Originally posted by Amsel :D:

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

Don't know much about it, is it like Universal Income?

Sort of.
Basically since currency is just used as a means of exchanging goods; more currency needs to be produced when more goods are created, or else it would be deflationary. So the government prints the different between wages paid and goods produced (this money is created debt free) and socially distributes it to every citizen. That way they have the purchasing power necessary to continue the expansion of the economy (unlike the modern system which punishes growth with "bubbles"), and provide every citizen with enough money to live a well off life - despite the shrinking need for labor. This allows us to prop up more artisans, philosophers, and scientists; this system essentially uses cultural labor and progress to replace economic labor, in the inevitable day that full automization is realized.

Imagine Universal Income, but more scientific, and less liberal feelgoodery.

Oh right, thanks for introducing me to this new idea.

Originally posted by Amsel :D:

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

I agree that countries shouldn't lean too heavily on banking, finance, and other intangible goods. Banks can't just lend each other forever, afterall. It's just the reality that modern manufacturing and agriculture don't require the same supply of workers as it used to. We make more food today than at any other point of history, we also have the lowest number of people actually working for the food we eat.

Even if the West made a collective decision to (somehow) make offshoring illegal, automation will simply take over. Robots have no price floor.

Cities may require more resources to maintain them, but only because so many people live in them. Their size and density makes it easier to dole out public goods. Spread people out more evenly across a country, and it's only going to be harder to ship goods and maintain infrastructure across much larger areas of land.

Then give people the purchasing power necessary to buy goods with Social Credit.
Then we could all be artists in cities or the countryside.

Don't know much about it, is it like Universal Income?

Originally posted by Amsel :D:

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

Culturally, cities are able to support more and greater musuems, libraries, live music venues, art gallaries and the like. In terms of education, almost all the great universities in the world are based in and around major cities. Cities are also have incredibly efficient mechanism in distributing resources to millions of inhabitants. If more people lived further out from cities and demanded the same level of quality of life, it would be an ecological disaster for the environment, and a massive economic burden maintaining all that infrastructure.

The West has been moving over to a service economy for decades, it's unlikely we'll need an large labour force in factories and farms again, especially when that stuff is becoming automated.

"everything we produce is cultural!"
"dumb rurals can't keep up with my starbucks and i-phone style of life"

You're right that cities produce most important cultural developments, so I was wrong about that; however, no actual commodities are produced within urban areas. Maybe if urban factories become a thing again it'd be different, but the existence of metropolises in the current economic system is based purely off of the fiat of the financial sector. Without systemic injection of resources from non-urban areas, cities wouldn't be able to sustain themselves.

I see no reason for lower and middle-class people to even inhabit cities. It would be far more efficient, culturally speaking, to only allow the rich and the intelligenstia in urban areas. Because of the need for outside contribution in order to sustain itself, a higher population is a drag on resources, because shipping food takes time. Lets not pretend that more food and resources is worse than some phantasmal currency at goldman-sachs or the man who loads office supplies into the building. Even the humblest of farmers produces more for society than city industries and the legion of unskilled labor needed to sustain these people.

It'd be dope af if we had an entire city full of people with a minimum level of education, IQ, status, or money though. It'd be way better than the current system.

I agree that countries shouldn't lean too heavily on banking, finance, and other intangible goods. Banks can't just lend each other forever, afterall. It's just the reality that modern manufacturing and agriculture don't require the same supply of workers as it used to. We make more food today than at any other point of history, we also have the lowest number of people actually working for the food we eat.

Even if the West made a collective decision to (somehow) make offshoring illegal, automation will simply take over. Robots have no price floor.

Cities may require more resources to maintain them, but only because so many people live in them. Their size and density makes it easier to dole out public goods. Spread people out more evenly across a country, and it's only going to be harder to ship goods and maintain infrastructure across much larger areas of land.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

Culturally, cities are able to support more and greater musuems, libraries, live music venues, art gallaries and the like. In terms of education, almost all the great universities in the world are based in and around major cities. Cities are also have incredibly efficient mechanism in distributing resources to millions of inhabitants. If more people lived further out from cities and demanded the same level of quality of life, it would be an ecological disaster for the environment, and a massive economic burden maintaining all that infrastructure.

The West has been moving over to a service economy for decades, it's unlikely we'll need an large labour force in factories and farms again, especially when that stuff is becoming automated.

Rural areas would survive without cities. Cities would not survive without rural areas.

More people live in urban areas now than before, we don't need most rural land.

Literally who?

http://i.imgur.com/qira0lr.gifv

+1 Brigadier
-1 Fork_Q2

I have never modded beyond my own group, with a population of just me. Brig has experince, sense of fairness and the maturity many people here lack.

Originally posted by Sir Illic:

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

I'm atheist, but internet atheists are generally cancer tbh.

This tbh.

Most of the atheists I've met in real life don't even mention religion.

To add to that list: most feminists, men's right activists, animal rights supporters, vegans, and religious people can be perfectly reasonable in real life. Their online counterparts can be right shit flinging monkeys though.

Make everyone a mod.

Originally posted by Fish for Neko Cup:

Originally posted by Geech:

Atheists shove their hatred of religion down people's throats more than every Baptist preacher in Louisiana combined smh

I'm sorry, does an atheist come to your door and ask you "Oh when is the last time you didn't believe in god"?

I'm atheist, but internet atheists are generally cancer tbh.