Why do you think transactions are more important than actually creating something or taking care of the needs of yourself and others. People go to work for 8 hours +2 to get there and back, so they can buy plastic models of imaginary girls. It would make m

Name
Email
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
File
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1360102289419.jpg (185.83 KB, 991x1400, 012.jpg)

Anonymous 02/05/13 (Tue) 22:11:29 No.2142

Why do you think transactions are more important than actually creating something or taking care of the needs of yourself and others. People go to work for 8 hours +2 to get there and back, so they can buy plastic models of imaginary girls. It would make more sense to work for the hours needed to live (housing, food, taking care of car…) and make the figurine by yourself (or learning to actually make at least something, as would be my case).

Of course, that would most likely destroy the economy and GNP. Why is that? I mean, if we did only the work necessary to keep our current standard of living (btw, what is "our" standard of living? some people have to eat trash food because they can't afford it, but I can occasionally eat quite luxuriously, and some could eat caviar and caviar only) people would have a lot more free time, which they could use to make all the unnecessary things they need to pay money for as of now. This way, the gross production would diminish, but only on unnecessary fields like fashion accessories. Still, it would, if what I've been told holds true, actually and in the end destroy the economy and peoples lives. Why is this? Is there something else than work that matters from an economical standpoint?

That something would be the flow of money. Although it holds no meaning, it seems to be the backbone of this world. And I think that it is a bit ridiculous.

Anonymous 02/06/13 (Wed) 00:50:06 No.2143

I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy a large enough variety of products that I probably would not be able to create everything I wanted (especially factoring in equipment required to make anything remotely equivalent to what I could be buying right now). Even if I had additional free time from working 20 hours instead of 40 hours per week (assuming this could even support my standard of living), I doubt I personally could create the same level of quality or diversity when it comes to music, hardware, software, board games, drawings, graphics, etc.

Probably one of the benefits of the current system is the ability to specialize; not everyone has to be working on "something necessary" to survive.

Anonymous 02/06/13 (Wed) 01:19:35 No.2144

I agree with >>2143 It's hard to make everything by yourself.

The thing about our world is that pretty much everything costs money, not just products like clothes or toys. It is very good to go out with friends or family, but if you go out to a theme park or a movie you will have to pay money. As for fair's you often have to pay money just to get in let alone buy food or anything else.

I don't like the money system, but I have no idea how the world would run without it. It provides a standard for trade. Trade used to be that someone might trade a man 5 hens for a cow, or something like that. In that type of trade no one knows what a product is worth since there was no standard.

Also as you said money is just paper, and not worth anything. It used to be that money represented gold, but I still don't see gold as that valuable myself. Still, since this paper money can buy things our economy stays afloat (somewhat).

The reason that our economy would fail if people only bought what we needed is because of supply and demand. If a computer company makes 300 computers a month they need all of those to be bought,if not then they wasted money to make those computers. If the company keeps on over supplying eventually they will be out of money. If people only bought what they needed this would happen to many companies, and the country would fall into depression. Also if those companies failed the people would have no jobs, and therefore no money to buy essential things like food.

I hope taht sums it up.

Anonymous 02/08/13 (Fri) 09:54:53 No.2145

>>2144
If nobody's willing to pay workers wages that allow them to buy anything outside of the essentials, the economy falters and fails as well. I believe that's what the US is going through right now.

Anonymous 02/09/13 (Sat) 18:33:12 No.2146

>>2145
It doesn't seem to matter if it's just some workers that can only afford housing and food. I will, of course, put the US in a very bad position if too many people fall into that category, but from an internationalist point of view I don't think it would matter much. That is, if US government doesn't implement protection laws to allow for a slow recovery. That would really diminish production and the value of goods on the market. It would lead to a global regression. The option of not letting that happen would save the rest of the world (from regression, not from hell or anything like that), but would make the US just China's possession.

We're really lucky the States isn't gonna fall. This might be one of the reasons they can take loan so irresponsibly - no one would want his money back if it meant destroying the world as we know it. I think that's actually good, because this way wealthy people and nations pump their money to important countries which in turn use that money to create new wealth for a boarder population. Seeing things this way makes me think national debt is the most egalitarian thing in the current financial world.