc., etc., they are ALWAYS, underlying their argument, talking about violence. I just don't think they necessarily realize it.

What do you think? Do you think there are people who actually don't like money? Do you disagree with me that continually giving is, in a sense, suicidal? To me, I could understand that if everyone gave, you wouldn't need to work to take, but it seems as though you'd be able to give a lot more if you took a lot more, since there's that (ol') incentive (again) to compete, do your best, and produce the best comes in.

[Canuck Wisdom]

Originally Posted by Waves

what do you guys foresee for the international economy in the next, say 50 years?

Just as the Bush presidency has been, I think the next 50 years will be defined by a few majour issues. The mass integration of cultures and the rise of the Islamic population (including the backlash to that tight-knit culture expanding around the world), and more so, the interplay between the three defining powers of USA/North America, Europe and China/the Far East.

These three super power regional blocks are already vying for the allegiance or dominance of the undeveloped world. The interplay of this will create a world forum dominated by competing super strengths, fighting in a big dog world, while the little guys get the shaft. BUT at the same time, the fight between the three of them will mean new levels of equilibrium more equally, if still just tri-polarly spread across the globe.

There are already efforts to keep this division of power from being like the cold war, a military divide, and contain it to the financial sector. In this light, the War on Terror can be seen as a effort of 'established' money and power, to compete against challenges to the status quo, worldwide. Instead of one nation vs. another, it is a global top, a norm, vs the bottom and change.

[JcP]

survival at what cost?
in order for you to have independence, you need something other than what you have when you have nothing? Isn't independence a frame of mind?

Personal growth? How does having money as opposed to having no money (for the sake of argument) make you grow more as a person? How is it that every spiritual leader that I can think of has come out of (or experienced) the poorest of the poor? Buddha had the most personal growth when he got rid of the riches of his parent's kingdom and went to live as an ascetic (for example).

Originally Posted by snapshot

That seems suicidal..

Not in the least:

A rabbi was talking with God about Heaven and Hell.
"Come," said God. "Walk with me, and I will show you Hell."
And together they walked into a room of cold, rough stone. In the center of the room, atop a low fire, sat a huge pot of quietly simmering stew. The stew smelled delicious, and made the rabbi's mouth water. A group of people sat in a circle around the pot, and each of them held a curiously long-handled spoon. The spoons were long enough to reach the pot; but the handles were so ungainly that every time someone dipped the bowl of their spoon into the pot and tried to maneuver the bowl to their mouth, the stew would spill. The rabbi could hear the grumblings of their bellies. They were cold, hungry, and miserable.
"And now," God said, "I will show you Heaven."
Together they walked into another room, almost identical to the first. A second pot of stew simmered in the center; another ring of people sat around it; each person was outfitted with one of the frustratingly long spoons. But this time, the people sat with the spoons across their laps or laid on the stone beside them. They talked, quietly and cheerfully with one another. They were warm, well-fed, and happy.
"Lord, I don't understand," said the rabbi. "How was the first room Hell; and this, Heaven?"
God smiled. "It's simple," he said. "You see, they have learned to feed each other."

If anything, the belief that it's every man for himself is the suicidal act.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Cool.

The thing that occurs with money, I think, is the same thing that occurs when people say communism is bad. It's not the money, it's not the capitalism, it's always the violent means used to control people through such a medium. It seems to me whenever people are talking about the evils money, capitalism, communism, religion, etc., etc., they are ALWAYS, underlying their argument, talking about violence. I just don't think they necessarily realize it..

I believe I mentioned in another thread regarding your insistance that government is violence that it is a necessary evil. I believe I also mentioned that transcending the need for a government on a personal level is quite easy, as it simply requires the spiritual awareness to embrace compassion for all beings.
I believe the same philosophy should be applied here.

Originally Posted by snapshot

What do you think? Do you think there are people who actually don't like money? Do you disagree with me that continually giving is, in a sense, suicidal? To me, I could understand that if everyone gave, you wouldn't need to work to take, but it seems as though you'd be able to give a lot more if you took a lot more, since there's that (ol') incentive (again) to compete, do your best, and produce the best comes in.

I disagree completely that continually giving is suicidal, any more than wanting a new car is wanting to murder someone else. But as much as those two are alike, I do agree. Part of giving is also giving others the ability to experience the act of giving to you.
There is no competition...no need to produce.... my "best" has nothing to do with how much I give in comparison to the next person. What matters is my own personal understanding and comfortability in my (or whomever's) skin. And that awareness does not lie. We suppress it, because we think we need to hoard money, or things, or whatever the case may be....but underneath everything, I truly believe people recognize the injustice and inequality money (and, by association, their own actions) creates.
I used a classroom metaphor in a thread a while ago, and I want to bring it up again.
If there are 20 kids in a class, and 18 of them are acting in a way contrary to what the core of your being says is acceptable (for me, breaking the golden rule), do you join them because "well, everyone else is!" or do you do what you think is right?

Taking is the inverse of giving. Accepting, however, relinquishes the need for taking and still allows the act of giving.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

in order for you to have independence, you need something other than what you have when you have nothing? Isn't independence a frame of mind?

Independence is producing more than you consume. It's not being dependent upon others for your survival and being able to be the person that you are without acquiescing to the desires of those whom you depend on.So people trade each other that which they can afford in order to maintain their survival.

Personal growth? How does having money as opposed to having no money (for the sake of argument) make you grow more as a person? How is it that every spiritual leader that I can think of has come out of (or experienced) the poorest of the poor? Buddha had the most personal growth when he got rid of the riches of his parent's kingdom and went to live as an ascetic (for example).

There's nothing wrong with being rich, but there's nothing wrong with being poor. Having money, though, is the same as having food or shelter. It's just a means of survival and independence. Your good nature could be considered money if others deem it as valuable. It's not the money which is valuable; what is valuable is that which others deem as valuable, to which you can trade for your ability to survive and be independent.

I believe I mentioned in another thread regarding your insistance that government is violence that it is a necessary evil. I believe I also mentioned that transcending the need for a government on a personal level is quite easy, as it simply requires the spiritual awareness to embrace compassion for all beings.
I believe the same philosophy should be applied here.

I still don't understand how you can accept the fact that you support evil, and yet you're talking about embracing a compassion for all beings. And you can define evil however you want to in this case; you still support violence, you still support evil. I'm going to end the conversation again.

[JainVeganBuddha]

back to the topic of debt slavery i would like to point out the international character of it....and that such slavery can be inflicted upon entire nations by the ruling international elite with their hierarchical central and world banking systems.