The current study reviewed how much electricity people use in an apartment block and, ordinarily, such a topic has about as much interest as that Jenga game.
Jenga is a game in which you stack up a pile of sticks and then pull the sticks from it to see whether the pile collapses. Anyone who plays this game likely has no hopes and dreams for life of any kind. (WIKI: Jenga)
Gamester: it's exciting!
Motorcycles are exciting, li'l chipmunk; Jenga is just an infantile game for cocktail parties to see who is the drunkest.
Lotho: could I trouble you to get on to the economics part?
Ah, yes.
Indiscriminate use of power is not so good because conservation, etc so we have two types of electricity-using people: those who live in apartment buildings in which everyone pays a collective fee for the electricity use in the building and you have those who live in apartment buildings in which people pay individual electric bills.
Yes, Lotho, I know you're way ahead of this already and it doesn't fucking undermine Socialism but it's a novel perspective since I'm sure you have already surmised who used the most electricity and it was definitely with those on the group billing for using the resource. (SD: One in 5 residents overuses electricity at neighbors' expense)
Household electricity use falls by more than 30% when residents are obliged to pay for their own personal consumption. This is shown in a new study by researchers at Uppsala University's and the Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS).
- SD
Lotho: how can you say that does not murder Socialism?
With no trouble at all, mate. In this example, we're talking about whether lazy ass people will turn off the lights in their apartments or whether they will not as in when they're on the collective dime.
Lotho: how is that not Socialism?
It isn't and I'll say it emphatically because Socialism works under the principle of 'from those according to ability and to those according to need.' Our current example works the other way around in which the apartment building gave away (i.e. extended the credit for electricity use) and then tried to recover that which it had given ... but failed in one circumstance in which there was collective billing.
Don't be assuming the nut is an acorn and will yield a philosophical oak since the seed may only give us crabgrass. There's no particular comment on Socialism in the matter but you may find it novel in that type of context anyway.
Perry Mason: you sound like a damn lawyer!
Now there's a dream come true. Take the job even sleazier than used car sales. Where do I sign?
Jenga is a game in which you stack up a pile of sticks and then pull the sticks from it to see whether the pile collapses. Anyone who plays this game likely has no hopes and dreams for life of any kind. (WIKI: Jenga)
Gamester: it's exciting!
Motorcycles are exciting, li'l chipmunk; Jenga is just an infantile game for cocktail parties to see who is the drunkest.
Lotho: could I trouble you to get on to the economics part?
Ah, yes.
Indiscriminate use of power is not so good because conservation, etc so we have two types of electricity-using people: those who live in apartment buildings in which everyone pays a collective fee for the electricity use in the building and you have those who live in apartment buildings in which people pay individual electric bills.
Yes, Lotho, I know you're way ahead of this already and it doesn't fucking undermine Socialism but it's a novel perspective since I'm sure you have already surmised who used the most electricity and it was definitely with those on the group billing for using the resource. (SD: One in 5 residents overuses electricity at neighbors' expense)
Household electricity use falls by more than 30% when residents are obliged to pay for their own personal consumption. This is shown in a new study by researchers at Uppsala University's and the Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS).
- SD
Lotho: how can you say that does not murder Socialism?
With no trouble at all, mate. In this example, we're talking about whether lazy ass people will turn off the lights in their apartments or whether they will not as in when they're on the collective dime.
Lotho: how is that not Socialism?
It isn't and I'll say it emphatically because Socialism works under the principle of 'from those according to ability and to those according to need.' Our current example works the other way around in which the apartment building gave away (i.e. extended the credit for electricity use) and then tried to recover that which it had given ... but failed in one circumstance in which there was collective billing.
Don't be assuming the nut is an acorn and will yield a philosophical oak since the seed may only give us crabgrass. There's no particular comment on Socialism in the matter but you may find it novel in that type of context anyway.
Perry Mason: you sound like a damn lawyer!
Now there's a dream come true. Take the job even sleazier than used car sales. Where do I sign?
6 comments:
I dont know of a single one of the apartment owners or landlords that use a collective use and pay of any utilities. They all learned the same information given in this study years ago. The same is true of single tenant buildings if the landlord pays utilities, the tenants in most cases will be wasted at a rather high degree. So this would help your case that it is not a negative for socialism. But more a need for personal accountability.
I agree lazy ass people love living in a collective group because of the lack of accountability.
And of course your lawyer ways will refute any research that casts shade on socialism. We all know that in court pereception overrides reality. Truth always plays second fiddle to lawyer tactics in a courtroom.
So toss out another well written response as to why lazy ass people disappear in a socialistic society.
I do dispute the second part and not for any legal technicality but rather a collective group is a tribe is what humans have always done. I submit Socialism is not just an economic philosophy but the Nature of Man. Ha!
As to why people disappear within a group, the tribal dynamics of who shall be chief and who will not are more fascinations for anthropologists as it plays just as well for any society.
There has always been a hierarchy within tribes. The better hunter is better fed, has warmer clothing his wife better jewelry etc.
I dont see tribal life as a very good example of a socialistic society. Even when the best hunter/gatherers shared they did it based on contribution to the effort.
Survival of the fittest seems to be the law of nature. They do not carry the whole tribe but sacrifice the weak to benefit the whole. If tribes were socialistic they would digress as they would always be kept at the level of the weakest and slowest and laziest.
Hmm, we disagree on that aspect since I don't think there's anything more socialist than a tribe and no problem with your idea of survival of the fittest but I submit the most effective tribe with its socialism is the one which survives the best.
I believe generally any tribe will carry the weak but only to a point since they know they jeopardize the tribe if they do too much of it. Even now that's true with diseases too expensive to cure, etc.
Inuit will put the weak and old on an ice flow
Yes we disagree as to tribe life as socialistic. If basic tribes were socialist, why did they abandon the practice. Greedy hard working tribe members got tired of the lazy ones
I really don't see Socialism in abandoning the weak and even infanticide was legitimate at the tribal level.
The Socialism of the original tribal hunter / gatherers changed when humans became agrarian since the economy gets more wealthy, a priest class emerges, etc in concert with the tending of crops. Things change quite a bit from that idyllic existence we originally enjoyed.
Post a Comment