Is a moral free market possible?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

"moral principles of Islam"

It stops right here.

 

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

 

So?

[dimreepr]

Just now, Genady said:

So?

Think about it... 😉

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Think about it... 😉

You have managed, again, to annihilate any wish to discuss with you.

You said, you are interested in the discussion, and in a few posts you kill it.

[mistermack]

There was a moral free market 700 years before Islam. Buyer and seller just agree a deal. Simple.

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Think about it... 😉

Islam is a culture that followed a moral structure to create a working economy, that's at least worth thinking about.

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

You have managed, again, to annihilate any wish to discuss with you.

You said, you are interested in the discussion, and in a few posts you kill it.

Isn't it? 

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There was a moral free market 700 years before Islam. Buyer and seller just agree a deal. Simple.

 

It was then, then things got complicated, simples

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Islam is a culture that followed a moral structure to create a working economy, that's at least worth thinking about.

Isn't it? 

I have already thought about it and, moreover, have seen it in action.

This is not a discussion. I have made my mind: you are a troll.

Goodbye.

[npts2020]

On 5/5/2023 at 7:15 AM, dimreepr said:

system that doesn't allow money to earn more than hard work? 

I'm sure it is possible but so long as the system is based on money rather than tangible things, those with the money are unlikely to ever allow it to happen.

 

On 5/5/2023 at 7:42 AM, Genady said:

Work doesn't have to be hard.

Some work has to be hard, there aren't enough machines in the world with the skill sets to do all of it.

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

On 5/5/2023 at 7:42 AM, Genady said:

Work doesn't have to be hard.

Some work has to be hard, there aren't enough machines in the world with the skill sets to do all of it.

The full sentence in the context would be,

"Work doesn't have to be hard in order for a system to allow to earn more money."

IOW, the amount of money earned is not necessarily positively correlated with the hardness of work done. Of course, it depends how the 'hardness of work' is measured.

[npts2020]

21 minutes ago, Genady said:

it depends how the 'hardness of work' is measured.

One way would be to measure participation in a given activity but it seems any method will be imprecise because you are trying to quantify a subjective human judgment.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, npts2020 said:

One way would be to measure participation in a given activity but it seems any method will be imprecise because you are trying to quantify a subjective human judgment.

Exactly. What is a cup-o-tea for one might be a very hard work for thousands of others.

[TheVat]

OP answer imho is No.  Because without labor unions, collective bargaining, regulations and laws, you have people working long days at hard job for peanuts while management pushes paper around, barks at secretaries, and takes off at 2pm for golf, and they get millions.  That's the natural trend in capitalism, so you need a lot of structured restrictions to counteract that.  Otherwise the only "moral" imperative is shareholder profits.  

[npts2020]

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

OP answer imho is No.  Because without labor unions, collective bargaining, regulations and laws, you have people working long days at hard job for peanuts while management pushes paper around, barks at secretaries, and takes off at 2pm for golf, and they get millions.  That's the natural trend in capitalism, so you need a lot of structured restrictions to counteract that.  Otherwise the only "moral" imperative is shareholder profits.  

Sure but one has to assume none of that is "moral". Capitalist philosophy says it is perfectly moral to take advantage of others so long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line.

[TheVat]

Exactly - hence my irony quotes around the word moral.  Profit is not a moral valuation.  

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I'm sure it is possible but so long as the system is based on money rather than tangible things, those with the money are unlikely to ever allow it to happen.

That's why it'll take some sort of revolution to initiate; but before that happenstance, we will have had a conversation about how to make things work better for all of us; what the rich never seem to understand is, they can't eat money and with the plastic note's we now have, they can't even wipe their arse with it.

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

OP answer imho is No.  Because without labor unions, collective bargaining, regulations and laws, you have people working long days at hard job for peanuts while management pushes paper around, barks at secretaries, and takes off at 2pm for golf, and they get millions.  That's the natural trend in capitalism, so you need a lot of structured restrictions to counteract that.  Otherwise the only "moral" imperative is shareholder profits.  

I'm assuming you mean "no" within the current model?

 

21 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Some work has to be hard, there aren't enough machines in the world with the skill sets to do all of it.

AI and associated technology are making that statement less and less true, in all fields of human activities; one day it's perefctly possible that all we can do that a machine can't, is put a hand on someone's shoulder and say "there there"; maybe that's the revolution we need, because when that becomes true, money will have no meaning at all...

Edited May 7, 2023 by dimreepr

[npts2020]

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

AI and associated technology are making that statement less and less true, in all fields of human activities; one day it's perefctly possible that all we can do that a machine can't, is put a hand on someone's shoulder and say "there there"; maybe that's the revolution we need, because when that becomes true, money will have no meaning at all...

This will only be possible when resources are routinely used for the common good rather than individual enrichment.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, npts2020 said:

This will only be possible when resources are routinely used for the common good rather than individual enrichment.

There won't be any point in not using it for the common good, in my scenario.

Professor Stuart Russell explains why, in great detail, in his 2021 Reith Lectures for the BBC. 

On 5/6/2023 at 1:28 PM, Genady said:

I have already thought about it and, moreover, have seen it in action.

This is not a discussion. I have made my mind: you are a troll.

Goodbye.

How can I troll my own topic?

I too have seen "it" in action, they fed a great deal of hungry stranger's in the mosque that fed me (a privileged christian, that's had one too many shandies); but we're talking about cold hard cash, not what lengths the extremely hard up will do, to get some (mention no name's, cough "prince andrew" cough "the local vicar" cough "etc.").

[TheVat]

Don't have link atm, but David Brooks has a great essay in The Atlantic on the conflicts between our individual freedom and autonomy, and our obligations to community and the common good.  I recommend it.  If the mag gives you any paywall crap, LMK and I'll send you a screenshot later.  

 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

Don't have link atm, but David Brooks has a great essay in The Atlantic on the conflicts between our individual freedom and autonomy, and our obligations to community and the common good.  I recommend it.  If the mag gives you any paywall crap, LMK and I'll send you a screenshot later.  

 

This reminds me of a friend who said "the greatest tool in the box, is grease"; IOW, infrastructure costs more to maintain than to build.

[iNow]

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This reminds me of a friend who said "the greatest tool in the box, is grease"; IOW, infrastructure costs more to maintain than to build.

Even the most massive complex difficult machines to build on the entire planet often can’t run at all without a few well placed 49 cent O-rings. 

[Ni Mimi.]

Back after being away from this site, attending to other matters.

On the topic in question, thinking outside the box concerning the statement, "I'm afraid 100 % free and 100 % ethical is impossible," assuming it was possible, then what?

That is, on this apparent moral scale, does 'Good' need itself for things to thrive or, comparatively, needs 'Bad' to relativize itself?

And, does 'Bad' need itself to justify its essence of being 'Bad'? What if all was 'Bad'?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Ni Mimi. said:

On the topic in question, thinking outside the box concerning the statement, "I'm afraid 100 % free and 100 % ethical is impossible," assuming it was possible, then what?

You should read the thread, this has been answered.

1 hour ago, Ni Mimi. said:

That is, on this apparent moral scale, does 'Good' need itself for things to thrive or, comparatively, needs 'Bad' to relativize itself?

And, does 'Bad' need itself to justify its essence of being 'Bad'? What if all was 'Bad'?

This too has been answered.

1 hour ago, Ni Mimi. said:

does 'Good' need itself for things to thrive or, comparatively, needs 'Bad' to relativize itself?

Not exactly sure what you mean by this, my best quess is yin-yang, so my answer is yes...

[MSC]

In steps economic compatibilism. The state owns alternatives within the needs based economy based on the five pillars of a thriving populace. Education, Healthcare, Housing, Food/Water and Energy.

To be clear, the state owns alternatives, not the entire industries. It regulates private businesses that still engage and do business within the needs based economy. 

The free market is for our wants based economy. Capitalise on our wants, provide our needs. 

I mean, it's obviously a lot more complicated than that, but I'm just spitballing here and this idea was slightly inspired by the five pillars of Islam. 

Just as a side note; in Shariah law, charging interest on loans is forbidden as usury. Does anyone else not just love that idea? Lol

Also, hello Dim, good to speak to you again. It's been awhile. 

[richards1]

Indeed, yet all the same that is on another level. I thought you implied opportunity for financial backers. A standard occupation isn't the market.

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Just as a side note; in Shariah law, charging interest on loans is forbidden as usury. Does anyone else not just love that idea? Lol

But since they also need to profit from loans, Islamic banks take a portion of profits from the venture the money was loaned on. It's still interest on the loan, but it looks more like a partnership agreement where the bank invests temporarily in the business.

7 hours ago, richards1 said:

Indeed, yet all the same that is on another level. I thought you implied opportunity for financial backers. A standard occupation isn't the market.

This makes absolutely no sense. You failed to quote who this is in response to, so we don't know what "that" could be or why it's on "another level" (something joigus actually said on page 1). It's looking more and more like you're not a real person, and have no real interest in science discussion other than to improve your AI features. Any last words?