GENIUS FORUMS

Matt: Sure, assuming that working at a job is actually beneficial to the human race.

Carl: You questioning the working part, the job part, or both?

Matt: I'm just saying it's silly to think that every single job is beneficial to the human race.

'Work' and 'jobs' can be described as two completely different things. You can work without care of your status, or prospect of advancement. You can work without any belief in progress, or self-betterment. You can work according to, and inspired by your needs and interests. There need not be a prescribed time when you are to work, and no boss lording over you. You alone can set the standard of your work.

'Jobs' are artificially prescribed things that slaves do. For as S L Lowndes wrote in his book “Why Work” back in 1982, “There isn’t a job good enough for me. There isn’t a job good enough for anyone.” A sentiment that most people would agree with - that is if they were able to shake free from the fear of being set adrift from the lifestyle their job supports. But that fear stands as a sentinel keeping them from questioning their enslavement to jobs that do little more than maintain and foster other jobs and the slaves that fill them.

There is a deeper reason why work is not as popular as it once was, and that is because of its individualistic nature. To work means to operate as an individual. And the responsibility that comes with such freedom can only be supported by a strong mind – and such minds are very few in number. Their depletion sped up by the demands of a society that will not be satiated until every person on the planet is enslaved through debt.

Matt,

No, the price is high for an item only because the demand is high. If the supply is kept low for whatever reason, then that increases the demand which increases the price.

We are talking about two totally different things. I’m saying that a Lexus is more expensive than a ford focus because it is a better product, it has more features, a stronger engine, and the materials that go into its construction are treated better. Sue is saying that because people are buying expensive goods that this is causing the price to go up, but this is not how it works because people who buy luxury goods are in the minority. There is not enough of them to affect supply levels. It has always been that way. Most consumers buy generic products that are in high supply, and are cheaply priced.

The prices of commodities are going up because more and more investors are moving away from the stock market and investing in commodities, which is making the demand go way up.

I only think it is a small part. Maybe 15%. Compare the number of recent commodity investors to the number of new consumers through the industrial expansion of China and India.

Sue,

'Jobs' are artificially prescribed things that slaves do. For as S L Lowndes wrote in his book “Why Work” back in 1982, “There isn’t a job good enough for me. There isn’t a job good enough for anyone.” A sentiment that most people would agree with - that is if they were able to shake free from the fear of being set adrift from the lifestyle their job supports. But that fear stands as a sentinel keeping them from questioning their enslavement to jobs that do little more than maintain and foster other jobs and the slaves that fill them.

Sue, I agree that it is rare for people to value personal intellectual work over jobs, but jobs are necessary too. You tend to brush them off as totally insignificant, but this is very limited thinking on your part. As sentient beings, we require food, clothes and shelter, and in a very complicated economy, and so tedious tasks are necessary to make life better for everyone. That is why JOBS are also important. They are necessary, they are essential, they guarantee a high standard of living.

People need to learn how to balance their intellectual work with tedious jobs that are necessary for survival. You’re ideology creates a society of useless intellectuals dependent on a system that they feel they are too good to contribute in. However, that is very bizarre thinking. One needs to accept causality as it is, and work with what we have. The rejection of ‘what is’ is not the mark of a balanced individual.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

Matt: Sure, assuming that working at a job is actually beneficial to the human race.

Carl: You questioning the working part, the job part, or both?

Matt: I'm just saying it's silly to think that every single job is beneficial to the human race.

'Work' and 'jobs' can be described as two completely different things.

They can, but conventionally speaking, jobs contain or require work, they are not separate from it. You mean self-employment vs. employment.

You can work without care of your status, or prospect of advancement. You can work without any belief in progress, or self-betterment. You can work according to, and inspired by your needs and interests.

These are all possible with, and are not necessarily exclusive of, jobs. So your definitions definitely need some, heh, work.

There need not be a prescribed time when you are to work, and no boss lording over you. You alone can set the standard of your work.

No. When you are self-employed your customer is your boss and basically sets the standard. It is merely a more direct line than when working for a company.

'Jobs' are artificially prescribed things that slaves do.

This is irrational belief, a delusional generality.

For as S L Lowndes wrote in his book “Why Work” back in 1982, “There isn’t a job good enough for me. There isn’t a job good enough for anyone.”

For? You think this actually supports your previous statement? Sue, one assertion does not support another.

A sentiment that most people would agree with - that is if they were able to shake free from the fear of being set adrift from the lifestyle their job supports. But that fear stands as a sentinel keeping them from questioning their enslavement to jobs that do little more than maintain and foster other jobs and the slaves that fill them.

Great boilerplate speechifying, but the fact is that most people are not cut out for self-employment. I, for one, do not care for the paperwork.

There is a deeper reason why work is not as popular as it once was,

Self employment is not as popular as it once was? When? Before the Industrial Revolution?

and that is because of its individualistic nature.

Couldn't have anything to do with the rise of multi-national corporations with their exported labor and big box distribution, and at home increased regulations, taxation, and fees -- in short the world economic/ government cartel, no.

Carl and Ryan,

No, I did not mean specifically the "self-employed" or "intellectuals" when I wrote of those who refuse to slave to maintain and foster jobs. The people I wrote of will not prostitute their minds and lives to a system that would treat them (and all others) only as grist. They know that they would be idiotic to be bossed around by the idiots that valued money and possessions over individual autonomy. They come from all walks of life: carpenters, artists, parents, teachers, surfers, gardeners, writers, scientists, etc. They come from different countries, and cultures, and have different educational backgrounds. But all have the one thing in common, and that is they all trust their own mind and instincts more than they trust society (other people) to inform them of what they should think and feel. They are people that define for themselves what it is to be human. They set for themselves their own set of well considered mores and morals, and not ask from others counsel, or agreement. And their work is not separated from their own personal code of conduct. They are unfashionable, and unbending. They are in the minority not because of their own actions, but because the majority prefer to herd together so as to not have to think for themselves, and where their feelings and beliefs are reflected by all within the herd.

Ryan,

No, the price is high for an item only because the demand is high. If the supply is kept low for whatever reason, then that increases the demand which increases the price.

We are talking about two totally different things. I’m saying that a Lexus is more expensive than a ford focus because it is a better product, it has more features, a stronger engine, and the materials that go into its construction are treated better. Sue is saying that because people are buying expensive goods that this is causing the price to go up, but this is not how it works because people who buy luxury goods are in the minority. There is not enough of them to affect supply levels.

The number of participants in an economy isn't the only factor that determines demand. It also depends on how much they want whatever it is they want. If one person will pay a million dollars for something then that thing will be in greater demand than something that ten people will pay a dollar for, even though fewer people want it.

The prices of commodities are going up because more and more investors are moving away from the stock market and investing in commodities, which is making the demand go way up.

I only think it is a small part. Maybe 15%. Compare the number of recent commodity investors to the number of new consumers through the industrial expansion of China and India.

It's the amount of money that's driving it. There are a lot of trading companies sinking billions of dollars into commodities. A lot of the investors aren't even aware that they've invested in commodities, they just own shares of diversified funds whose managers invest in them. So there are millions of investors involved.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:
No, I did not mean specifically the "self-employed" or "intellectuals" when I wrote of those who refuse to slave to maintain and foster jobs. The people I wrote of will not prostitute their minds and lives to a system that would treat them (and all others) only as grist.

Let me get this straight. You wrote of people who have jobs but are not prostitutes? Isn't a prostitute one who performs a service for money? Or is it the few who do work for money but aren't owned by the situation, those who prostitute but are not emotionally involved?

They know that they would be idiotic to be bossed around by the idiots that valued money and possessions over individual autonomy.

And yet everyone who has a job (works for someone) is "bossed around," literally.

They come from all walks of life: carpenters, artists, parents, teachers, surfers, gardeners, writers, scientists, etc.

How many surfers do you think are on staff anywhere? How many parents?

They come from different countries, and cultures, and have different educational backgrounds. But all have the one thing in common, and that is they all trust their own mind and instincts more than they trust society (other people) to inform them of what they should think and feel. They are people that define for themselves what it is to be human. They set for themselves their own set of well considered mores and morals, and not ask from others counsel, or agreement. And their work is not separated from their own personal code of conduct.

Good speech. Almost poetic. Could be set to music.

They are unfashionable, and unbending.

If they work for any sort of corporation, or even for customers in general, they will be fashionable and bending to some degree, it's called compromise, and it's necessary for holding a job.

They are in the minority not because of their own actions, but because the majority prefer to herd together so as to not have to think for themselves, and where their feelings and beliefs are reflected by all within the herd.

Alright, they have jobs but are not owned by those jobs. Good way to be. That's what I try to do, myself.

Matt Gregory wrote:It's the amount of money that's driving it. There are a lot of trading companies sinking billions of dollars into commodities. A lot of the investors aren't even aware that they've invested in commodities, they just own shares of diversified funds whose managers invest in them. So there are millions of investors involved.

Another viewpoint is that this has been (more or less directly) caused by the Fed. A lot of money was dumped into the US economy (via artificially low interest rates), which wound up in the real estate market and mortgages. Since that market has tanked, a lot of the capital has moved into commodities, particularly oil.

The Fed has recently recognized that the low interest rates are now causing inflation, and has announced that it is changing its policy and will be raising rates. That certainly won't help the economy, however, in the short term; I expect that we'll probably see a period of '70's style stagflation.

If this view is correct, then eventually the price of oil will eventuall come down (possibly even crashing down) from its current heights. Where will that capital then flow? It will probably find some other market to have a bubble in.

Consider this, the price of oil has quadrupled in the past nine years, but demand has only risen about 15% and the supply gap is relatively unchanged. So obviously China and Inda's increased oil consumption is not driving the price up, it's bad monetary policy.

Dave Toast wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Dave Toast wrote:You're a Mahavishnu fan then?

Big time. In correct doses.

Birds of Fire being the recommended dosage. You ever heard any Dixie Dregs?

Never heard of the Dixie Dregs. I'll youtube them and check them out. Birds of Fire just came out around my senior year in high school. I remember going to see the Mahavishnu Orchestra (triple-bill with Frampton's Camel and Spooky Tooth!!) at the time and being blown away. I exceeded the recommended dosage a lot in those days...

Carl G wrote:Matt wrote:

Sure, assuming that working at a job is actually beneficial to the human race.

You questioning the working part, the job part, or both? Should we all be on the dole (no work)? Should we all be independent contractors (no 'jobs')? Or, are you imagining that some work is beneficial, say, agriculture, and other work not, like, making television sets? And how important would it have to be to benefit the entire "human race," by the way? Would being a space astronaut qualify? How about a hospital nurse?

Nobody makes a living by telling the truth.




.

Tomas wrote:Nobody makes a living by telling the truth.

How about Michael Moore?