I suggest you take a freaking course in SALES and MARKETING!!

Why is there always an assumption of "ignorance" if someone disagrees? It is so common to find that assumption. My stance is not based on a lack of study on these topics, but on an abundance of it.

Specific to this discussion is the idea of a value added cost:

A value-added cost is one that improves the quality of a product or service, or enhances customers' perception of that product or service. Another way to think of a value-added cost is an expense that customers are willing to pay for.

A value added cost is a perception of increased value based on knowledge of a product. In this case my hypothetical increase in value (that people would be willing to do just a little bit more to engage in barter over a single currency) comes from an understanding of the fraud of our modern economy, and that we have been guided to consume instead of exchange goods. I suggest that with such knowledge there would be additional value in exchange, and a rejection of the consumption ideology. Thus people would be willing to work towards an exchange mentality, even if it takes a bit more effort.

Of course if the effort is too great (the cost too high, too much time involved, etc.), then it won't be adopted, but why would you assume it would be too great? Nothing I have said suggests that. I have only suggested that there would be additional knowledge required and, minimally, more effort. I never implied it would be onerous and I have no idea why you think it would be. As I said, it was likely the method of exchange for as many as hundreds of thousands of years. It's doable.

You cannot change the way our brain functions.

People will always do what they feel they need to do based on the information they have available to them at the time a decision is made. THAT is the fundamental driving principle of human action. Different knowledge mutes some choices and amplifies others, but in all cases, it is the perception of "need" that drives the decision making process.

In our case "wants" have become the primary driver, because we have been purposefully trained to refuse our needs, and look to our wants as needs. That pushing of "wants" as "needs," and the confusion of "needs" is the primary function of propaganda, which is literally everywhere, and all has a single source. It is that purposeful confusion that drives our "consumer" nature. That is NOT our natural state, but a derived and purposefully created state; a training, a brainwashing.

People need to relearn the difference between "need' and "desire." Once people realize the fuckery that led to the confusion, our whimsical nature will be much reduced. Transitioning to a slightly more complicated, but much more engaged method of exchange will become trivial at that point. A value added cost that everyone will feel is worthy of their time.

I suggest you take a freaking course in SALES and MARKETING!!

Why is there always an assumption of "ignorance" if someone disagrees? It is so common to find that assumption. My stance is not based on a lack of study on these topics, but on an abundance of it.

Specific to this discussion is the idea of a value added cost:

A value-added cost is one that improves the quality of a product or service, or enhances customers' perception of that product or service. Another way to think of a value-added cost is an expense that customers are willing to pay for.

A value added cost is a perception of increased value based on knowledge of a product. In this case my hypothetical increase in value (that people would be willing to do just a little bit more to engage in barter over a single currency) comes from an understanding of the fraud of our modern economy, and that we have been guided to consume instead of exchange goods. I suggest that with such knowledge there would be additional value in exchange, and a rejection of the consumption ideology. Thus people would be willing to work towards an exchange mentality, even if it takes a bit more effort.

Of course if the effort is too great (the cost too high, too much time involved, etc.), then it won't be adopted, but why would you assume it would be too great? Nothing I have said suggests that. I have only suggested that there would be additional knowledge required and, minimally, more effort. I never implied it would be onerous and I have no idea why you think it would be. As I said, it was likely the method of exchange for as many as hundreds of thousands of years. It's doable.

You cannot change the way our brain functions.

People will always do what they feel they need to do based on the information they have available to them at the time a decision is made. THAT is the fundamental driving principle of human action. Different knowledge mutes some choices and amplifies others, but in all cases, it is "need" that drives the decision making process.

In our case "wants" have become the primary driver, because we have been purposefully trained to refuse our needs, and look to our wants as needs. That pushing of "wants" as "needs," and the confusion of "needs" is the primary function of propaganda, which is literally everywhere, and all has a single source. It is that purposeful confusion that drives our "consumer" nature. That is NOT our natural state, but a derived and purposefully created state; a training, a brainwashing.

People need to relearn the difference between "need' and "desire." Once people realize the fuckery that led to the confusion, our whimsical nature will be much reduced. Transitioning to a slightly more complicated, but much more engaged method of exchange will become trivial at that point. A value added cost that everyone will feel is worthy of their time.

I suggest you take a freaking course in SALES and MARKETING!!

Why is there always an assumption of "ignorance" if someone disagrees? It is so common to find that assumption. My stance is not based on a lack of study on these topics, but on an abundance of it.

Specific to this discussion is the idea of a value added cost:

A value-added cost is one that improves the quality of a product or service, or enhances customers' perception of that product or service. Another way to think of a value-added cost is an expense that customers are willing to pay for.

A value added cost is a perception of increased value based on knowledge of a product. In this case my hypothetical increase in value (that people would be willing to do just a little bit more to engage in barter over a single currency) comes from an understanding of the fraud of our modern economy, and that we have been guided to consume instead of exchange goods. I suggest that with such knowledge there would be additional value in exchange, and a rejection of the consumption ideology. Thus people would be willing to work towards an exchange mentality, even if it takes a bit more effort.

Of course if the effort is too great (the cost too high, too much time involved, etc.), then it won't be adopted, but why would you assume it would be too great? Nothing I have said suggests that. I have only suggested that there would be additional knowledge required and, minimally, more effort. I never implied it would be onerous and I have no idea why you think it would be. As I said, it was likely the method of exchange for as many as hundreds of thousands of years. It's doable.

You cannot change the way our brain functions.

People will always do what they feel they need to do based on the information they have available to them at the time a decision is made. THAT is the fundamental driving principle of human action. Different knowledge mutes some choices and amplifies others, but in all cases, it is "need" that drives the decision making process.

In our case "wants" have become the primary driver, because we have been purposefully trained to refuse our needs, and look to our wants as needs. That pushing of "wants" as "needs," and the confusion of "needs" is the primary function of propaganda, which is literally everywhere, and all has a single source. It is that purposeful confusion that drives our "consumer" nature. That is NOT our natural state, but a derived and purposefully created state; a training, a brainwashing.

People need to relearn the difference between "need' and "desire." Once people realize the fuckery that led to the confusion, our whimsical nature will be much reduced. Transitioning to a slightly more complicated, but much more engaged method of exchange will become trivial at that point. A value added cost tgat everyone will feel is worthy of their time.

I suggest you take a freaking course in SALES and MARKETING!!

Why is there always an assumption of "ignorance" if someone disagrees? It is so common to find that assumption. My stance is not based on a lack of study on these topics, but on an abundance of it.

Specific to this discussion is the idea of a value added cost:

A value-added cost is one that improves the quality of a product or service, or enhances customers' perception of that product or service. Another way to think of a value-added cost is an expense that customers are willing to pay for.

A value added cost is a perception of increased value based on knowledge of a product. In this case my hypothetical increase in value (that people would be willing to do just a little bit more to engage in barter over a single currency) comes from an understanding of the fraud of our modern economy, and that we have been guided to consume instead of exchange goods. I suggest that with such knowledge there would be additional value in exchange, and a rejection of the consumption ideology. Thus people would be willing to work towards an exchange mentality, even if it takes a bit more effort.

Of course if the effort is too great (the cost too high, too much time involved, etc.), then it won't be adopted, but why would you assume it would be too great? Nothing I have said suggests that. I have only suggested that there would be additional knowledge required and, minimally, more effort. I never implied it would be onerous and I have no idea why you think it would be. As I said, it was likely the method of exchange for as many as hundreds of thousands of years. It's doable.

You cannot change the way our brain functions.

People will always do what they feel they need to do based on the information they have available to them at the time a decision is made. THAT is the fundamental driving principle of human action. Different knowledge mutes some choices and amplifies others, but in all cases, it is "need" that drives the decision making process.

In our case "wants" have become the primary driver, because we have been purposefully trained to refuse our needs, and look to our wants as needs. That pushing of "wants" as "needs," and the confusion of "needs" is the primary function of propaganda, which is literally everywhere, and all has a single source. It is that purposeful confusion that drives our "consumer" nature. That is NOT our natural state, but a derived and purposefully created state; a training, a brainwashing.

People need to relearn the difference between "need' and "desire." Once people realize the fuckery that led to the confusion, our whimsical nature will be much reduced. Transitioning to a slightly more complicated, but much more engaged method of exchange will become trivial at that point. A value added cost everyone will be willing to engage in.