[moderator1]

Bob Andrews wrote:

I would ask the Moderator to overlook Vincenzio's inflammatory remarks, abuse and insults. My masseuse is registered with Facebook and I asked her, out of morbid curiosity I suppose, to log into Vincenzio's Facebook page, and saw a photograph of him. I received the strong impression that he was wearing a wig. It is impossible to be angry for very long with a man who wears a wig.

1st warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[moderator1]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Dear moderator1,nothing I posted here is spam,advertisementscharitable appealssolicitations, orother messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign,website, organisation, venture, or event. 

This is your opinion.  You should have first checked with me by PM before posting the link and obtained my permission.  Read the rule.  May I point out this is not the first occurrance of this happening with your postings.  Please use the PM function for any further communication on this subject.

Moderator1,You need to indicate which of the prohibited categories you're claiming in your opinion this is.  Are you claiming this is spam? or are you claiming this is advertisement? etc.  I've asked repeatedly in PM and in discussion for you to clarify you're opinoin and you keep avoiding accountability and acting in secret without valid justification. I have PM you in the past and been ignored, so why would I try somethign again that didn't work the first time or the second time or the third time.  Please read and reply to my comment as instructed in my comment. Be a better moderator as requested.  May I point out this is not the first time you have missuesed your power over others as a moderator and that this is not the socialist way of doing things.

Indefinite suspension: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.This user has been suspended for an indefinite period until further notice.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

Vin wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions From what you say 'Another World is Possible' is not a good idea for us to use because it is associated with Labour  but then so is 'socialism' Here is a link to a first draft, which needs a title. I was  thinking simply " An Introduction to World Socialism"  Or 'What Does the Socialist Party Stand For?"http://www.hand-drawn.co.uk/socialism-explained.html

An Introduction To World Socialism – A Post-Capitalist Society For Part I can I suggest? https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1346-october-2016/what-could-socialism-be There are more similiar articles which I'll source for you.         

 

[moderator1]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Dear moderator1,nothing I posted here is spam,advertisementscharitable appealssolicitations, orother messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign,website, organisation, venture, or event. 

This is your opinion.  You should have first checked with me by PM before posting the link and obtained my permission.  Read the rule.  May I point out this is not the first occurrance of this happening with your postings.  Please use the PM function for any further communication on this subject.

[moderator1]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Matt wrote:

We won't have coinage in metal or bits, nor money or credits or buyers and sellers, prices and incomes, markets regulated or otherwise, rich or poor, or wealth disparities in the post-capitalist, production for use, free access socialist society.It is a priceless society where commodity production (for sale) and economic calculation,  will cease to exist and give way to the production of utilities(for use) to calculaton in kind.

Hi Matt, That sounds like a good goal to shoot for.  I suspect you're still using some form of money personally for the time being.   This is a form of money that I suspect might be performing the "calculation in kind" automatically for each transaction.  Can you tell me the math or a formulae for how you estimate the "calculation in kind"? Like what things are considered in the calculation?  You also mention that production of utilies will happen and be calculated in kind.  Here's how you calculate in kind the utilities such as electric or internet access or transportation and sell using =hOur.coin in a capitalist market.  It seems the like capitalist market makes one kind of calculation and the =hOur.coin makes another calculation on top of that to get a "third kind of calculation".  

---

Electric bill:

---

($45+ 0.145=hour.coin)/kilowatt hourTotal price = (depends on how much money you personally extracted from others per hour at your job)

---

Internet bill itemized:

---

connection fee of $2/month+500 Mbytes/month @ $5 + 1=hOur.coin/month+500 Mbytes extra over use charge @ $5 + 2=hOur.coinTotal price = (depends on how much money you personally extracted from others per hour at your job)

---

Gas bill is calculated in kind as—-1,456 Cubic foot of heating gas delivered at $.02/cubicFoot + 0.001=hOur.coin/cubicFoot+ Pipe and infrastructre maintenance and delivery fee of 1=hOur.coin/month.Total price = (depends on how much money you personally extracted from others per hour at your job) So for each of these utilities the price changes depending on how much money the purchaser is paid and extracts from the economy for an average working hour. For a rich person who extracts $1000/hr the bill for utilities will be very high above the production costs.  For a poor person who earns $10/hr the price will be much lower and for someone who makes $0/hr the price would be equal to the production cost of the electricity of $45/kilowatt hour.  One important thing to note is that suprisingly, the seller has a profit motive to price things in a way that we like.  The profit maximizing price charged by the vendor is generally a fixed dollar amount for the capital value of the purchased price + some number of your personal hours converted into money at your hourly wage for the seller profit above the fixed cost in dollars for replacing the item on the store shelf. So the seller isn't ordered to set the price fairly because the seller is financially motivated to set the price fairly because the fairest price makes the seller the most profit. Due to anti-dumping laws it's illegal in most places to sell items at below production costs and represents anti-competitive rule breaking that gets sanctioined by most national laws.  So this gets a poor person who makes zero dollars the production price and rich people pay more depending on how rich they are. So anyway, I think that's fairly clear math that I'm proposing.  What's the math that you propose for "calculation in kind"?  I looked up wikipedia on calculation in kind and it says "Socialists in favor of calculation in kind argued that, in a system of in-kind calculation, waste associated with the monetary system would be eliminated, and in particular objects would no longer be desired for functionally useless purposes like resale and speculation – they would only be desired for their use-value." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculation_in_kind . And I wanted to point out that as mentioned on page 12 of the presentation slideshow it says. 

Quote:

B2C + C2C + C2B A business can offer sales in just dollars, or a mix of dollars and =hOur.coin.  Customers can choose to buy at same old dollar price as before, or they can choose to pay in =hOur.coin instead.

So what that quote means to the "calculation in kind" discussion is that B2B or speculating is not allowed in =hOur.coin.  it makes sense that this can't be used by business to sell to another business because the question would come up of how much money does a business earn in an hour and can that be treated for billing like people minutes?  So this =hOur.coin pricing strategy will have zero effect directly on business to business sales as far as I can see.  The wage normalizing price adjustment of =hOur.coin doesn't currently have a clear analog for business to business sales, but maybe you want to work on how that could be built or the calculations need to do make it work for B2B?  it seems like the =hOur.coin is functioning as some sort of proxy estimate provided by the consumer for how much "human use value" the product is going to be worth.  So for a use value that saves ae person 1 hour or is worth 1 hour of value to a person, then the charge is 1=hOur.coin because that's the price that on average makes the salesperson the most money.  If the salesperson sets the price higher than the use value, then they lose sales because people don't buy and if the salesperson sets the price lower than the utility value than the salesperson then they lose profit because they could have charged the full use value and still made the sell.  So in an seller profit optimized price list, WITH =hOur.coin the portion of the price charged by =hOur.coin is equivalent to the surplus value.It seems that to make the most profit, the corner store operating in a market and seekign to maximize profit will price products with a fixed dollar price for the capital cost to the corner store and add on a =hour.coin surcharge to capture the most suprlus value from the exchange.  So business still tries to capture all the surplus value, but now with =hOur.coin business can better capture the surplus value from rich people and poor people more fairly.  Without the =hOur.coin pricing the business can't discriminate price based on the wealth of the purchaser and can only extract the maximum surplus value from the median income buyer, while losing some of the surplus value to the rich who underpay for their utility value and while losing sales from the poor who can't pay the Ps. Matt, I'm not sure if I should respond to seriously to you anymore and I think you might just be here to repeat the same content and spam my discussion that I started.  I'll make you a kind of calculation in a deal.  If you don't post duplicate content in discussions I start, then I won't post anything at all in any discussion thread that you start?  How does that sound for a "Calculation in Kind" where no money is exchanged?  Does that seem a fair exchange of "use value" between the two of us?

3rd and final warning: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.This user is on a 3rd and final warning.  If this user breaches any of the rules within the next 30 days he'll be suspended immediately. 

[moderator1]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

rodmanlewis wrote:

So, what's the point of being rich? Of course, the rich won't be working, so how do you measure their "contribution"? They have the state to look after their "needs" which is to accumulate more wealth, so who is going to implement these measures?And for those who are working or not, you will have to inspect their bank accounts, and how much cash they have under their mattresses.

from page 14 of the slideshow I linked to you can find your answer. . .

Quote:

Some business are expected to be better served by =hOur.coin than others. Because =hOur.coin is completely voluntary, individual business owners can choose not to offer sales in =hOur.coin if it doesn’t make them additional profits.   Low profit margin / strong competition=hOur.coin is not very good for things like a disposable razor you can pick up on any street corner with low profit margin. If the marginal cost for production is close to the sale price in the market then =hOur.coin won’t make anyone much of a profit.High profit margin / week competitionMovie ticket sales and digital products are good canditates for =hOur.coin because the cost of one additional ticket or media download is negligible compared to the sale price.  Personalized service are great candidates for selling with =hOur.coin. 

So the point to being rich is even after market saturation, there's still going to be a lot of products and sellers who don't use =hour.coin because they don't find it profitable.  So it's not like this eliminates wealth innequality completely because it's mostly not going to be adopted voluntarily by some sellers for some products.  But being rich buys you less than it used to, so think of it as moderating influence on excessive wealth.  if people don't want to share their income information or provide an acceptable way of estimating the hourly value of their time then they don't get to buy things in =hOur.coin.  Some people can save a lot of money with =hOur.coin so they'll sign up for the account with their first use payment at the register and check the box that allows the government permission to share their tax records Gross yearly income.  Here's a quote from slide page 3 that tells how much a poor person could save by just checking a box to let the government share their yearly income total with us. . .

Quote:

Choose one price that’s fair to everyone.  to make the most profit the optimum seller will choose a price that’s equally fair to everyone.Low income buyerThe price for an epipen is 10=hOur.coin10hrs@$10/hr = $100.Medium income buyerThe price for an epipen is 10=hOur.coin10hrs@$50/hr = $500High income buyerThe price for an epipen is 10=hOur.coin10hrs@$500/hr = $5,000

and for extreme poverty we have an example from page 8 of the slide show presentation. 

Quote:

Meet Alberto. He’s very poor financially and he needs medicine.  1=hOur.coin is only $1 for him because he’s unemployed except for odd jobs so retailers don’t much want his =hOur.coin.  Many of the products he wants to buy have a floor price in dollars like an Epipen is $25+10=hOur.coin.  The marginal cost to epipen of producing one additional unit is $25, so epipen sells to him at production cost in dollars and makes a small $10 profit from =hOur.coin.

For rich people the price is the same as for Alberto.  The price for Epipen for anyone is the regular dollar price they charge now of $500. Or alternatively they can pay $25 + 10=hOur.coin .   For a very rich person like a CEO or someone who worked at goldman sachs, an hour of their time might be priced at $1,000/hr or higher and have to pay $10,025 for their epipen.  Bill gates for example would have to pay several million dollars for a single Epipen, but luckily for Bill, it will only take him 10 hours of work to earn the money he will be paying for his epipen.  Coincidentally, it will take Alberto 9 hours of looking for work and 1 hour of actual working for his neighbor at $10/hr in order for Alberto to earn the money it takes to pay for his epipen.  Bill and other CEO’s will be paying in regular $ and not using =hOur.coin very often if they can avoid it to save their money.  Epipen plans to continue offering sales at both the regular dollar price of $500 for this year, but in order to increase profits they will be increasing their regular dollar price to $1000 this january and still offering the “$25 + 10=hOur.coin” price for people who can’t afford the cash only dollar price. If profits keep increasing as they raise the dollar price for each epipen, then why wouldn’t epipen raise the dollar price every year to make more profit every year? Raising the price in =Hour.coin doesn’t increase profits and actually decreases profits by pricing people out of the market, so epipen has found the “sweet spot” profit maximizing solution for the current time is relatively stable at a price of  “manufacturing cost + 10=hOur.coin”.   NOTE: this is not actually epipens practice or policy and I'm using epipen as an example for explaining things only.  I have no connection with epipen and you could replace epipen with any other medicine for the example if you want. 

2nd warning: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.

[moderator1]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Hello, I have a novel solution for reducing financial innequality that implements communism on a per transaction basis.  So in a capitalist marketplace, this allows you to charge someone as if everyone got paid according to their means and everyone charged according to their need.  It's a pricing scheme that adjusts the price higher for people who have more money.  So Effectively, the rich have an equal amount of buying power as the poor in this currency and rich or poor will still cost the same number of hours effort working to buy a car or pay for movie ticket or get your hair done.  It's basically a method for normalizing wages at the cash register.  Anyway, I made a presentation on how it works and hope you decide to look it over and tell me what you think. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Gkj4lQb83gKHLXTQkw3DUIgWlglZ6Ksw6UYUl9CqSeE/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000

This article on individualized perfect price description might help explain things to some.  For those who don't know capitalist speak, individualized perfect price descrimination means something like socialism.  https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_developing-new-products-and-services/s05-02-first-degree-price-discriminat.html

1st warning: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

May I ask MOD1 why he has blocked me? How am I to ask questions about moderation without breaching the Rules 14 and 15 ?

You were blocked on the PM function.  I have now unblocked that function.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Yes of course the principle of 'one person one vote' will apply. And yes the 'systematic project management approach' I'm advocating is by default a democratic one e.g. "So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs".  If that's not democracy wtf is?

[my bold]So, you agree that 'truth' will be produced by 'one person, one vote', and not by an elite?

mod1 wrote:

Such a question makes me suspect you are either failing to understand what I've written, or even worst you have little idea on the implications and consequences of democratic socialism under the framework of Direct/Delgated Participatory Democracy.  In this regard the determination of 'human needs' is arrived at through the agreed democratic process of the application for systematic project management. Hence, its not so much as the 'who' but how the community arrives at a democratic conclusion and outcome.

[my bold]So, the 'community' is 'society', and not an elite?That is, the 'who' is 'society' and the 'how' is 'democracy'?If it isn't 'society' and it isn't 'democracy', you should be open and tell us both the 'who' and the 'how'.Or do you mean a democratic vote within an elite?I'm just trying to cover all the bases of what you might mean.I simply say that socialism will be the democratic control of production by the social producers. That, of necessity, includes any 'truths' that are produced.

And I would simply say; that socialism will be the democratic control of production and distribution by the associated volunteer producers within the global community.  That includes any 'truths' or 'nontruths' conclusions reached or outcomes arrived at.  For its important that we acknowledge that in certain circumstances, democracy has been proven to be a double edged sword.A democratic vote within an elite is by definition an oxymoron.  So why have you yet again brought this up?

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

My two cents is the associated voluntary producers, composed of the generalists and the specialists are a logical part of the decision making process.  

[my bold]I take it that the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote' will apply?Or, do you have in mind a 'decision-making process' like that of '60s Unionist-dominated Northern Ireland, that had a 'Business Premises Qualification' that allowed each 'specialist' business-owner 6 votes, whilst only allowing 1 vote for a working class 'generalist' family of, perhaps 6 adults.

mod1 wrote:

The "political control" is embedded in the actual process where a systematic project management approach enables the panel to scrutinise, evaluate and assess the proposal in front of it. So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs.

[my bold]Is your 'systematic project management approach' similar to the current bourgeois business 'systematic project management approach', where the bosses have a say, but not the workers – or is your 'approach' a democratic one?Plus, in your 'approach', who determines 'human needs', and how do they do so, if not by democratic means?

Yes of course the principle of 'one person one vote' will apply. And yes the 'systematic project management approach' I'm advocating is by default a democratic one e.g. "So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs".  If that's not democracy wtf is?Such a question makes me suspect you are either failing to understand what I've written, or even worst you have little idea on the implications and consequences of democratic socialism under the framework of Direct/Delgated Participatory Democracy.  In this regard the determination of 'human needs' is arrived at through the agreed democratic process of the application for systematic project management. Hence, its not so much as the 'who' but how the community arrives at a democratic conclusion and outcome.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, to answer your questions:1) The expert could be ignored, or action taken that does not accord with the expert's advice.2) Sacking experts is poor form, just because on balance a group of people disagrees with them, they go back to their life, and can come back and give evidence again on another occaision.  It would be for learned societies/free associations of peers to pass further comment on their all round competence.  After all, the parliament/committee/meeting/Wappentake, etc. would call it's witnesses based on ecommendations.3) Democracy means the right of minorities to try and become majorities.

Once again, YMS, your views expressed here are very similar to mine.Perhaps I'd prod you further on just who politically controls 'learned societies' and 'recommendations'.You seem, to me, to be not taking your views to their logical political/social conclusions.

My two cents is the associated voluntary producers, composed of the generalists and the specialists are a logical part of the decision making process.  The "political control" is embedded in the actual process where a systematic project management approach enables the panel to scrutinise, evaluate and assess the proposal in front of it. So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs.

[Author]

Posts