- #36
Danger
Gold Member
- 9,799
- 253
And if you get chilly, there's still that nice warm doggie to cuddle up with.:tongue2:Astronuc said:
In summary: I think most scientists would rather do that then work for a boss who tells them what to do.In summary, Russ is saying you didn't understand what I was asking. I think some of you didn't, but most of you did. He also says that if you extrapolate from the poll, most people would work even if there was no monetary compensation. Some people wouldn't work, but I think most would. He also says that if you extrapolate from the poll, most people would work even if there was no monetary compensation. Some people wouldn't work, but I think most would. He also says that if you extrapolate from the poll, most people would work even if there was no monetary compensation. Some people wouldn
- #37
Smurf
- 442
- 3
What is a pure system anyways?Astronuc said:
- #38
pattylou
- 306
- 0
(The US is not purely capitalistic. We have welfare, for example. )
A purely communistic system would have certain problems - such as some segment of the population not choosing to work as hard as others, but receiving the same benefits. This can lead to resentment on the parts of the hard workers "Why should I work so hard when my neighbor doesn't but he gets the same benefits as me?" There is also a problem with valuing goods and services. How much food is the construction of a house worth? What if it is worth more to one person than another? Who decides what it is worth? Is it fair to cut your friend a break on cost but not a stranger?
*Some* of these problems are circumvented with currency. You build a house, but building it for food becomes a problem because you need to store the food or maybe you'd rather have some food and some clothing in return for your services or some such. Currency, as a representation of the value of your contribution (building a house) seems like a good solution, because you can then use the currency to buy what you need when you need it. So now we have communism with money. This is a step closer to capitalism.
Pure capitalism runs into other problems. Some people are unable to work for themselves but we need to care for them. Monopolies are a problem. There are other problems with pure capitalism that I am forgetting at the moment, but which are discussed on the thread in PWA.
The basic goal is to have a society where people are happy and healthy and productive (I think that's the goal.) It makes sense that some elements of capitalism, some elements of socialism, and some elements of other systems may all be a part of such a society.
And there'd probably still be problems.
A purely communistic system would have certain problems - such as some segment of the population not choosing to work as hard as others, but receiving the same benefits. This can lead to resentment on the parts of the hard workers "Why should I work so hard when my neighbor doesn't but he gets the same benefits as me?" There is also a problem with valuing goods and services. How much food is the construction of a house worth? What if it is worth more to one person than another? Who decides what it is worth? Is it fair to cut your friend a break on cost but not a stranger?
*Some* of these problems are circumvented with currency. You build a house, but building it for food becomes a problem because you need to store the food or maybe you'd rather have some food and some clothing in return for your services or some such. Currency, as a representation of the value of your contribution (building a house) seems like a good solution, because you can then use the currency to buy what you need when you need it. So now we have communism with money. This is a step closer to capitalism.
Pure capitalism runs into other problems. Some people are unable to work for themselves but we need to care for them. Monopolies are a problem. There are other problems with pure capitalism that I am forgetting at the moment, but which are discussed on the thread in PWA.
The basic goal is to have a society where people are happy and healthy and productive (I think that's the goal.) It makes sense that some elements of capitalism, some elements of socialism, and some elements of other systems may all be a part of such a society.
And there'd probably still be problems.
- #39
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,923
- 54
That seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy there. So, if I'm not altruistic in my activities, I'm lazy? Yes, then I definitely misunderstood your poll.pattylou said:
- #40
Smurf
- 442
- 3
All dichotomies are false.Moonbear said:
- #41
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,220
- 24
All smurfs are false too ! 
pattylou, at the cost of being repetitive, let me say this : Your option (1) and (2) above are neither (a) exhaustive, nor (b) mutually exclusive.
PS : (a) means that someone who does not satisfy criterion (2) must satisfy criterion (1) and vice versa.
(b) means that someone who satisfies criterion (1) must not satisfy criterion (2) and vice versa.
pattylou, at the cost of being repetitive, let me say this : Your option (1) and (2) above are neither (a) exhaustive, nor (b) mutually exclusive.
PS : (a) means that someone who does not satisfy criterion (2) must satisfy criterion (1) and vice versa.
(b) means that someone who satisfies criterion (1) must not satisfy criterion (2) and vice versa.
- #42
pattylou
- 306
- 0
No. I was phrasing it (here) to a ridiculous extreme, because previous efforts to phrase the question in a more realistic manner seemed to fail.Moonbear said:
I guess you may well have misunderstood, (how would I really know?) but from what you've written I don't think you did.
- #43
pattylou
- 306
- 0
See immediate post above.Gokul43201 said:All smurfs are false too !
pattylou, at the cost of being repetitive, let me say this : Your option (1) and (2) above are neither (a) exhaustive, nor (b) mutually exclusive.
PS : (a) means that someone who does not satisfy criterion (2) must satisfy criterion (1) and vice versa.
(b) means that someone who satisfies criterion (1) must not satisfy criterion (2) and vice versa.
It's just tiresome trying to get everyone on the same line of the same page, particularly when most people seemed to get the general drift of the book overall.
- #44
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 1,830
- 5
Smurf said:
You're either S.W.A.T. or you're not.
Okay, pretend I didn't just say that.
- #45
Smurf
- 442
- 3
Okay.loseyourname said:
- #46
Smurf
- 442
- 3
Yeah? Well Gokul's hump hamsters.Gokul43201 said:All smurfs are false too !
Similar threads
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion