Living basic to save on bills

  • Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.

mountainm

Bushcrafter through and through
Jan 12, 2011
9,990
12
Selby
www.mikemountain.co.uk
I'm not talking inequality of opportunity, more inequality of wealth.

e.g. Rich people won't do/don't need to do menial work. Therefore poor/unskilled people move in to fulfill the role as labour supply outstrips demand - people got to eat.

As for the overall karmic score for the human race - I'll leave that for another time.
 
Last edited:

BlueTrain

Nomad
Jul 13, 2005
482
0
77
Near Washington, D.C.
Ah, that we could actually live the primative life that is often discussed on forums. Then we might all be equal. Everyone has a dwelling pretty much like his neighbor; none are rich and none are especially poor by their standards. Even the so-called chief has little power, rather like the president. It does have it's appeal, at least on the surface. Yet even in such a situation, there can be hard times and lean years. The rain doesn't fall, the game seems to have disappeared and it's a bad year for insects. The bread is sliced very thin for a while and late winter is always a difficult time. That description fit the lives of some of the pioneers.

In less primitive circumstances, however, socal stratification usually occurs. Where do the kings walk among us? Sweden, you say? Well, they're socialist, don't you know. But anyway, there will be more than just the rich and the poor and unskilled. There will be the shopkeepers and the bakers, the skilled and the highly skilled, and maybe even bards and storytellers. And farming is not exactly an unskiled thing, although the whims of nature will produce farmers who rely on luck and superstition as much as skill and knowledge. You plant according to the signs, the man says and you'll do all right. That's what he said, he did. Up until recently, of course, the labor supply was never in excess for much was done by hand, even if you had horses or oxen to do the heavy work. Much depended on social arrangements that never saw human beings as things that got in the way, such as happened during the clearances, although it sometimes saw them as part of the property. The people literally belonged to the land. Whoever owned the land owned the people. It may or may not have been just or moral but absent disasters, it was at least stable.

But work is not a bad thing. Work will set you free. Arbeit macht mich frei. The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow is Monday.
 

Swallow

Native
May 27, 2011
1,545
4
London
Let's go back to our bakers.

Baker 1 can create an outstanding loaf in an hour

He trades his loaves with weaver for baskets - 1 loaf = 2 baskets.

Baker 2 comes along and through skill can create a loaf in half an hour, he offers the weaver a deal. 1 loaf = 1 basket.

The weaver accepts.

Baker 1 approaches the weaver to try and do an exchange - at this point the weaver will only offer 1 basket in exchange. Baker 1 cannot compete with Baker 2 and is now "not equal" despite the fact the value he puts on his loaf is fair.

A different scenario could involve baker2 still taking two baskets but then using his surplus baskets to barter for other things.

Inequality - driven by the desire to profit.

And Bingo!

Inequality - driven by the desire to profit.

You've just agreed with me. Desire is the causal effect or driver. Inequality is the result and not the driver.
 

mountainm

Bushcrafter through and through
Jan 12, 2011
9,990
12
Selby
www.mikemountain.co.uk
And Bingo!



You've just agreed with me. Desire is the causal effect or driver. Inequality is the result and not the driver.

Give yourself a semantical pat on the back. The desire to profit is driven by the need to be equal or better than the next man. It's a circular process. But my original point was you can't have an economy without inequality and it still holds.

But like I said before this discussion is without merit as neither of us is ever going to bow to the others opinion.
 

rg598

Native
Best thread ever! Let's encompass all economic interactions and motivations for material acquisition in a single sentence. The one who manages to do it best can get published and put all economists, sociologists, and political scientists worldwide to shame. Seriously? Are we actually trying to come up with THE ONE force that drives economics? I applaud the effort, but...
 

mountainm

Bushcrafter through and through
Jan 12, 2011
9,990
12
Selby
www.mikemountain.co.uk
Best thread ever! Let's encompass all economic interactions and motivations for material acquisition in a single sentence. The one who manages to do it best can get published and put all economists, sociologists, and political scientists worldwide to shame. Seriously? Are we actually trying to come up with THE ONE force that drives economics? I applaud the effort, but...

Nope not at all. Just saying for an economy to work you'll always find inequality.
 

mountainm

Bushcrafter through and through
Jan 12, 2011
9,990
12
Selby
www.mikemountain.co.uk
someone_is_wrong_on_the_internet1.jpg
 

Swallow

Native
May 27, 2011
1,545
4
London
But like I said before this discussion is without merit as neither of us is ever going to bow to the others opinion.

Any idea that the conversation must finish with one of us bowing to the other's opinion is entirely down to what you are adding to the conversation internally, and, like some of the character traits you've kindly invented for me out of thin air, nothing to do with me.

But my original point was you can't have an economy without inequality and it still holds.

That's the point you are not explaining, and that's why I am continuing to challenge it. Several posts on I am no wiser about what you mean by inequality or why it is "needed" as you originally said

...and an economy needs inequality to function.

I took that to mean that you must have a disadvantaged section of people for an economy to function, which is an interpretation of mine based on a short sentence, but if my interpretation is correct it does not hold water.

The fact that inequality currently exists and is largely exploited is without doubt in my mind.

The fact that there will be many people who know nothing else and think it is necessary is without doubt in my mind.

But your statement excludes any other possibilities and that just doesn't ring true.
 

Swallow

Native
May 27, 2011
1,545
4
London
Best thread ever! Let's encompass all economic interactions and motivations for material acquisition in a single sentence. The one who manages to do it best can get published and put all economists, sociologists, and political scientists worldwide to shame. Seriously? Are we actually trying to come up with THE ONE force that drives economics? I applaud the effort, but...

Uh. No. We're not.
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,729
1,978
Mercia
It rings perfectly true to me. People are motivated to better their lot and that of their family.

"Better" implies an inequality.

If I am going to have equal wealth, possessions and comfort whether I work hard or not, I'll treat myself to a lie in.

For an economy to function their must be something to aspire to and therefor work for. In order to aspire to it, it must be superior - and therefore unequal - to my current lot. Ergo society needs inequality to function QED.
 

BlueTrain

Nomad
Jul 13, 2005
482
0
77
Near Washington, D.C.
Oh, I still don't think inequality is necessary but I think you guys are more advanced than I am. Economies work with or without inequalities and it doesn't matter how well they work, either. Some things can bring an economy to a halt, to be sure, but usually only temporarily. By economy here, I mean people having transactions with one another; trade or the buying and selling of goods or services, maybe even people. In the case that sparked this thread, the individual in question seems to have few transactions with other people, which is part of how he manages. While his attempt may be admirable, I wouldn't say his success at it is anything to try to emulate. Thoreau did better. And this all reminds me of something.

In nearly all of the books I've read about camping and hiking, with some exceptions, the writer was either single or had essentially separated from his wife or the mention of other family members was reduced to bare footnotes. So clearly, any serious achievements along the line of minimalism or the ultimate economy, low impact life can only be accomplished by the footloose and fancy free, the unwed and unencumbered, which leaves me out in the cold, in a manner of speaking. And in fact, because I am none of those things, my work is no longer the means to sustain my after-work life but rather just an excuse to get out of the house.

How would you like to have that guy as your neighbor?
 

Swallow

Native
May 27, 2011
1,545
4
London
It rings perfectly true to me. People are motivated to better their lot and that of their family.

"Better" implies an inequality.

If I am going to have equal wealth, possessions and comfort whether I work hard or not, I'll treat myself to a lie in.

For an economy to function their must be something to aspire to and therefor work for. In order to aspire to it, it must be superior - and therefore unequal - to my current lot. Ergo society needs inequality to function QED.

Bettering your lot says nothing about inequality. In that case you are comparing your own situation to your own situation. That is quite different to saying you need to put someone else down so you can thrive.
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,729
1,978
Mercia
In a world where there is infinite wealth, infinite good jobs, infinite nice houses , true. In the country where we live, not true. By getting a good job I deny it to someone else.

Equality has been tried - George Orwell wrote a book about it

But remember, whilst all animals are equal comrade, some are more equal than others.
 

Swallow

Native
May 27, 2011
1,545
4
London
In a world where there is infinite wealth, infinite good jobs, infinite nice houses , true. In the country where we live, not true. By getting a good job I deny it to someone else.
If you get the job it does not mean there is not one out there for the someone else. If you got the job you may be more suited to it than them.

And that leaves them free to find/create one they are more suited to at that time. Whether they will find/create it or not will be mostly determined by their attitude.

The infinite thing keeps coming up as though we have some requirement for infinite.

We don't. In this form we are finite and our needs are finite. There's plenty to go around (at this time) but it is not getting around. It seems our ideas and thinking are a lot a lot smaller than we are.

My personal opinion is that we thrive better when all around us are thriving and it's ideas, more than resource, that are getting in the way of thriving.

The idea that you have to take stuff away from other people or have inequality is part of poverty consciousness and is two of those ideas IMO.
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,729
1,978
Mercia
There's plenty to go around (at this time) but it is not getting around. It seems our ideas and thinking are a lot a lot smaller than we are.

.

Oh hope you live on a global average weekly wage then Swallow - otherwise that's rank hypocrisy.
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE