iNow Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 Speaking of wish lists, your threshold between what is extravagant versus what is not seems rather arbitrary and based on your own personal subjective preferences.
Area54 Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 1 hour ago, iNow said: Speaking of wish lists, your threshold between what is extravagant versus what is not seems rather arbitrary and based on your own personal subjective preferences. It is not clear to whom this is directed as it follows my post, yet seems more relevant to the OP's views. Would you clarify?
Othmane Dahi Posted July 8, 2020 Author Posted July 8, 2020 5 hours ago, dimreepr said: That's a difficult question... While we have enough to eat, accomplishments are??? I am srry I don't rlly understand what do u want to say
iNow Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Area54 said: It is not clear to whom this is directed You AND the OP What's extravagant to one will not be to another. Why should we give a damn what either of you do or don't think is extravagant?
dimreepr Posted July 9, 2020 Posted July 9, 2020 15 hours ago, Othmane Dahi said: I am srry I don't rlly understand what do u want to say Money (or lack there of) has no meaning if there's no food to buy. 😉 Our accomplishments'/economy is only possible because farmer's (a subset of humanity) produce enough food for everyone; therefore, logically they should be the richest (subset of humanity) in a sustainable economy.
MigL Posted July 9, 2020 Posted July 9, 2020 Once upon a time, everyone used to produce their own food. Yet even those agrarian societies had a need for money. 1
dimreepr Posted July 9, 2020 Posted July 9, 2020 7 minutes ago, MigL said: Once upon a time, everyone used to produce their own food. Yet even those agrarian societies had a need for money. Indeed, how else did they exchange eggs for a slice of bacon?
MigL Posted July 9, 2020 Posted July 9, 2020 I would think most had their own pigs and chickens. But may have needed to buy clay pots to cook in. ( then again, the pottery-maker may have needed to buy eggs/bacon )
dimreepr Posted July 9, 2020 Posted July 9, 2020 9 minutes ago, MigL said: I would think most had their own pigs and chickens. But may have needed to buy clay pots to cook in. ( then again, the pottery-maker may have needed to buy eggs/bacon ) Spoiler alert, the pottery-maker, dug clay...
Dord Posted July 9, 2020 Posted July 9, 2020 5 hours ago, dimreepr said: Spoiler alert, the pottery-maker, dug clay... Or he had discovered Division of Labour and used the bacon and eggs to pay someone else to dig the clay, who used them to get a shovel, and the shovel maker used them to buy a pot... "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" J-B Karr (1849)
Area54 Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 On 7/8/2020 at 10:07 PM, iNow said: What's extravagant to one will not be to another. Why should we give a damn what either of you do or don't think is extravagant? You appear to accept the concept of extravagance. The OP was seemingly denying its existence. I provided examples that might be considered extravagant to counter the OP's denial. Contradiction of unsupported assertions typically lead to those interested in a discussion giving a damn, but if you prefer indifference go right ahead. .
dimreepr Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 8 minutes ago, Area54 said: You appear to accept the concept of extravagance. The OP was seemingly denying its existence. I provided examples that might be considered extravagant to counter the OP's denial. Contradiction of unsupported assertions typically lead to those interested in a discussion giving a damn, but if you prefer indifference go right ahead. . It's purely subjective, so why does it matter? As I tried to suggest with my "Diderot effect" link, you should read "The Bonfire of the Vanities". 14 hours ago, Dord said: Or he had discovered Division of Labour and used the bacon and eggs to pay someone else to dig the clay, who used them to get a shovel, and the shovel maker used them to buy a pot... "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" J-B Karr (1849) When I was a child my village, and surrounding villages, were surrounded by perfectly viable,small working farms, all producing food. Now, my district is populated by half a dozen large farms (which are barely viable and under constant pressure to cut prices), and a few small farms, that are viable because they no longer produce food. Which scenario do you think is more resistant to change, while providing enough food for everyone? It's literally so stupid to concentrate our food production, into ever bigger monoculture's, that are one bug away from disaster; that's why it's logical to keep every farmer suitably wealthy; it's also a suitable metaphore for the problem's/insanity of Wallstreet, banking, insurance etc...
Area54 Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: It's purely subjective, so why does it matter? I am obviously doing a third rate job of making my point. I'll try again. If we accept that extravagance exists then the OP's thesis is invalidated. I am not interested in where the boundaries of extravagance may lie, but simply as to whether or not it exists. Both you and iNow seem to agree that extravagance does exist, but note that what might be considered extravagant is a subjective view. I agree with that, but I don't agree with the charming, but naive hypothesis of the OP. His denial of the existence of extravagance is one of the points that invalidate his thesis. 1
iNow Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 Yes, as a concept, of course it exists. The challenge is that it's roughly equivalent to the concept of awesomeness or attractiveness. There's no there there... as you agree, it differs from one person to the next. So, in a way, both you AND the OP are correct, but not as correct as me who's instead here saying... who cares?
dimreepr Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 12 minutes ago, Area54 said: I am obviously doing a third rate job of making my point. I'll try again. If we accept that extravagance exists then the OP's thesis is invalidated. Of course it is, was that ever in doubt?
zapatos Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: Of course it is, was that ever in doubt? Yes. That's his point. 1
Area54 Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 3 hours ago, dimreepr said: Of course it is, was that ever in doubt? The OP doubted it, else he would not have offered such a flawed argument for a money free society. 2 hours ago, zapatos said: Yes. That's his point. Thank you. I was beginning to think the problem was me.
Othmane Dahi Posted July 11, 2020 Author Posted July 11, 2020 On 7/9/2020 at 1:07 PM, dimreepr said: Our accomplishments'/economy is only possible because farmer's (a subset of humanity) produce enough food for everyone; therefore, logically they should be the richest (subset of humanity) in a sustainable economy. No there is no rich in this world. If they are making food, others make them shelter and others drive water to their home and others make electricity and others make a car for them ...
Dord Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 18 minutes ago, Othmane Dahi said: No there is no rich in this world. If they are making food, others make them shelter and others drive water to their home and others make electricity and others make a car for them ... Surely being "rich" is somewhat subjective, and dependable on what is desirable or coveted by members of a particular socio-economic group. Even without cold, hard cash one may be deemed to be rich by having more bacon and eggs than his neighbour.
Othmane Dahi Posted July 17, 2020 Author Posted July 17, 2020 On 7/11/2020 at 7:24 PM, Dord said: Surely being "rich" is somewhat subjective, and dependable on what is desirable or coveted by members of a particular socio-economic group. Even without cold, hard cash one may be deemed to be rich by having more bacon and eggs than his neighbour. being rich means that you have more more money than average people In this world rich will probably mean having more rights than average people because in this world you get more food than others if you weigh more than them or if you have to feed more people ( you have more children ...)
Area54 Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Othmane Dahi said: being rich means that you have more more money than average people How much more than the average 1%, 20%, 400%? Where you put the boundary is subjective, as @Dord suggests.
iNow Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Othmane Dahi said: Being rich means that you have more more money than average people By definition, that's half the planet, and always will be
dimreepr Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 51 minutes ago, Area54 said: How much more than the average 1%, 20%, 400%? Where you put the boundary is subjective, as @Dord suggests. The boundary begins and ends with food... That's not subjective unless we can choose when to starve... Wealth is just a number and money is just a measure, I hope I'm not around when the rich find out.
iNow Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Othmane Dahi said: In this world rich will probably mean having more rights than average people By definition, that's half the planet, and always will be
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now