Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

The quote is from Adam Savage on the TV show Mythbusters.

Of course! I think I've even heard him say that, AND it's one of my son's favorite shows.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Nope. There was an objective reality that preceded us, and will follow us. At least unless Quantum Mechanics is even weirder than anyone has imagined.

Our perception of reality may be subjective, but that does not mean reality itself is not objective. We act based on our perception, but only part of that perception is based on the actions of other people (and in some circumstances it might be only a very tiny bit).

--
Bill

I'm not so sure. Does the universe exist without us thinking about its existence? Or rather does it exist apart from what it contains? I'm pretty sure there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies.

We BELIEVE we act based on our perception, but this does not mean that we are actually acting based on our perception. Free will cannot exist in other words. How much would "anothers" actions have to affect you before you BELIEVE that you are not acting objectively? I don't think we can measure that kind of thing, simply because we would have to measure to the end of the universe to get all the connections, and the universe is infinite. The neat thing is we don't have to measure, we simply realize that everything is connected and that it is all good.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

They most certainly do not. Timebanks are unequivocably money. The only difference between them and other forms of money is the basis for the money. Money might be based on precious metals, or might be based on faith in the economy, or it might, as in the case of a time bank, be based on labor. But it is still money.

It is just money with very real weaknesses.

I like timebanks, who needs money when you have time after all.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

How much would "anothers" actions have to affect you before you BELIEVE that you are not acting objectively? I don't think we can measure that kind of thing, simply because we would have to measure to the end of the universe to get all the connections, and the universe is infinite. The neat thing is we don't have to measure, we simply realize that everything is connected and that it is all good.

We measure things to escape from our perceptions. In the world of physics, we may measured the rates at which objects fall in order to escape the perception that heavier objects fall faster. In the world of economics, we attach a price tag to things to measure how much a product is worth. Now I'm not saying that we always choose to measure things the right way. You could choose to measure the rate at which a feather falls and compare it to a lead cannon ball, only to end up with a totally erroneous conclusion. Similarly a price tag may lead us to the wrong conclusion because of conflating variables.

The thing is, if you replace that feather with a lead bead that has the mass of a feather you will get the correct result. Air resistance is no longer leading us astray. Yet it was reductionism, not holistic views, that led us to that conclusion. We had to take a smaller piece of physics to understand how a bigger piece of physics worked and we learned about new processes while doing so. The economic value of copywritten works probably works the same way: if we reduced everything to the same price ($0, $1, $5, or whatever) it is unlikely that we would ever gain an understanding of the value of a given work. In other words, the holistic view tells us bugger all. Taking a reductionist view, by removing conflating variables such as advertising or an author's reputation yet retaining supply side economics (through copyright) would probably tell us more about the value of a particular work.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

The economic value of copywritten works probably works the same way: if we reduced everything to the same price ($0, $1, $5, or whatever) it is unlikely that we would ever gain an understanding of the value of a given work. In other words, the holistic view tells us bugger all. Taking a reductionist view, by removing conflating variables such as advertising or an author's reputation yet retaining supply side economics (through copyright) would probably tell us more about the value of a particular work.

Again, this is simply taking the easy way out. Implement a system (copyright) that artificially creates a scarcity to inflate a perceived value.

We cannot remove advertising, because in the end, that is all we have. I'm not talking about adwords lol.

If all works were equally available to all, a number of books would certainly rise to top of our collective consciousness. By simply merging the top paid and top free categories into one category, top, we might begin to understand...

[QuantumIguana]

Timebanks *ARE* a form of money. Just one that is extremely flawed. At most, it could be a very minor supplement to to normal money.

What happens if the bearer doesn't live in the same state as the issuer?

What happens if the bearer becomes unable to work?

What happens if the bearer can't use the issuer's label?

How does the bearer value the note if they don't know the value of the issuer's labor?

What if the bearer can't use the issuer's labor?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Timebanks *ARE* a form of money. Just one that is extremely flawed. At most, it could be a very minor supplement to to normal money.

What happens if the bearer doesn't live in the same state as the issuer?

What happens if the bearer becomes unable to work?

What happens if the bearer can't use the issuer's label?

How does the bearer value the note if they don't know the value of the issuer's labor?

What if the bearer can't use the issuer's labor?

All time is equal, that is why timebanks are good. If someone can't work then there are other things that can be done, but money has the same problems as timebanks here.

A well organized timebank could certainly surpass money, but there is very little room, perhaps none for those who wish to make a profit from time itself, as is currently very possible with money, i.e. speculation.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

All time is equal, that is why timebanks are good. If someone can't work then there are other things that can be done, but money has the same problems as timebanks here.

A well organized timebank could certainly surpass money, but there is very little room, perhaps none for those who wish to make a profit from time itself, as is currently very possible with money, i.e. speculation.

All time is equal? Nonsense. The labor of the barber is of no use to a bald man. The labor of a butcher is of no use to a vegetarian.

You claim that traditional money has all of the same problems as timebanks. Nonsense.

What happens if the bearer doesn't live in the same state as the issuer? Money can be spend anywhere. A timebank certificate is useless if you aren't where the issuer lives.

What happens if the bearer becomes unable to work? Money isn't dependent on the status of the issuer. If the issuer of the timebank becomes ill and does, the certificate becomes useless.

What happens if the bearer can't use the issuer's labor? A barber can give a dollar to anyone in exchange for goods or services, a bald man can use the barber's dollar as easily as can anyone else. But if the barber gives the a timebank certificate to a bald man, it is worthless.

How does the bearer value the note if they don't know the value of the issuer's labor? Any given dollar is as good as any other dollar. But with a timebank certificate, unless you know the laborer very well, you can't value the certificate. The labor of a poor carpenter is not the equal of the labor of a master carpenter.

Timebanks aren't banking time at all. They deal in labor, they are just denominated in hours of labor.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I like timebanks, who needs money when you have time after all.

You must have loved In Time

[QuantumIguana]

I haven't seen that movie, but it looks like an interesting idea, I may have to check it out. Of course, in that movie, they are actually exchanging time, while in a so-called "timebank" it is labor that is being exchanged.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

All time is equal, that is why timebanks are good. If someone can't work then there are other things that can be done, but money has the same problems as timebanks here.

A well organized timebank could certainly surpass money, but there is very little room, perhaps none for those who wish to make a profit from time itself, as is currently very possible with money, i.e. speculation.

If all time is equal and you were the only reader of a book would you be willing to donate an equal amount of your time to the creator of a book? Say a month even if the requirements were minimal. If all you had to do for the priveledge of reading this book was to sit in a chair doing absolutely nothing for a month would you consider this a fair exchange for an authors labour of a year or two? Or would you get bored and weasle out?

Conversely if you had a paycheck or a product that you came by through by usage of your time would you share it equally with someone who spent their time sitting on the verandah drinking beer or spouting nonsense in the streets or far less savory pastimes.

Just curious as to how much of your time and energy you give away to the people like yourself who think they are deserving of getting something for nothing? I am not talking about the poor people here, just the ones who can afford to buy what they actually need and choose not to. Of course giving to the real poor people can count too.

Helen

The thing is, the value of people's labour is variable. Simply put, some people do the job more efficiently or do it better. And how do you incentivize skill acquisition? Engineers and doctors spend considerably more time learning their trade, carry more responsibility for the products of their labour, and generally work harder per hour than a sales clerk. The same goes for manual labourers, who literally destroy their bodies while a secretary doesn't face these physical demands no matter how hard they toil. Somehow you need to add value to labour, and money is one way of doing that.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

The thing is, the value of people's labour is variable. Simply put, some people do the job more efficiently or do it better. And how do you incentivize skill acquisition? Engineers and doctors spend considerably more time learning their trade, carry more responsibility for the products of their labour, and generally work harder per hour than a sales clerk. The same goes for manual labourers, who literally destroy their bodies while a secretary doesn't face these physical demands no matter how hard they toil. Somehow you need to add value to labour, and money is one way of doing that.

Hence why it is usually the unemployed, unskilled or untrained that think timebanks are the way of the future and that all labour is of equal value.

[Giggleton]

All labor is of equal value in that it contributes in some way to the culture. If there is a bad carpenter and a good carpenter, perhaps the good carpenter should use their time to help the bad carpenter become better.

What doesn't help anyone is pessimism.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

All labor is of equal value in that it contributes in some way to the culture. If there is a bad carpenter and a good carpenter, perhaps the good carpenter should use their time to help the bad carpenter become better.

What doesn't help anyone is pessimism.

The rejection of bad ideas is not pessimism. It is optimism because it frees us to persue good ideas.

All labor is simply not equal. An hour of work by a bad carpenter is not equal to an hour of work from a good carpenter. You don't seem to understand how this timebank system works. A laborer creates a certificate good for an hour of labor. The laborer then exchanges this certificate to someone else in exchange for goods or services. The recipient of that certificate decides how much to value that certificate. A farmer might offer the laborer one sack of potatoes for an hour of the poor carpenter's labor, but might offer two sacks of potatoes for an hour of the good carpenter's labor.

This is true even if the farmer has no intention of actually using the labor. The farmer might pass the certificate on to someone else in exchange for other goods or services. But what sets the value of the certificate is the value is how much the certificate holder values the labor that the issuer offers. In a timebank system, all labor is most definately not equal.

It might be nice if the good carpenter taught the poor carpenter to be a better carpenter. But that is beyond the scope of the timebank system, the good carpenter is under no obligation to do so. And if the good carpenter is to teach the poor carpenter, does he have to do it for free, or does the poor carpenter have to pay with timebank certificates? And what if the poor carpenter can't get any better? Not everyone can be a master carpenter.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

All labor is of equal value in that it contributes in some way to the culture. If there is a bad carpenter and a good carpenter, perhaps the good carpenter should use their time to help the bad carpenter become better.

Not even close to true. Not only has you assertion never been proven, the spectacular failure of communist states in the last century has rather undermined the labor theory of value.

Even a cursory glance shows its not true. An hour of time by Charles Dickens, or Thomas Edison certainly on average has produced far more value to our culture than the average, very good carpenter.

--
Bill