Posted by Kazper at 2:38pm Dec 10 '08I think that the only real differenece between gold and silver as the common medium of exchange and money (as in a paper type material or credit which is not representing gold and silver or anything else (fiat money)) as the common medium of exchange is that the former can come about naturally (I guess because of the other uses of gold and silver and perhaps because of its aesthetic properties) while the latter requires a concensus and may have no other uses or aeshtetic properties. A problem with the former though is that they are finite, so should mean that the size of the economy is finite, which should be a problem if expansion is wanted/needed. The latter medium of exchange can increase with demand easily.
Another benefit of filler jobs over government assistance... is a feeling of power. I know that I feel weakened somewhat when someone gives me something that I'm in need of or pretty much in need of. You can start to feel indebted to the giver and as if you're dependent on them.
Also, if one has mental problems or whatever and can't easily do relatively simple things like calling people or working with people, so excluding them from alot of labour jobs that are available they can easily go fill a filler position when their labour job of choice is temporarily unavailable.
Filler jobs would be empowering. Not so much a safety net as much as a guaranteed mechanism that enables one to survive through effort and possibly thrive and rise. All the while taking from no one but on the contrary enabling others to survive and possibly thrive and rise.
Recession in the new system would not go too far. Businesses that are failing and may employ many, so cause lots of job losses, should really only bring down other businesses that pretty much survive and thrive on the extra money from those who lost their jobs (niche type buisnesses maybe...). Staple type businessess should be fine since those workers right away have filler work to earn money to keep gettin' all the staples.
Necessary job openings could be posted in filler job facilities.
If necessary jobs are not being filled... then something would have to be done at the filler job facility that's in the area of the necessary job to encourage someone capable of filling the position to go and fill it. Given the unpleasantness of the filler job I don't think such a thing would happen often but I think it could happen. One reason why this could happen... well, mental and social problems or whatever.
We have to ensure that businesses do not dictate our (consumers') tastes but cater to them. And if consumers' tastes are being catered to then one not liking the current tastes of a consumer group could appeal to them to change and if the consumers desire to change and begin to then the associated business/es should follow.
All arguements, especially since their semantic roles may not be known, will have a [[syntactic]] role (these ones don't correlate to semantic roles... because they aren't known).
There's subject which is the verb or arguement that's the focus/topic of the sentence.
There's predicate which is the verb and any other arguements or just other arguements of the sentence.
Given that the arguements can be moved around, to be able to convey the arrangement of the components on a deeper level then subject and predicate the arguements could be numbered. The first on the left is one. Example: eat Shawn hamburger. The "first level" is S and P where "eat" is the S and "Shawn hamburger" is the P. The "second level" is V A1 A2 where "eat" is the verb, "Shawn" is A1 and "hamburger" is A2. The "third level" is V, agentive and patientive where "eat" is the verb, "Shawn" is agentive and "hamburger" is patientive. (I'll probably just use agent and patient...).
You wanna be able to convey, for example: A1 A2 V A3. There is S then P (which is the standard word order) but if you don't know what the semantic roles of the arguements are then you can't convey the arrangement of the components beyond the S & P level... (I think this is the reason they have non-correlative syntactic cases. If now nominative, for example, can be correlative (correlating to agent) or non-correlative (a positional slot) at times, maybe even in one particular language, I think there should be different names for the non-correlatives. Perhaps arguement one, etc.)
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Another benefit of filler jobs over government assistance... is a feeling of power. I know that I feel weakened somewhat when someone gives me something that I'm in need of or pretty much in need of. You can start to feel indebted to the giver and as if you're dependent on them.
Also, if one has mental problems or whatever and can't easily do relatively simple things like calling people or working with people, so excluding them from alot of labour jobs that are available they can easily go fill a filler position when their labour job of choice is temporarily unavailable.
Filler jobs would be empowering. Not so much a safety net as much as a guaranteed mechanism that enables one to survive through effort and possibly thrive and rise. All the while taking from no one but on the contrary enabling others to survive and possibly thrive and rise.
Recession in the new system would not go too far. Businesses that are failing and may employ many, so cause lots of job losses, should really only bring down other businesses that pretty much survive and thrive on the extra money from those who lost their jobs (niche type buisnesses maybe...). Staple type businessess should be fine since those workers right away have filler work to earn money to keep gettin' all the staples.
Necessary job openings could be posted in filler job facilities.
If necessary jobs are not being filled... then something would have to be done at the filler job facility that's in the area of the necessary job to encourage someone capable of filling the position to go and fill it. Given the unpleasantness of the filler job I don't think such a thing would happen often but I think it could happen. One reason why this could happen... well, mental and social problems or whatever.
We have to ensure that businesses do not dictate our (consumers') tastes but cater to them. And if consumers' tastes are being catered to then one not liking the current tastes of a consumer group could appeal to them to change and if the consumers desire to change and begin to then the associated business/es should follow.
All arguements, especially since their semantic roles may not be known, will have a [[syntactic]] role (these ones don't correlate to semantic roles... because they aren't known).
There's subject which is the verb or arguement that's the focus/topic of the sentence.
There's predicate which is the verb and any other arguements or just other arguements of the sentence.
Given that the arguements can be moved around, to be able to convey the arrangement of the components on a deeper level then subject and predicate the arguements could be numbered. The first on the left is one. Example: eat Shawn hamburger. The "first level" is S and P where "eat" is the S and "Shawn hamburger" is the P. The "second level" is V A1 A2 where "eat" is the verb, "Shawn" is A1 and "hamburger" is A2. The "third level" is V, agentive and patientive where "eat" is the verb, "Shawn" is agentive and "hamburger" is patientive. (I'll probably just use agent and patient...).
You wanna be able to convey, for example: A1 A2 V A3. There is S then P (which is the standard word order) but if you don't know what the semantic roles of the arguements are then you can't convey the arrangement of the components beyond the S & P level... (I think this is the reason they have non-correlative syntactic cases. If now nominative, for example, can be correlative (correlating to agent) or non-correlative (a positional slot) at times, maybe even in one particular language, I think there should be different names for the non-correlatives. Perhaps arguement one, etc.)
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~