|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 27, 2021 14:11:08 GMT
Because I'm a complete ignorant in Economy, so I'll be using plain and common terms to explain the theme.
Ok, let's say that there are two types of persons who deal with trade: a) those who are directed on the process of making something; b) and the persons who are directed on selling something. The former type are interested in the results of their work, while the latter ones are directed on selling the product (whichever it has or hasn't been made by them). So, we can be more or less certain about those "sellers" type persons that they're about to have money, and therefore they have more capitalistic views, than their "makers" types.
So, here's a question for you: what do you think is more healthy and good for you or the humanity in general - to care about making and developing things? or to care about selling the things? Which way is yours? Would you choose to die, but to develop some good things? Or would you choose to sell something no matter how bad is it?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 27, 2021 14:39:27 GMT
Because I'm a complete ignorant in Economy, so I'll be using plain and common terms to explain the theme. Ok, let's say that there are two types of persons who deal with trade: a) those who are directed on the process of making something; b) and the persons who are directed on selling something. The former type are interested in the results of their work, while the latter ones are directed on selling the product (whichever it has or hasn't been made by them). So, we can be more or less certain about those "sellers" type persons that they're about to have money, and therefore they have more capitalistic views, than their "makers" types. So, here's a question for you: what do you think is more healthy and good for you or the humanity in general - to care about making and developing things? or to care about selling the things? Which way is yours? Would you choose to die, but to develop some good things? Or would you choose to sell something no matter how bad is it? I am not a money person at all. In my ideal world, there is no money. People just make stuff, and have enough consciousness to be able to make society work like that. Machines can do the ugly work, but perhaps
if nobody wants to do the ugly stuff, there might
need to be some sort of community service.
Of course, the liars find a way to cheat and get out of doing the ugly work, and get an easy community service. It always hinges on human honesty, no matter how you construct a system.
The problem with money is that it has become increasingly possible for lazy cheats to get all the stuff, and make slaves of the makers.
Dedicating yourself to being productive is a full time thing. Dealing with the wheelers and dealers drains the creative energy so much, its impossible to be both.
The education system is the worst culprit. Teachers and professors are mostly unthinking and the school marks system is corrupt to the core.
The result is that the richest people are actually
the most worthless, whereas capitalism is supposed
to reward the makers.
This is the very dynamic which leads to communist and socialist revolution. So! greedy peoples out there. How does the guillotine look to you?
The next chapter of this story is going to be VERY ugly.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 27, 2021 15:02:26 GMT
Because I'm a complete ignorant in Economy, so I'll be using plain and common terms to explain the theme. Ok, let's say that there are two types of persons who deal with trade: a) those who are directed on the process of making something; b) and the persons who are directed on selling something. The former type are interested in the results of their work, while the latter ones are directed on selling the product (whichever it has or hasn't been made by them). So, we can be more or less certain about those "sellers" type persons that they're about to have money, and therefore they have more capitalistic views, than their "makers" types. So, here's a question for you: what do you think is more healthy and good for you or the humanity in general - to care about making and developing things? or to care about selling the things? Which way is yours? Would you choose to die, but to develop some good things? Or would you choose to sell something no matter how bad is it? I am not a money person at all. In my ideal world, there is no money. People just make stuff, and have enough consciousness to be able to make society work like that. Machines can do the ugly work, but perhaps
if nobody wants to do the ugly stuff, there might
need to be some sort of community service.
Of course, the liars find a way to cheat and get out of doing the ugly work, and get an easy community service. It always hinges on human honesty, no matter how you construct a system.
The problem with money is that it has become increasingly possible for lazy cheats to get all the stuff, and make slaves of the makers.
Dedicating yourself to being productive is a full time thing. Dealing with the wheelers and dealers drains the creative energy so much, its impossible to be both.
The education system is the worst culprit. Teachers and professors are mostly unthinking and the school marks system is corrupt to the core.
The result is that the richest people are actually
the most worthless, whereas capitalism is supposed
to reward the makers.
This is the very dynamic which leads to communist and socialist revolution. So! greedy peoples out there. How does the guillotine look to you?
The next chapter of this story is going to be VERY ugly.
Oh, thank you very much for many really necessary and good tips, because I don't really know this question well. Sure, I can agree that capitalism isn't that bad I has written (maybe not intentionally). I use word 'capitalists' to describe those 'sellers' type. This is with what I cannot disagree. Recently I've read an article by Bruno Latour "Give Me A Lab, and I Shall Move the Earth" where he followed by Tomas Khun and some other positivists said that many academical scientists lived within those special societies, so probably most of the time they spend for that unusual social leisure, than for the real researches. Bertrand Russell in his " On individuality" (if I remember correctly) warned about socialization of a scientist. He wrote that those producer's activity could kill the real intentions of the scientists, and, therefore, the science as well. I can say - to confirm Russell's point - that when I was young and I wanted to study Physics I opened books (unfortunately with no real effect then), but when I tried to ask my teachers about anything they mostly kept silence or said something more formal. And, for instance, when I was working at the lab, I got much more experience, because instead of teaching lotta of unusual literature (I'll explain why "unusual" below), my experience was direct at the processes I wished to understand. ("Unusual" because there were people who wanted me to tell them about the scientists, the history, and so on, instead of those processes. I mean, they demanded me to be cultural, while - I had no disagree to read more and to know more - "to be cultural" was more like "to be obedient for the system".)
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on Apr 27, 2021 17:41:20 GMT
Im a maker. Work as a software developer. In my field the sellers job is not simply to persuade buyers to buy. It is to reach agreement what we makers can offer and what the buyers need. The selling is a process. And a good seller understands both the makers limits and the buyers need. And therefore can make a contract which fits both. The same can be probably said about any more technical industry.
So, which one you should "care for" is not black and white to me.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 27, 2021 17:59:15 GMT
Im a maker. Work as a software developer. In my field the sellers job is not simply to persuade buyers to buy. It is to reach agreement what we makers can offer and what the buyers need. The selling is a process. And a good seller understands both the makers limits and the buyers need. And therefore can make a contract which fits both. The same can be probably said about any more technical industry. So, which one you should "care for" is not black and white to me. Maybe, but what percent of realization of goods would you give them? All the work are made by the makers. It is, with no doubts, a complete sane notification about that even a work of the sellers isn't so simple and obvious: linking contacts, phoning, booking, replacing, etc - and it requires many skills and time. And at the same time there are closer to finances; if they would care about all "ins" and "outs" of their business they could cheat as makers so buyers.
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on Apr 27, 2021 18:05:07 GMT
Im a maker. Work as a software developer. In my field the sellers job is not simply to persuade buyers to buy. It is to reach agreement what we makers can offer and what the buyers need. The selling is a process. And a good seller understands both the makers limits and the buyers need. And therefore can make a contract which fits both. The same can be probably said about any more technical industry. So, which one you should "care for" is not black and white to me. Maybe, but what percent of realization of goods would you give them? All the work are made by the makers. It is, with no doubts, a complete sane notification about that even a work of the sellers isn't so simple and obvious: linking contacts, phoning, booking, replacing, etc - and it requires many skills and time. And at the same time there are closer to finances; if they would care about all "ins" and "outs" of their business they could cheat as makers so buyers. Well, makers tend to be people who are not that social. So having socially fit sellers is a good thing. What percent? I don't know that would vary from sale to sale I would not say thats constant. Sometimes we sell something thats more "standard", then the sellers job is not hard and they should get less imo. But I dont know how actually works at my company.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 27, 2021 18:33:29 GMT
Maybe, but what percent of realization of goods would you give them? All the work are made by the makers. It is, with no doubts, a complete sane notification about that even a work of the sellers isn't so simple and obvious: linking contacts, phoning, booking, replacing, etc - and it requires many skills and time. And at the same time there are closer to finances; if they would care about all "ins" and "outs" of their business they could cheat as makers so buyers. Well, makers tend to be people who are not that social. So having socially fit sellers is a good thing. What percent? I don't know that would vary from sale to sale I would not say thats constant. Sometimes we sell something thats more "standard", then the sellers job is not hard and they should get less imo. But I dont know how actually works at my company. I guess that less social is probably better, than worse. Today's society is oversocialized. We cannot even turn off the Internet, so a modern civilized person is a connected person (to the global net). The makers are those who can be trusted to bring some sanity for us. I'd say even the Internet pirates are much better, than the real ship pirates.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 28, 2021 17:45:10 GMT
Eugene 2.0Your English teacher insists that it should be: To make or to sell. Past tense is: To have made or to have sold.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 18:12:20 GMT
Eugene 2.0Your English teacher insists that it should be: To make or to sell. Past tense is: To have made or to have sold. What a fool was I?.. Surely, thank you. Yes, it's wrong..........................
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 18:15:32 GMT
jonbainSometimes errors occur when I'm using phone. For instance, the soft changes "is" to "us", and so on.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 28, 2021 18:33:26 GMT
jonbain Sometimes errors occur when I'm using phone. For instance, the soft changes "is" to "us", and so on. Sometimes errors occur when I'm using my phone. For instance, the software changes "is" to "us", and so on.
One day, you gonna have to teach me Russian. Da?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 20:17:28 GMT
jonbain Sometimes errors occur when I'm using phone. For instance, the soft changes "is" to "us", and so on. Sometimes errors occur when I'm using my phone. For instance, the software changes "is" to "us", and so on. One day, you gonna have to teach me Russian. Da? I really appreciate your comments and corrections! They do help me! I know it is shame for me to do such nasty mistakes... It spoils English... I try to read Murphy's books, but unfortunately the time is elapsing so fast... Anyway, I won't refuse to teach Russian, but I'm not a good teacher. All I can highly recommend is to learn cases, conjugations, endings, and roots. Like in Chinese and Japanese there are some most stable forms which have been using almost anyone. The grammar structure and tenses are free. Even there are no word order. That's why it is so confusing for an Eastern Slav to talk with a straight, rigorous sequence of words. Usually we manipulate (or govern) words by changing suffixes and endings. It happens 90% of all the cases. Maybe it's not easily to explain all the variations of them, nevertheless there are many similarities with Western languages. Terms and verbs are close, while most of them have been changing since IX-X centuries, when, as far as I know, the differences were really minor. If to learn enough cases, conjugations, and other change forms, it's a way to get close not only to Russian or Ukrainian, but Chinese and Japanese also. (By the way, Ukrainian is easier for Western people: there are 1-to-1 time matches or complete coincidence with tenses. That's why it's easy to translate an English text to Ukrainian, than to Russian; while Russian language is with no doubt more rich, than Ukrainian. The reason is – Ukrainian language is more close to old Slav language.) • A book – книга (knee-gah) • To read – читать (cheetah-t') • I – я (eeyah) • This – Это (aeh-tho) • Now – Сейчас (say-tchas) • To be going to – собираться (so-bee-rhat-tsa) • Will (modal verb) – Буду (boo-dooh) • I, me (as a third person) – Мне (m-nee-eah) • Should (have) – следовало (бы) (sli-e-dova-loh; byh) • Books – Книги (knee-ghee) • No, not – Нет, не (niet; nie) • Be, is, was, being – Быть, есть, было, ? (byht'; yes't; byhlo) • 'being' – it doesn't showed, but only put some accents. 1. I read a book – Я читаю книгу (Russian) 2. I'm reading a book now – Я читаю книгу сейчас 3. I read this book – Я читал эту книгу 4. I have read a book – Я прочитал книгу 5. I'm going to read a book – Я собираюсь прочитать книгу 6. I will read a book – Я буду читать книгу 7. I should've read a book – Мне следовало бы прочесть книгу. 8. I don't read books – Я не читаю книги 9. I didn't (haven't) read books – Я не читал книги 10. A book is being read by me – Книгу читаю я
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 29, 2021 18:01:41 GMT
Sometimes errors occur when I'm using my phone. For instance, the software changes "is" to "us", and so on. One day, you gonna have to teach me Russian. Da? I really appreciate your comments and corrections! They do help me! I know it is shame for me to do such nasty mistakes... It spoils English... I try to read Murphy's books, but unfortunately the time is elapsing so fast... Anyway, I won't refuse to teach Russian, but I'm not a good teacher. All I can highly recommend is to learn cases, conjugations, endings, and roots. Like in Chinese and Japanese there are some most stable forms which have been using almost anyone. The grammar structure and tenses are free. Even there are no word order. That's why it is so confusing for an Eastern Slav to talk with a straight, rigorous sequence of words. Usually we manipulate (or govern) words by changing suffixes and endings. It happens 90% of all the cases. Maybe it's not easily to explain all the variations of them, nevertheless there are many similarities with Western languages. Terms and verbs are close, while most of them have been changing since IX-X centuries, when, as far as I know, the differences were really minor. If to learn enough cases, conjugations, and other change forms, it's a way to get close not only to Russian or Ukrainian, but Chinese and Japanese also. (By the way, Ukrainian is easier for Western people: there are 1-to-1 time matches or complete coincidence with tenses. That's why it's easy to translate an English text to Ukrainian, than to Russian; while Russian language is with no doubt more rich, than Ukrainian. The reason is – Ukrainian language is more close to old Slav language.) • A book – книга (knee-gah) • To read – читать (cheetah-t') • I – я (eeyah) • This – Это (aeh-tho) • Now – Сейчас (say-tchas) • To be going to – собираться (so-bee-rhat-tsa) • Will (modal verb) – Буду (boo-dooh) • I, me (as a third person) – Мне (m-nee-eah) • Should (have) – следовало (бы) (sli-e-dova-loh; byh) • Books – Книги (knee-ghee) • No, not – Нет, не (niet; nie) • Be, is, was, being – Быть, есть, было, ? (byht'; yes't; byhlo) • 'being' – it doesn't showed, but only put some accents. 1. I read a book – Я читаю книгу (Russian) 2. I'm reading a book now – Я читаю книгу сейчас 3. I read this book – Я читал эту книгу 4. I have read a book – Я прочитал книгу 5. I'm going to read a book – Я собираюсь прочитать книгу 6. I will read a book – Я буду читать книгу 7. I should've read a book – Мне следовало бы прочесть книгу. 8. I don't read books – Я не читаю книги 9. I didn't (haven't) read books – Я не читал книги 10. A book is being read by me – Книгу читаю я ... I meant in about 10 years time, once i have completed making a mess of learning Francais.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 30, 2021 22:08:32 GMT
I disagree with the views in this thread. Modern scum (members of modern western culture) hate everything good and only like what is bad. So they will only buy bad things. If you want to make something good, you cannot expect to make money from it. So making good things should be a hobby, not a business. This is why I work on my open source software on shabbat. To make money, one must either make bad things, or be a seller. A seller doesn't care what he sells, he just sells what consumers want. The idea that "All the work are made by the makers" is wrong. My business is selling stuff made in China on the web. This business involves a lot of real work to make the supply chain efficient and to satisfy customers. We simply offer what sells without consideration of whether it is good or bad. So for business, I much prefer being a seller.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 1, 2021 5:21:52 GMT
I disagree with the views in this thread. Modern scum (members of modern western culture) hate everything good and only like what is bad. So they will only buy bad things. If you want to make something good, you cannot expect to make money from it. So making good things should be a hobby, not a business. This is why I work on my open source software on shabbat. To make money, one must either make bad things, or be a seller. A seller doesn't care what he sells, he just sells what consumers want. The idea that "All the work are made by the makers" is wrong. My business is selling stuff made in China on the web. This business involves a lot of real work to make the supply chain efficient and to satisfy customers. We simply offer what sells without consideration of whether it is good or bad. So for business, I much prefer being a seller. I think that in my life I personally met more good sellers, thank makers. Surely I know that there were and are good makers, like Hohner inc (musical instruments) or some Linux distributives developers, etc, but with the help of traders I got many good goods I hadn't gotten without them. I think the sellers can be compared to teachers or juries, because such types of works requires lots of finding, analysing, composing, reformulating, and so on actions each of those aren't easy for rookies. Also, surely that "seller"/"makers" is exaggeration, because as even Aristotle wrote those types differs at least by their thinking time and global understanding. There are bad sellers and there are good makers, and vice versa.
|
|