cont

You can object to the perceived ad hominem attack all you like, but I for one, apart from disputing the validity of your argument, object to being categorised in the way you appear to be doing.

Secondly,

You say that people sell their labour because they attach more value to the money they earn than they do their time. What a load of poppycock. I can’t speak for anyone else but my time is worth far more to me than my boss pays for it. Not only that, my labour is worth more to my boss than he pays for it – that is where the profit is.

You say that people who sell their labour do so for “profit”. Another load of poppycock. People who sell their labour do so because it is the only way they can obtain the means to sustain their lives. They have to do so because they don’t own the means by which humans produce the things that sustain their lives – others do. They do not own the product of their labour – it belongs to their employers, so they can’t sell it for profit. The only thing they can do is try to get as much for their labour as they can so that they can hopefully exchange it for as much of the product that they themselves make, which their employers keep and sell back to them for profit.

And finally,

You say “to argue successfully for a society without profit, you need to do more than merely point to aspects of profit that you perceive to be bad”. And there I was thinking I could do it all in a 350 word limit. Thank you so much for your lessons in Arguing 101.

What? No response? Hopefully you have gone away to reassess some of your erroneous beliefs (and faulty premises to your agruments) about human beings and society.

"What? No response? Hopefully you have gone away to reassess some of your erroneous beliefs (and faulty premises to your agruments) about human beings and society."

No - we simply have different philosophical viewpoints. There seems little purpose in discussing it further. I doubt I'm going to convert you to my viewpoint, and you're certainly not going to convert me to yours.

Sylvia.

“No - we simply have different philosophical viewpoints. There seems little purpose in discussing it further. I doubt I'm going to convert you to my viewpoint, and you're certainly not going to convert me to yours.”

Don’t you think that is a bit of a cop out?

You make unsubstantiated, and quite frankly insulting, claims about 6 billion odd people and expect them to be accepted. Yet when contested you make a cowardly withdrawal claiming “different philosophical viewpoints”.

What might you be philosophically opposed to? Seeking (and speaking) the truth?

Is it true that, without profit, the majority of people don’t bother to do anything that doesn’t directly benefit themselves, or not?

If you believe it is true, show me the evidence. If you had such evidence, I’m sure you would be pleased to brandish it. However, I bet you won’t answer, and in your silence we will know the truth.

By the way,

I recently heard a quote:

The meaning of life is planting a tree, in whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Sylvia

In response to your post of 2 October:

“The forum rules require that responses remain on topic.”

I thought I had addressed that in my last post. A broad perspective is not off-topic. Anything relevant is on topic. Sorry if you don’t agree, but that’s a definite. And that’s the way it is with all OLO discussions.

“Similarly, in a thread about whether or not water is currently scarce, no matter how much you may be concerned about the effect of population growth, responses that seek to introduce the impact of population growth are off topic.”

This is terrible. I totally disagree. In saying things like this you are effectively turning a blind eye to some of the main causal factors (of the scarcity of water in this case, which is very much due to the size of our demand on the resource, as well as a relative decline in rainfall).

You can’t do things like that. You get a totally distorted picture of the whole deal if you deliberately exclude obvious contributing factors.

“A hollistic approach may provide suggestions of where problems can lie, but it does little to indicate what can be practically done to address them. That requires detailed analysis.”

Extraordinary! Only a holistic approach can show us where the real problems lie and where the real practical solutions can be implemented.

“I think you do economist and politicians a disservice.”

Not in the slightest! Why are we in this unsustainable pickle? Why aren’t we automatically gearing our whole society towards sustainability? Well, it’s got an awful lot to do with the history of politicians and economists chasing short-term political gains and profits respectively, at the exclusion of practically anything else of significance.

Now Sylvia, surely by your standards your whole post is off-topic, as it really is quite removed from discussion on discounted cash flows. Yes?