It is not hard to understand captial and money...no matter what level you are on....I say this if there is a balance as a whole in perfect balance there would be no woe. Is not balance an important part..their is unjust balance and just balances...what I don't understand what is so hard about that....
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:58 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Assuring quality for real is very difficult Chris - any Dilbert book > tells the tale of woe, but serious analysis gets there too. Quality > systems generally entail a great deal of surveillance to stop people > pretending quality. Soviet systems and management by objectives have > a lot in common. I think what we fail to address is 'plenty' - > something is lost in the weirdness of profit. My question, not well- > formed, is how we might move away from feudal relations in a fairer > system that relied a lot less on the fetish of consumption. I'm all > in favour of efficiency to prevent us having to do unreal stuff, yet > we have to guard against free-riding as we try to improve quality of > life. My suspicion is that capitalism is now a decadent model that > can't cope, but this is no reason to try other failed models. My > guess is we don't understand capital and wealth. > > On 26 Aug, 22:59, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > The results of the CCC are legion...and of exceptional high quality. > > > > On Aug 26, 8:13 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > These are exactly the points which tend to become problematic in state > run > > > manufacturing. Not all of them, mind you, but a number of them. Anyone > drive > > > a Volga lately? There are certain types of "Guaranteed labor/pay" > scenarios > > > which seem to work, and certain types which don't. As someone who fully > > > supports socialized medicine and education, I'd really like to know > what the > > > magic formula is that guarantees QUALITY in such an endeavor. > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:19 AM, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 26, 5:54 am, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Work is it, should it be a right? > > > > > > I notice that "quality" of work has not even been mentioned. As if > the > > > > talents, skills, and strengths are are all equal. So, would the > > > > employer be getting whoever is next in line? (que?) > > > > > > I bet the employers will be thrilled with this idea. > > > > > > > I think another solution and a better one to my mind is based > around > > > > > the whole concept of money. Lets just get rid of it! It causes > too > > > > > many problems in the world. > > > > > > Lee, if you are going to remove a system, don't you think there is a > > > > requirement to replace it with something else? Please describe how > > > > the world would work without money. > > > > I am interested how that would work. > > > > > > As far as "right to work" doesn't that translate to "I don't have > to > > > > work hard ever again" very soon? I mean, you are promised pay for > > > > basically showing up. Can you be fired? (You just show up somewhere > > > > else tomorrow, now you have "rights")- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
