UPDATE: Just like the rest of the world, I'm over debating TZM. Feel free to comment, I will not respond or read.
Recently a skeptic blogger Muertos issued a challenge to The Zeitgeist movement in this video:
In it he sites a book that discusses proposals by other futurists with concepts identical concepts as The Venus Project and how they do not work and always transitions with violence no matter if they advocate it or not. The book he sites is James C. Scott's "Seeing Like A State." He will not debate anyone from The Venus Project or The Zeitgeist Movement unless they have read this book first so they understand his position first. This is a more than reasonable request considering Zeitards demand you watch 2 long Zeitgeist Films.
I decided this was absolutely a great idea for me too. I haven't read the book in question just yet, but I will propose my own challenge to the Zeitgeist/Venus Project community. I have a hard time nailing these guys down to one subject at a time, or tossing straw man arguments regarding my position. My main objection to The Venus Project is predominantly the economic calculation problem in socialized systems as proposed by Mises. The argument is this; in a centrally planned economy, and more so in cashless economies, you cannot properly gauge where resources should be allocated unless you turn these heterogeneous things into something homogeneous that reflect the most up-to-date needs as a organic free-market price system. A central computer, no mater how smart, can not correctly calculate an iPhone4 minus a cheeseburger unless there is a bottom up price system that reflects the time, energy, resources, incentives and demands to fulfill the needs of the consumer.
For example let's say on a very small scale we wanted to make a small calculation. What should we make given we can only create so much in a small amount of time, given limited resources. An iPhone4 for person #003443 or a cheeseburger for person #003533 and have extra time and resources to spare for other requests. Unless there is a system that reflects to both the consumer and the producer the true time, energy, resources, demand and scarcity that is homogeneous, you would not know what to calculate.
iPhone4 = $399.99. Cheeseburger = $2.99
So iPhone4 - Cheeseburger = $397.00
iPhone4 - Cheeseburger ≠ iPhone 3Gs
It seems to fall in line with black and white thinking when I bring this up to TZM people. If I disagree with their system then I support the 'status-quo.' Nothing could be further from the truth for me, and if Mises were alive today he would have nothing but bad things to say about how the American Government has been doing since his death. So it's a moot point bringing up criticisms of the current system we all share.
Now, because of the type of non-responses I get I am now issuing my own price of admission for this debate. It's cheaper than Muertos' read a whole 400 page book price, but it's equally as challenging. Read the 50 page article and postscript to Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises. It was written before Mr. Fresco was even born, but it doesn't negate the overarching problem with The Venus Project; whats an iPhone4 minus a cheeseburger in a world with no prices?
After you have read the book you may not argue with me any of these points:
So if you think your system can stand up to the test if rational discourse and not blind faith, read the paper and spank me intellectually. I'll take 2 kinds of correspondence, Skype or e-mail. Just leave a comment below. Remember: I will record/log the entire discussion and present it on this blog and/or my YouTube Channel.
UPDATE: I have reduced the requirement for this challenge. All you need to do is watch this 1 videos in it's entirety.
After you have read the book you may not argue with me any of these points:
- This is different, he's talking about socialism, this is a straw man!
Not really, he's talking about ideas proposed by socialists that The Venus Project has adopted into the R.B.E.; central planning of an economy. Now explain how socialist calculation problem does not apply in an R.B.E.
- Price is controlled by the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply.
Right, however Mises is not in favor or arguing for fiat currency. Fiat money cannot be a true reflection of marginal utility and is causing a lot of the problems we're seeing today. There's a vast array of workable non-coercive value based monetary systems that have been tried or are still being used today to see as examples.
- You do not understand The Venus Project, do your research.
- How does the current...
- No wait, how does this current system help the starving people in Africa?
The current system in America is not the cause of starvation in Africa. Africa is suffering from the same ideology Mises was advocating against; central planning. It's also an appeal to emotions, making me feel bad about people suffering in foreign lands does not mean we should go along with the R.B.E.. I feel bad kids are starving in Africa, so let us not have more of what's killing them.
- How does the "invisible hand of the market" work other than a God-of-the-gaps fallacy?
This tells me not only have you not read the paper, but not read anything regarding Austrian Economics. Please read the paper, then discuss it.
- Oh, I get it. You think we're Communists with robots! Hahaha! Please, it's not Communism you're just using a Red Scare tactic.
- I don't want to read that paper, I'll just go by your summary.
So if you think your system can stand up to the test if rational discourse and not blind faith, read the paper and spank me intellectually. I'll take 2 kinds of correspondence, Skype or e-mail. Just leave a comment below. Remember: I will record/log the entire discussion and present it on this blog and/or my YouTube Channel.
UPDATE: I have reduced the requirement for this challenge. All you need to do is watch this 1 videos in it's entirety.
85 comments:
What you ask is more than fair , and considering the lack of intelligent debates on this subject , I will go through both the lectures and gladly discuss my findings with you. ( and I have nothing better to do during christmas anyway :P ) - Good holidays and talk to you in 2012! ( assuming the world isn't gonna end )
There is no need for the calculation issue you stated above in the world of abundance TVP seeks to create.
People have free access to all the goods they need. Therefore distribution will be calculated through demand of certain things in the spesific area.
Altough i doubt there will be many cheeseburgers and iPhones in TVP everybody could have both.
It just requires a change in the minds of people. Goods are no longer status symbols, there is no need for hoarding unnecessary things. People have to learn what they really NEED and that is far from what most people today WANT in the industrialized world.
Abundance of *what*? that's the problem you won't know *what* to make. You can't predict demand and many goods requite many levels of production that that takes a long time, like nitinol (memory metals) takes 5 years to make from raw ore to ingot. There needs to be calculation to forecast future demand for such goods before you can even turn it into something for direct consumption. Let alone calculate whether such an endeavor is even creating or destroying wealth.
Also (you didn't but,) you can't just say "food" because food is also a heterogeneous group of edible goods. How would you know what to make, how much to make without that homogeneous number that reflects consumer demand and producer supply? Shifting peoples thoughts cannot work because they will still be ultimately demand higher standards and there will always be unmet demand. It's also worth noting that the whole idea of creating a new breed of economic man as proposed by TZM is unfounded. Human nature can not be re-engineered.
see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQHSKLXu2c
I'm here. ;)
Yes, there will always be higher demand and that is good, beause it helps increasing the human standart of living. No one says the TVP is perfect, but it certainly is a lot better than what we have today.
Calculating demand is done by numbers, money is not necessary for it. All the monetary system does today is to advocate corruption and inequality.
It breeds people who just care for their own interest and that of their close realtions and don't give a damn about the rest. And politics just helps to keep this going, to keep people under control.
And thanks a lot for the video. I didn't know the guy and it's very interesting.
He is obviously right on most aspects. Of course their are certain inborn trades that are common among humans, but there is no singular human nature. Humans are not born good or bad. Or do you think there are many murderers who grow up peacefully?
And when it comes to the decline in arts. Yes there is more media than ever, but when it comes to quality there is a massive decline, especially in popular media and that is also a reflection of our society.
"Man will become better if you show them what he is like"
That also includes that people change by learning and are in fact not programmed just through their DNA (as Pinker also points out).
I don't think that the findings of Steven Pinker correlate with the ideals of TZM.
For some reason, your comment ended up in my spam bin so I never got a notification about it. Restored.
"No one says the TVP is perfect, but it certainly is a lot better than what we have today."
That's not the problem. Even if you claimed it was perfect it would not be better than what we have today. Because intentions to not always translate into outcomes. IF it could be pulled off, it won't be half bad. The problem is that it's 'impossible.'
If you had a system where all you had to do was press a button or tell a computer at a distribution center what you wanted and out it came, there would be surplus in less wanted items and a shortage of hier demanded goods. Let's take beef for example:
Beef is not in it of itself a homogeneous good. It's a variety of goods. From less demanded parts (like tongues, cheeks, liver, tripe) to moderately demanded parts (brisket, ribs, rump roast, strip steak non-porterhouse t-bone) and higher demand parts (porterhouse, flet minon..etc.) Not even that, but you also have bad quality beef, good beef, angus beef and kobe beef. THat all depends on the quality of the cow and not the cuts. Now let's take those goods and remove money out of the picture and allowed free access, what would be the outcome? People would all rush for the Kobe flets and there would be a net surplus of all the other goods. In order to fulfill those demands lots of good meat would be wasted for the best. Even still people would tire of filets and start wanting t-bone one week. There would be no way to predict and restructure in time to fulfill those demands
Now extrapolate that logic though out the entire economy. You'd be completely blind. There's only so many oceanfront houses you can build in Cancun and Malibu, but a lot more space to build houses in Kansas. But who the hell wants to live in Kansas? That's why you need market prices to work with supply and demand. They're not arbitrary. It's not a social construct. It's a spontaneous and emergent good that serves a very important role. It's the linchpin of an industrial society, and TZM wants to yank it out.
I don't think you fully understand the calculative abilities of computers..
1. Program an algorithm accounting for all parameters; simple mathematics.
2. Input data; a process that could quickly outgrow the possibility of human error.
3. Calculate.
The idea that within a system fully utilizing the most up to date science and technology would even require the cultivation of animals in a traditional sense for food is shortsighted at best. You can't honestly sit there and think to yourself "the only way people can get meat is if they kill animals," because that's simply false.
You seem to be suffering from functional fixedness, it's a common psychological problem.
Also, the thought that market prices are NOT a social construct is fallacious. It IS a social construct and is only necessary to maintain order in an environment of scarcity, a condition we can easily overcome by today's technological standards.
Once again, functional fixedness.
1. Computers cannot predict future human demands, nor is there a program that can forecast consumer demand with any level of accuracy without market prices as the root of it's calculation. Computers are not omniscient no matter the computing power. If you have an algorithm one, let's see it.
2. Goods are not homogeneous and thus cannot be added or subtracted together. A kilogram of steel has a very different value to society than an kilogram of medicine. You cannot add apples an oranges. That's a mathematical fact. However if you have a system that incorporates supply and demand information into a homogeneous number (like market prices) then you can add them.
3. Re: social construct. I might of not used the right phrase. Let be clarify; it's not arbitrary top down construct as TZM often claims. It's an emergent construct.
If you want to call it cognitive bias, perhaps. So is my unwavering belief that I can't fly with only my volition. If you can show me how to levitate (i.e. give me this algorithm) I'll look into it. Until then, it's a future fantasy assumed to be reality.
I'm not the best at debating monetary economics..
I think, however, that TVPChallenge may have addressed the issue you've brought up.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TVPchallenge?blend=1&ob=0#p/u/2/A9vRuhTLpFE
I think it starts at around 6 minutes.
If it doesn't answer your question I would recommend watching some of the other videos on that channel because she does a great job addressing legitimate concerns that people have and you might find yours answered in a different video. If not, bring it to her attention and I can guarantee that she'll address it.
I've seen them and I was one of the first to respond to it. Jacob did a good job not just addressing those videos but her blog responce as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNoUW4UTpI
Her blog is linked in the description of his response here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Fwy7iSAuc
Are you serious? Have you watched your videos or read your rants? I couldn't stop laughing at your ridiculous arguments and analogies. Clearly you think you are smart. Obviously you're wrong.
LOL, I just read your profile, You're religious nutter. That on it's own proves that you are not worth MY time to debate. After I finish laughing, I'm going to try to forget that I ever stumbled across this rubbish.
You're an idiot. I'm an atheist. You're not worth *my* time if you can't distinguish a sarcastic joke from genuine opinion. Even if I was a religious nut, it's irrelevant of TZM's ignorant claims about economics.
Take care, nutter.
If you know spanish i have information that can completly destroy the Zeitgeist films(including the economics and conspiracy part, and addendum)and that can prove the connections of peter Joseph to ocultists and Extreme right people.
I'm going to watch this video and dissect it as I'm watching.
Lets begin.
"Described by The Tablet (a web magazine) as an internet based apocalyptic cult, based on a series of films, spawned with the notorious conspiracy theory film, Zeitgeist The Movie" - The movement only came about around the time of the release of Zeitgeist: Moving forward. The movement supports and advocates the work of The Venus Project and nothing more.
Oh, I'm sorry, I haven't read the book, I can't debate any more. Nice defence mechanism you got there. I only watch youtube videos and get information from the internet so I'm not buying the book, really, seriously, it has nothing to do with not wanting to buy the book only to refute an idiot.
The only idiot here is the retarded commenter that can't read the part about it not being my video. Thanks for illustrating Meurtos' point.
Computers doesn't have to predict future human demands, as with simple human input, the demand is continuously monitored and responded to. Like when you flip the light switch. That is human input, and the system responds to your demand immediately. The light goes on. The same goes for the water you get out of your tap. It comes, automatically. Now, behind the scenes there are huge systems that regulate the electricity grid and water grid, and centrals FULL of computers to make sure the power and water reaches you when you need it. Actually, they DO predict future demand from past statistics, like when power usage goes down at night.
Whether there's a meter on your tap (which it is not, in many cases) or on your power line (which it is in most cases) is the question. Now, that meter doesn't have to have anything to do with money. It can simply be a meter that regulates how much power you can use if there is scarcity. If there isn't any scarcity, like with water in many cases, there is no need for any meter.
Why is it so difficult to imagine that this can be extended to more things in the world?
The world is in a large degree cybernated already, and today's society wouldn't function without that cybernating. The fear people have for technology or that 'computers will take over' is only based on ignorance. There are so many things that are already cybernated (linked together in a system controlled by centralized 'computer brains') that cybernating some more wouldn't really make any difference, only make the world a better place.
And when it is cybernated enough, so that we can have an abundance of everything we need, like power, food, water, transportation, clothing, etc. we won't need the outdated money to 'pay for it'. When we focus on creating abundance in this world, and we get it, money won't be needed. Money is only needed when there is some kind of scarcity. And today, that scarcity is created by the monetary system itself, and not by any natural cause. There is more than enough on this planet to satisfy everyone's need, but not everyone's greed.
Sure, there can be a global system of exchange, if people want to still be able to Trade, and feel the Giving and Sharing a bit awkward. As long as all needs are met, there will be people who will still trade, but there will be more and more who will simply give.
The light bulb analogy is a non-sequitur. You're comparing the the ever changing and wildly unpredictable nature of human desires and demands with a binary choice of a light switch. This does not follow. You fail to nice the ever changing and structure of production that relies on market pricing. We we to switch overnight to something like wind or solar, we'd have an energy crisis because demand will outweigh the supply. That's not determined by science or technology, that determined by price.
People will not just go up to a machine and say "food please" or "No food please" People will as for specifics "I would like a rare porter house, baked potato with sour cream and butter, and some garlic roasted asparagus, and a large german witbeir." This is also the same with every economic decision you make. Want a car? What kind of car? Want a phone? What kind of phone? Most decisions are not LIGHT ON, WATER OFF.
The Technology is a red herring. Doesn't matter how fast things are produced when talking about surplus sand deficits of goods people want aside from expediences of those outcomes.
Also why does every Zeitgeister think that things like "transportation" "food" and "clothing" are a heterogeneous good? These are umbrella terms for a wide assortment of goods that individually have all kinds of implications that are all based on desires. Sure we need food, but we don't need any specific type of food. I've never understood this. Do they just not think about it? Is it just a meaningless platitude? What?
Have you seen the Cantor Diagonalisation argument demonstrating the invalidity of the "calculation problem" with regards a socialist economy? What are your thoughts on this?
http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/publications/ccm.IJUC07.pdf
I have 30 bucks that says you haven't bothered to read this or understand what it's talking about, do you?
Why I even brought it up here - is because it addresses the issue of economic equilibrium. Now the Venus Project's RBE model has steps in place (DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM, SYSTEMS THEORY, STRATEGIC PRESERVATION, EFFICIENCY STRATEGY) that address the very accusation of inefficiency in an RBE that the economic calculation problem postulates.
However, to quote from the argument, "If, on the other hand, we assume that real economies fall into the phase transition region of the problem space, then neither central planners nor a collection of millions of individuals interacting via the market could solve the
social welfare maximisation problem."
"It would seem to follow that the problem of finding the neoclassical equilibrium is a mirage: no planning system could discover it, but nor could the market."
Yes, I do understand what it is saying. What are your thoughts on it?
No you don't. This isn't a paper talking about the "Cantor Diagonalisation argument demonstrating the invalidity of the calculation problem" it's a paper critiquing Robert Murphy's 'Cantor Diagonalisation argument demonstrating the validity of the calculation problem'
But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is what you say it is. They attempt to calculate labor hours as a homogeneous good as if a labor hour as the same societal value (meaning society equally values on average) an hour of a brain surgeon's time with that of an iron worker. What do you get when you add one apple plus one orange? Not 2 fruits. It's a fundamental mathematical error: you can't add 2 different things and get one sum.
possibilitymagazine does NOT understand what it is saying...
"then neither CENTRAL PLANNERS nor a collection of millions of individuals interacting via the market could solve the social welfare maximisation problem."
central planners = Venus Project's RBE model
So rather than supporting his argument, he is presenting evidence from yet another source that says his beloved RBE can not "solve the social welfare maximisation problem."
It's also talking about Neoclassical synthesis which is fine considering Mises, Hayek and Bob Murphy are not advocating econometric calculation in planning. (Mor does neoclassicals advocate planning anything outside of very narrow monetary policy)
I have watched the video and will try to respond to some of the problems.
The RBE does not want to abolish anything. It wants to outgrow the need for
private property, money, trade etc. The only way to do this is to give people
what they want.
I think that in the future people will ask themselves: "What
is it for?", "What is a golden Iphone for?", "What are earrings for?" Today
there are many goods and services people may want due to their upbringing but
that don't do anything. This will get rid of unsane demands like a giant villa
for myself or a tank because I like weapons. Now I don't mean that people will
be poor or live in deprivation. There are many things that are very useful
like laptops, smartphones, food etc. Nor are we denying people the things they
want because that is a form of scarcity which leads to trade and money and
capitalism and collapse. But people will be educated so they don't concern
themselves with bullshit. If I build an RBE city and put normal people of today
in it, the city wouldn't work. They have to be educated on how the city
functions and given values that work for that kind of society. Just like how
rich and famous people are admired today or how soldiers are considered heroes
or the idea that you can reach anything if you work hard enough. So the people
in an RBE will be rather different.
What determines what will be produced? The available resources and the demand
of people. After all, we can only use what is available. Through elaborate
surveys we will know what products and how much of those products people will
use. Planned use usually differs from actual use, so we produce a little more
than demanded as a buffer. If we find we make too many or too little of anything
we adjust production accordingly. Through the use of buffers and production
adjustment we can deal with changes in demand. We predict future demand using
past experiences. People are not going to suddenly eat trice as many potatoes
over-night. Those huge fluctuations occur in market systems where people move
large amount of money from this market to that market for profits.If there are
shortages of any resources scientists will work on solutions like increase of
production, finding substitutes for the scarce materials etc.
In the video, it is claimed that the State doesn't know the most valuable way
to use the resources they own. Valuable in what sense? The way in which the
most demand is fulfilled. What is demand in a market system? Money supply that
wants to buy. But what if people don't have enough money? They still need food.
Do poor people somehow have less need for things? The RBE has no money and
therefore no value. The State doesn't choose. It makes what people want and is
guided by the sustainibility of the well-being of all humans.
In an RBE houses are shipped to Montana in stead of build on the spot because
it costs less energy, because it's quicker, because we don't want labor, not
because it's financially more rewarding. We don't profit from the problems and
needs of other people. We help them because we care.
In the market system money is used to control demand. The more people that want
to live in Malibu, the higher the price of the houses there so that less people
actually can live there. People's freedom is limited by their purchasing power.
In an RBE we raise the question: "How can we house x many people in Malibu?"
And scientists work on solutions like building large apartments with many
facilities that are more convenient than individual homes and can house more
people in the same area; informing people about similar but less known places;
building sea-cities so that people can still enjoy the ocean. Rather than
controlling people we seek technical solutions. The same with beef. "How can we
produce more Kobe filets with less surplus of other goods?" Surplus food could
be dehydrated and shipped to the Poles so that in case of an disaster, food
is quickly accessible; instead of raising more cows we grow individual parts.
We inject living cells in bio-degradeable molds which then multiply and when
the mold has degraded we are left with an fully grown organ that can be
inplanted in patients. They have done this with bladders and are busy developing
methods to grow more complex organs like livers or kidneys. We can do something
similar with Kobe filets. I doubt that the global population will suddenly
in unison tire of filets. Some people will want to eat t-bones, some will return
from t-bones to filets. We can deal with small short changes by using buffers
and large changes will take time so that either the large groups of people
changing will either have to notify the system beforehand or accept the fact
that restructuring takes time and that they will have to wait or find methods
of restructuring that are quicker. There is no elite that runs the system.
Everyone that technically qualified in the necessary subjects can change and
improve the system. The market system doesn't deal with the problem at all, it
forces people to buy less-desired meat even if they want Kobe filets.
"The RBE does not want to abolish anything. It wants to outgrow the need for private property, money, trade etc."
Irrelevant.
"The only way to do this is to give people what they want."
People's wants are infinite. This is absurd.
" Today there are many goods and services people may want due to their upbringing but that don't do anything. "
This is more of that tabula rasa pseudopsychology that's been laughed out of peer review. Humans are not blank slates and most behavior is mostly govern by genetics, not environment. People like shiny things and women will want to use them to attract men. Even primitive hunter gatherer tribes still had/have jewlery. All attempts to reform human behavior has been a dismal failure. The rest of these arguments of Blank Slate theory I'll just skip over.
"What determines what will be produced?,[...] Through elaborate
surveys we will know what products and how much of those products people will use."
Surveys will not be able to reflect the ever changing and chaotic demands of society. What you want right now, may not be what you want in an hour or tomorrow, or the end of the production processes. You'll still end up with waste and surpluses. People will end up demanding more than what can be sustainable and rationing and compromises will ultimately be made. Then we get back to that problem of making people want to abolish money: they can't have everything they want. *sad trombone.*
"Planned use usually differs from actual use, so we produce a little more than demanded as a buffer."
That also means surplus if you over estimate to begin with. And you will overestimate as much as you will underestimate. People's demands are wildly unpredictable.
". If we find we make too many or too little of anything we adjust production accordingly."
This information would come too little and too late. In a market these signals are immediate. If you produce what people don't want, you occur losses. Your losses only represent a small amount of resource waste on the grand scheme of things, if everything is centrally managed your banking results in the deaths of millions and opposed to the inconvenience of a few.
"We predict future demand using past experiences."
Past indicators can only help forecast future demand, it can not be used accurately predict anything. This is what businesses do today and many of their predictions fail to please consumers.
"People are not going to suddenly eat trice as many potatoes
over-night."
Happens more than you think. There was a film called Sideways (really good BTW) that flipped the wine world upside down. It took a mildly popular varietal (pinot noir) and tripped it's popularity overnight. Prices shot up as demand shot up until the market stabilized. That's just one example of what a small little indie movie can do to an entire market. Extrapolate that out to the constant barrage of movies, shows, songs that are produced everyday. (Not to mention if people don't have more free dome to pump this media out.)
"Those huge fluctuations occur in market systems where people move large amount of money from this market to that market for profits."
Trading is only a problem because of inflation and the need to use stocks to have a hedge for savings. Only an idiot would save cash for retirement because it would be worth a lot less by the time they needed to use it. That and people wrongly think that the stock market is a casino. Even still, this is not how markets tend to work for the most part, it's only a small but significant part. Most investments are long term.
(cont...)
"If there are shortages of any resources scientists will work on solutions like increase of production, finding substitutes for the scarce materials etc."
That happens today, don't need an RBE for that.
"In the video, it is claimed that the State doesn't know the most valuable way to use the resources they own. Valuable in what sense?"
Value is an objective statement about the collected perceived subjective desires at a given moment. You want an iPhone and pay 400 bucks for one, you're helping to instate a price. If you and many others didn't pay that 400 bucks, Apple would have to underbid or get eaten by a competitor. That 400 bucks is the homogeneous value indicator compared to all goods in a market.
"The way in which the most demand is fulfilled."
Wrong.
"What is demand in a market system?"
People desiring and bidding on a commodity.
"Money supply that wants to buy."
Wro.. wait what? This is word salad.
"But what if people don't have enough money? They still need food."
Poor people in industrialized country get food. Be it though charitable donations or state income assistance. Which is why VTV makes me laugh when he talks about wage slave. He does nothing and get free housing and food from the government. African poverty is a whole other subject, but it's not because of lack of money, it has to do with aid economies and brutal state regimes.
"The RBE has no money and therefore no value."
o_O So no one wants an RBE?
"It makes what people want and is guided by the sustainibility of the well-being of all humans."
It proposes it to be, but as it's been shown, it's literally impossible.
"We don't profit from the problems and needs of other people. We help them because we care." You're assuming transactions are win-loose. If I trade you 400 bucks for an iPhone it's because you wanted the 400 bucks more than the iPhone and I wanted the iPhone more than that money. We're both better off so we both win. THAT is the invisible hand of the market.
"In the market system money is used to control demand."
Yup, because people's demands are infinite.
"The more people that want to live in Malibu, the higher the price of the houses there so that less people actually can live there."
That's probably the most economically correct thing you've said so far.
"People's freedom is limited by their purchasing power."
No, because the ability for someone to produce enough for society for them to be rewarded with such a commodity is always possible. You could cure cancer someday or invent the next Beanie Baby or Big Mac and get a house. You get our what you put in. If you don't contribute, why should you get to live in Malibu?
"[explains how to cram more people in Malibu)"
Then Malibu would not be Malibu, it will be a shit hole city with a decaying beach. What makes Malibu Malibu is the nice quiet beaches and community. In the end, even if you did do that, the whole world would abandon places like Wyoming and North Dakota for places like Hawaii and Caribbean Islands. There's simply not enough room no matter how good at Legos or Tetris you are.
Kobe beef:
Take the time to look into what goes into making Kobe beef and realize it's not something that can be popped into abundance for everyone. Even still, what cuts of Kobe beef? what will you do with all the spare meat no one wants because they have free access to the finer cuts. No one will eat rump roast if they can have Porterhouse and fliet minion.
" We can do something similar with Kobe filets. I doubt that the global population will suddenly in unison tire of filets."
People getting bored of something that they eat a lot of? IMPOSSIBRUE!
People get bored with stuff all the time and in unison. They're called "fads." Remember the Atkin's Diet?
And you know what, people need to eat that stuff. Having Kobe beef is a totally unsustainable prospect, so is having all of their desires met. Besides, there's nothing undesirable about a run of the mill pot roast, it's just less desirable than a Japaneese Kobe Porterhouse.
"Humans are not blank slates and most behavior is mostly govern by genetics, not environment."
If most of human behaviour was governed by genetics we'd still be living in caves. If depression is genetic, we couldn't pull people out of it. People are not blank slates but there is a difference between human nature and human behaviour and the latter can be changed. People like gold because it's scarce and because our culture pushes it. If it rained gold for months people would sweep it out of their house and throw their rings away. I can't do anything with "peer review" unless you point out the areas of disagreement.
"What you want right now, may not be what you want in an hour or tomorrow, or the end of the production processes."
Surveys won't be able to tell us what person A wants at time T but they will be able to tell us roughly what the demand is. Some people will switch from phone A to B and others from B to A but the general demand stays the same. People don´t suddenly change their mind, they are changed by new information. If we provide enough information and answer most questions, then it´s unlikely that demand for phone A drops by 70% compared to the survey. When I toss a coin I can't predict if it's going to be heads or tails but if I have a shoebox with a 100 coins I can say that about half of them will be heads and the other half tails. Through gathering information we gain better predictability about future demand. You say that demand is too unpredictable. The question is: "How unpredictable?"
"That also means surplus if you over estimate to begin with."
Surplus can function as buffer for the future so that we can decrease production for the next batch.
"This information would come too little and too late."
If there is too little information then we gather more information. There information comes too late we gather information more often. Why do you think we need that supercomputer that's connected with everything?
"That's just one example of what a small little indie movie can do to an entire market."
People in the future will base their decisions on scientific research, not subjective complaints or praises. You can´t put normal people in an RBE. They have to be educated anew.
"That happens today, don't need an RBE for that."
Scientists today have to compete for grants and propagandise their skills and their research to companies or universities, which are also commercial institutions. In an RBE, we will give them what they need which would accelerate scientific progress tremendously. People will seek education when boring jobs are automated and when they don´t have to worry about their rent.
"Poor people in industrialized country get food."
What I was trying to so is that in the market system: bid money = desire. But people can have desires without money.
"We're both better off so we both win."
You can say the same thing about a root canal. But the last thing a dentist wants is that people have healthy teeth. He earns his living that way. He does not care about your dental health. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most feel they care but those are just words. It's not reflected by their actions.
What makes you think people's demand is infinite? No matter how hungry I am, I can only eat that many tomatoes a day. Greed is a product of scarcity. If a girl always has to wear her sister's old clothes because their mother can't afford new clothing for both of them. She'll never wear old clothing when she's grown-up. Only the latest. Not because she genetically programmed to like fashion but because she grew up in deprivation.
"No, because the ability for someone to produce enough for society for them to be rewarded with such a commodity is always possible."
Of course, it's possible. Many people try but how many do you think make it? Very few. I'm sure that all the physicists you don't know about work just as hard as Einstein did. How many of them actually win the Nobel Prize? If all you needed to become rich was hard work, slaves would be the richest men on Earth.
"People getting bored of something that they eat a lot of? IMPOSSIBRUE!"
Extrapolate that logic to the Kobe beef, Hawaii or Malibu. Many people may like Kobe beef but how many would actually want to eat it everyday? Many people like to go to Hawaii on vacation but how many would actually want to live there? I think that in the future people would try many kinds of food and live in many different places. We would provide objective information in the RBE and not push the beautiful and clear blue ocean and the pristine beaches. People would travel to many different and even remote areas and not focus on the mainstream places because we provide information on all locations in an RBE and your information in-take is not limited to advertisements. If many people seem to like places like Malibu we inform them of similar places or we create them like those ridiculous projects they have in Dubai. If many people want to eat Kobe beef, we use the DNA of that special breed and investigate what kind of nutrients the feeding of Hyogo contains and what kind of techniques they use in preparing that beef in Hyogo so that we can recreate it elsewhere. There are no patents or copyrights in the future. Ideas are freely exchanged which would accelerate our scientific and technological progress significantly.
"People get bored with stuff all the time and in unison. They're called "fads.""
Fads occur when some form of behaviour is perceived as novel in some kind of way and if there's a large interest in that area. Before we release a new product we predict based on past experiences with the release of products of that type the demand of people or we conduct a survey to see how many people are interested. That tells us how many of that product we should make. We don't release a new smartphone every week like they do now. We release a whole range of phones perhaps every two years which are truly novel compared to the last series.
Nature/Nurture:
No, this is nonsense. These ideas have been debunked. It's mostly genetics that cause the bulk of human behavior and can not be changed. The science is not on your side. If TZM/TVP are for scientific approaches to the sociopolitical system, then either you or RBE(M) is not scientific. Until you create one of these socialist ubermenches by controlling it's environment and throwing the overwhelming data that disputes your premise, you're speaking against the scientific consensus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQHSKLXu2c
"What you want right now, may not be what you want in an hour or tomorrow, or the end of the production processes." 'The question is: "How unpredictable?"'
Chaotic. Think of yourself when you walk into a restaurant or store to get some thing and all of the economic calculations you make. Should I get a cheeseburger or a salad? Should I get the brand or the next? Cheaper or should I splurge? Should I go somewhere else? Should I just make it myself at home? ..etc. These decisions and then you're going to tell me that, not just you, but everyone else can rationally do this every day thought surveys for the entire day? How will you know in the morning you won't feel like lunch? or dinner? or dessert?
I'm not sure you're aware of the implications of taking a survey for everything you want to do in every given minute of every single day. Seems like a tedious effort to learn all the data on available resources and ration your day accordingly. People can't even be bothered to do surveys for free stuff today.
"Surplus can function as buffer for the future so that we can decrease production for the next batch."
Again: What happens yesterday will not mean that's what will happen today. You can't assume this.
"If there is too little information then we gather more information. There information comes too late we gather information more often. Why do you think we need that supercomputer that's connected with everything?"
Computers are not omniscient or smart, they only do what you tell it to do. The only thing a faster computer will do is give you the wrong data faster. You're using technology as a god of the gaps argument.
"People in the future will base their decisions on scientific research, not subjective complaints or praises. You can´t put normal people in an RBE. They have to be educated anew."
Education will not restrain random desires, period. Man is a square peg and won't fit in your round Utopian hole.
(...)
"In an RBE, we will give them what they need which would accelerate scientific progress tremendously. People will seek education when boring jobs are automated and when they don´t have to worry about their rent."
Um, I take it you're totally unfamiliar with the fact that a lot of people are paid and a lot science is funded though the state and private grants right? What you want exists right now in the current paradigm. Don't need an RBE.
"What I was trying to so is that in the market system: bid money = desire. But people can have desires without money."
Right, but you would not be able to calculate societies collected desires to forecast future demands of wealth creation and consumer satisfaction.
"You can say the same thing about a root canal. But the last thing a dentist wants is that people have healthy teeth. He earns his living that way. He does not care about your dental health. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most feel they care but those are just words. It's not reflected by their actions."
Absolute bullshit. Dentists have incentives to keep your mouth healthy because eventually you'll get dentures and never see him again. It's cheaper for him to have a bunch of clientele with good oral hygiene to come for a routine cleaning and checkup then having to waste his time on your stupid cavity. (...)
"What makes you think people's demand is infinite? No matter how hungry I am, I can only eat that many tomatoes a day."
Sun dried tomatoes? Roma tomatoes? How about Hot house tomatoes? How about tomato sauce with pasta and Romano cheese....etc (you get the point, I hope)
"If a girl always has to wear her sister's old clothes because their mother can't afford new clothing for both of them. She'll never wear old clothing when she's grown-up. Only the latest. Not because she genetically programmed to like fashion but because she grew up in deprivation."
Do you have any peer reviewed data that supports this outrageous assertion?
"Of course, it's possible. Many people try but how many do you think make it? Very few. I'm sure that all the physicists you don't know about work just as hard as Einstein did. How many of them actually win the Nobel Prize? If all you needed to become rich was hard work, slaves would be the richest men on Earth."
But none of them provided the goods (and ideas are goods too) that were wanted by consumers more than the rich guy. Yes, there are people who get rich from ill gotten gains from using the state or people who stifle competition...etc. BUt even this is better than having a monopolistic system of resource management. Because guess who will try to get control of this system. Not always the good guy.
In a free market, competition would be open, businesses would have to preserve their reputations though good business ethics. A lot of that is evident today in less regulated market like electronics.
"[Kobe Beef]"
You do know it's not genetically better, right? Please, look into why Kobe is Kobe then know why it costs and arm and a leg. And I don't know, I've never had it. It's not that available in the US because most people are content with the lesser "Kobe-Style" and even more so with "USDA Select"
Even still these desires are whimsical and chaotic. you can not predict these things with surveys. People like these beaches because they are quiet and secluded. If you pack them with people, they will cease to be desired.
"Fads occur when some form of behaviour is perceived as novel in some kind of way and if there's a large interest in that area."
Predict the next Beanie Baby fad before one of them even gets made, and I will believe you. Until then, you're arguing from future knowledge.
I'm sure ethiopians wouldn't mind living in kansas
Not if the same effort will land them in Bel-Air. By the way, congratulations on posting the most useless comment ever made on this blog.
I think the first problem here is that you are defining the consumers in a RBE by the rules and theories of a completely different economical system, leaving the technological and sociological factor aside. The evolution, my guess, would be towards the prosumer, the consumer taking an active role in the production (not only design), and thus, the offer itself; this would be at a global -integrated- level. I think if you combine certain aspects of the project such as the sociological change involved, it could work, if you only take into account the economy itself analysed by the rules of a market economics, it surely doesnt.
It's nice to think that people would be super smart in an RBE to be able to take a role in their own purchases to the manufacturing, but most people don't care. Most people are completely apathetic and even take a firm stance on their apathy. They don't even want to know how things work or how they should work, they just want to get what they want and be done with it. People who do want to take an active role become inventors and technicians and do just that. You just can't assume people will just change because there's no money.
Actually according to TVP, it would be the other way around, there would be no money, because people will change. The economic aspects of the project, are possible once there is a social change, that's why Fresco agrees in that a total collapse is the starting point, he is not just being arbitrarily apocalyptic, he sees the apathy has come the point you mention. Your point of view about failure of the economics of the RBE is almost stricty materialistic, in the sense that you are assuming people would want more than they need (in terms of survival). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8rePLtZIGI
This is the whole tabula rasa stuff that's been so heavily discredited it's not even worth addressing. You can justify any political restructuring if you can re-engineer human behavior. Various attempts have been tried to re-engineer the human condition and they (without exception) failed. Might as well just say anything we want fall out of the sky as a way to address faults of your political ideology.
But if you want to know why from an expert in psychology here's Steven Pinker explaining the history of social engineering/tabula rasa and why it's bunk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef3Re2IRXvM&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL65561D60421CA2CC
Very interesting, but still, you don't need to entirely re-engineer human behavior, you just have to focus on certain values. As Pinker points out the example of the decrease of violence over the millenia, as a non evolutionary ("natural") process, but rather socio-cultural. Human nature hasn't mutated ("evolution doesnt work that fast") but our culture has changed the way we behave. The truth is that there is much we can change through our culture. Of course there is human nature, then we can use science to know and understand why and how we can make those changes.
You might as well use the term "human nature" to justify any kind of economic paradigm or social behavior.
Then we go back into economic calculation problem where desires are infinite, value is subjective and knowledge is dispersed.
Then you go back to the same issue, strictly economically speaking, it doesn't work, but...the project is not only about economics. Tell me please why it would not work socially. I'm interested, I'm not sure it would work at all, just investigating the possibilities. but I want your point of view on why its not socially viable..what are the social values needed that are not part of the human nature, or can't be part of human behavior.
The video that was required viewing describes this in great detail. Did you watch it?
Not sure about what video you're talking about. I watched Salerno's lecture, Pinker's Lecture, and I'm reading J.C.Scott's book.
The reason I require a video for the debate is because I was sick of having to type it out over and over. I provided materials (only one of which was required for this challenge, Scott's book is for Muertos' challenge) so that your job was to refute the argument or explain how this doesn't apply, not for me to recite the argument again. Being that you jus watched another lecture and are starting a book both on different aspects of TZM/TVP's proposals I can understand why you may have forgot.
But yea, I'm not going to type it out again, life's been better not having to repeat myself 100 times.
Well, I was confused by the fact that I already pointed out why the material you posted as a requirement(Salernos' Lecture) doesn't apply to TVP (I dont adhere to TZM) so...
It does apply;
TVP (and TZM too) advocates the abolition of private property in capital goods, money, and exchange. Hence this applies. I'm starting to suspect you didn't watch it or, if you did, weren't listening.
TZM is mostly propaganda and conspiracy theories, TVP is a RBE project.
You are assuming infinite needs and infinite consumption. Even now when I go to a grocery or a supermarket the amount of products is a finite number, and the amount I need is also finite. Even though globally the market is huge, at a local level things are much simpler.
The basic idea is to supply all human needs and work towards greater living standards.
You can limit the number of products drastically if you eliminate competing brands and standarize products according to their functionality.
You can estimate how to supply a certain population in a similar way chains of supermarkets use statistics and integrated systems to supply products from their distribution centers to their stores. You can estimate and coordinate how much you produce by the same method for a certain population for a certain month, or season or whatever you decide. You can set a computer to look for patterns given certain variables, and "learn" to respond accordingly. You can coordinate production and distribution locally and globally according to diferent cultural preferences, enviormental factors, etc. You can ship and distribute surpluses if needed, you can store food for years, you can recycle/reuse.
You can adapt products ergonomic/cultural preferences in certain areas.
Let's not forget theres a fair amount of understanding on why and how the consumer chooses to satisfy their needs, publicity and marketing work on that basis.
It's basically integrating logistics with production, coordinating among cities/populations.
You can reach certain level of on-demand customization in certain products if required. You can deal with specific future demands by offering on-line surveys/orders.
Even now if you collect every supermarket selling records in a certain area for a long enough time you can determine accurate patterns of consumption, and its already implemented. You can extrapolate relevant data of the consumer itself and what he consumes, when he consumes, even why, anonymously by existing technologies and very little cooperation from the consumer itself. You'll get constant feedback from the consumers, because its in their interest to make the system work, just because its the same systems that provides them with the living standards they enjoy. That feedback is used to correct, and enhance continuously.
You can categorize and standirize products according to their functionality and adapt them to ergonomic/cultural preferences in certain areas.
In the 1920's it wasn't possible to gather, unify and analyse that amount of data in a reasonable amount of time, it was unthinkable, today you can look at vast amounts of accurate real-time processed data, today that kind of technology is relatively cheap and easy to implement.
It's basically integrating logistics, production, sociology, demography, etc and using it to coordinate amoung cities-populations. ERPs already do that nowadays, that's how multinational corporations can work.
I worked on the systems department on a distribution center of a multinational food corporation, the shit that went on in there impressed me on how much we can do with existent technology.
Maybe is hard to see when you're living on a market economy so materialistic as the USA with a huge amount of offer, diversity and consumption. The truth is, people don't need that much diversity, in fact, people live happily with much less.
"You are assuming infinite needs and infinite consumption"
No, only infinite desires. I never said consumption is infinite, quite the opposite. Humans desires are infinite, it's not an assumption it's a fact. Consumption cannot be infinite, it has to be quantifiable. Because consumption and resources are not infinite, they need to be rationally allocated and any central planner (no matter how decentral the planners are) can not rationally allocate all resources to their highest use because vale us subjective and ever changing. It's planning chaos.
You can remove choices but all it will do is limit the data telling you what's the best allocation since there is less variables to calculate. The calculation problem would be bad enough, you're just making the problems worse. What's scientifically efficient isn't the most practical or the more economical.
A computer will not be able to predict fads, trends, epidemics, pandemics, ...etc to shift production to accommodation all of those desires on a whim. This is where TVP falls apart. It assumes (and demands) a steady state economy for this to work, but humans are not machines; they prefer variety and spontaneity.
Even if people could be happy with less; human desires are infinite.
There's a point when desires and needs are the same. At a basic level, humans need the same things to subsist: water, food, shelter, healthcare, etc. RBE ensures these needs are satisfied for everyone at the same level, this can be done in a quite efficient -and practical- way applying existing knowledge.
Past this point, desires are subject to culture and values, nowadays those desires are rather matherialistic, there's solid evidence that past certain point you don't get happier the more you get, its just the "carrot and stick". Even materialistic desires are bound to what the market offers, and what advertising tells you about how those goods will satify certain human needs, which are not material. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8rePLtZIGI
You need people to understand how to satisfy their desires in terms of how they feel and what they actually need, thats the huge value/cultural problem, which is necesary for an RBE. You can coordinate an economy to produce accordingly if you have people that have a better understanding of themselves and their feelings rather than sitting 4 hours a day being adoctrinated by a TV set or a particular religion.
If you narrow choices according to functionality you get less resource allocation and production problems.
Fads and trends often caused by massive publicity would be quite unusual in a non-materialistic society where there is no publicity. The effects of epidemics/pandemics/natural disasters, can be controlled much easier, and much better with coordinated universal healthcare system, and global cooperation.
The economy growth would be subject to population growth and sustainability, technological development, variables you can measure.
Humans are not machines indeed, but we share a lot in common, as Pinker states, the rest is mostly culture, and a very little has to do with luck.
I totally agree, we prefer variety and spontaneity, but I strongly believe thats not necesarily satisfied in a material way.
Food, shelter and healthcare are not homogeneous goods, they are a basket of goods. A lot of which are not vital to human life. You can't just lump these together, give it one title and say it's a need. It's not a need. In fact there are no "needs." There's only desires with higher utility.
You can not top down coordinated an economy; that why ALL previous attempts have resulted in some of the most grinding poverty we've ever seen. Look at Africa, Soviet Union, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba; these are areas where there is the philosophy that the state can organize society better than individual actors working to help people though self interest. Taking away money only exasperated the problem when it gets removed (See War Communism, New Harmony, IN Anarcho-communist Spain.) Just saying it doesn't make it so. The logic and the empirical data demonstrates it. Sure this might not be TRUE communism or TRUE RBE (or even a TRUE Scotsman) but the lesson of history shows that top down re-engineering of societies and economies fail, while the spontaneous and unplanned emergent social orders turn out the most advanced and prosperous societies the world has ever known.
I will point out in all of the examples of failures I point out, they all attempted to fix the human condition to be less greedy and they all failed because you can't fit square pegs in round holes.
I think there is a pretty good understanding about those kind of goods and services and how they determine the quality of life.
Almost all of the examples you mentioned are dictatorships. Powerful leaders imposing regimes and forcing ideas on people according to their own beliefs. TVP advocates the abolition of the state, and it is clear about how states conformed by politicians can not be efficient in solving problems because of the technical capabilities and personal interests/ideologies/ideals involved. TVP itself might seen way ahead of our time, just like the IT revolution could have been in the middle age. Its not greed, its lack of understanding and cooperation, and i repeat, its not about building a system to fix the human condition, its the human values that need to change in order to build system like a RBE.
"I think there is a pretty good understanding about those kind of goods and services and how they determine the quality of life."
So you want a static state economy? I want no part of it. It would drive me crazy not having anything new or different day to day.
If it's not then your point is moot because we will not know value or utility of new goods and services until after they are being offered. Thing change, innovations are made and new inventions come about regularly; HOW will you decide what people will value? How will you know what resources should be shifted to it's production? How will you know you've created or destroyed value?
These are the questions you simply will not answer; please answer them.
"Almost all of the examples you mentioned are dictatorships."
Irrelevant. Pinochet was a brutal and violent dictator but he did bring about liberal economic reforms that later founded "The Miracle of Chile." And that does lend a lot of credence to one of the side arguments seeing like a state makes. That it's irrelevant whether a high modernist group like The Venus Project explicitly advocate violence or authoritarianism; violence and authoritarianism is inherent in the high modernist scheme. You can not name one high modernist scheme that came about without having to resort to large scale oppression because it doesn't exist. TVP will inevitably lead to large scale oppression just as the exampled I provided explicitly stated it would not use before it came about. It's inherent in the system.
Its not steady, its growth is oriented to enhance quality of living of growing population rather than only increasing production or acumulating capital. Investigating a little about the concept, found some interesting quotes from Keynes and Stuart Mill about that.
If you get your kicks by buying or acumulating stuff, if you define who you are by what you have or what you can buy, then its probably not for you. Like I said before, I thinks that's whats wrong with society, it has come to a point that we have forgotten what makes us human. Just as in the middle-ages religion was forced down on people's mind, consumption is the new religion of our era, and the USA is the new vatican.
You know you have created or destroyed value through feedback from the population itself. You would know how to shift resources through a set of priorities, and through the feedback itself.
Chilean miracle->highly controversial and not worth adressing, its a pretty good example of how neoliberal economic growth has done nothing but mostly increase or at least maintain inequity, historically one of the highest of the region. Not to mention external intervention (USA and regional dictatorships intervention) to overthrow Allendes democratic government. If you had gone to chile you would know what I mean.
If you need oppression and violence to build a system like TVP, then its not viable for the population, it has to be an agreement of everyone involved, everyone participating and aware. "Seeing like a state" cleary provides four necessary conditions for this to happen, and TVP lacks at least two of them, there's no authoritarian state (theres no state at all), there's no prostrate civil society.
It's not a fixed project, its an open idea for changes, discussion and contribution, Fresco just gives his view of a model of RBE he thinks would work and provides a starting point, he openly asks for contribution and he also states clearly about not needing any kind of armed forces.
For the 100th time; if there is growth there will need to be a way to gauge a homogeneous value of goods in which to forcast demand and calculate wealth creation and destruction. Anti-consumerism arguments are nothing more than red herrings to what I'm saying here. MONEY IS THAT FEEDBACK WITH AN INCENTIVE STRUCTURE
Chile is controversial; but it's undeniably true that even with Pinoche's gross mismanagement on monetary policy and his gross human rights abuses, Chile did much better economically than any other dictatorship which restrained market forces. That was the butt of my argument; not that Pinoche was good economically. Stop with this non-sence. This is why no one takes TVP seriously. There can't even be simple arguments sent your guy's way without getting it getting garbled.
""Seeing like a state" cleary provides four necessary conditions for this to happen, and TVP lacks at least two of them, there's no authoritarian state (theres no state at all), there's no prostrate civil society."
TVP does advocate a state; See 52 of TVP FAQ.
TVP says an economic collapse is highly likely and that will provide TVP an avenue for contrustion: See FAQ 7
If you're just going to make shit up to move TVP's goalpost out of the line of sight of a scientific book; I'm done. This is intellectual sloth.
You seem to be pretty narrow sighted when it comes to economics. For the 101st time IT is the structure used for feedback, enhancement of living standards is the incentive. Consumerism is not red herrings, is my point in how corrupt the value of things has become, how consumption is far from rational, and how consumerist-culture-constructed needs, desires and prices are far from providing a real/relevant humane feedback.
Furthermore you seem to think the actual market and prices respond instantaneously to demand fluctuations and resource allocation problems, that is far from reality.
Your argument about Chile, still not relevant.
Q52 of FAQ mentions a state "only during the transition" and then "..they will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people"
Q7 mentions "it may take an economic breakdown and people becoming disillusioned with their leaders before they will seek an alternative social direction". There is no mention of a PROSTRATE society, in fact it can be read as quite the opposite if you put it in context with the other proposals.
Iv'e already explained why a survey is impractical to the point of impossible; I'm got going to repeat myself. I'm not interested in distractionary anti-consumerist arguments and they do not prove or disprove any sort of economic argument for central planning or free enterprise systems because greed and over consumption is possible in both.
FAQ #52: Even if it's a transitional state; it's a state. Marxism is a statist proposition even if it is supposed to end in a stateless group. TVP advocates a state to start RBE; hence it's not a flavor of anarchism like anarchist communist, anarcho-syndicalism, anarchocapitalism, anarcho-green, or anarcho-monarchism. It's a statist proposition, period.
It will have to materialize for it to meat any of the criteria Scott lays out. But it's inevitable that TVP will have to come about though violent uprisings just like all high modernist schemes. However; this isn't my argument against RBE; my argument is economic. If you have read the book, contact Muertos. You'd be the only RBE advocate ever to have actually read the book and not leave TZM and/or TVP.
You seem to think there is no way of predicting any kind of behaviour, any kind of trends, any kind of consumption through statics. That is nonsense. It would be impossible to achieve anything that requires any kind of logistics and planning if that was true. In everything from supermarkets to military campaigns, to space travel, and even a household, it would be impossible to manage supply. Furthermore it would render publicity and marketing obsolete while they empirically demonstrate effective in canalizing and predicting human behaviour towards consumption. People seldom behave randomly and chaotically, sorry man, even pinker demonstrates that. We follow patterns of consumption just as we follow patterns of behaviour whether you like it or not, those defined by culture, by human nature and very little chance. Thinking that money is the only tool you can use just because is the easiest to use is just being narrow-minded. In fact let me tell you something, people lived before money, people actually invented money.
No, there is no way to predict human action in the future no matter how much data you have about the past and present. It is nonsense to say you can short of being a god. People and machines are not omniscient and can't predict it; only forecast it. Like forecasting the weather; we're often wrong. In an entrepreneur's stance, if he makes an error in forecasting future preferences he only wastes a small amount of resources and the capital get reallocated. In a centrally planned economy, if there's a failure to forecast preferences; there's gross miss allocations and people die in the streets while the others flee out of the cities to set up off the grid farmlands.
"In fact let me tell you something, people lived before money, people actually invented money."
This is true, and they couldn't even make a pencil. Higher orders of production (i.e. industrial societies) require money, exchange and private property in capital goods. If you want to live with the bushmen making everything you need, then you don't need money. If you want a society that allowed for luxuries like refrigerators, ACs and your computer with high speed internet; you need some semblance of a free enterprise system.
And for the record; we didn't "invent" money, it emerged spontaneously though the barter system when people started adapting mediums of exchange.
Those who support TVP/TZM need to drop the idea that cultural conditioning is the sole reason people behave in the ways we do. It spits in the face of science and anybody with a marginal understanding of psychology, biology or neuroscience will know this. The examples of how low levels of violence or other primitive behaviors in modern society as demonstrating blank slate theory demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of genetic theory. Different behaviors are designed to manifest under different environmental conditions. Nurture almost always reinforces nature, though human nature isn't a good argument for one system of rules or another. It is human nature to have the capacity to kill and rape, be submissive to authority, have ingroup outgroup prejudice, and many other nasty behaviors as well as desirable behaviors. This doesn't mean we should forget laws about murder rape and theft just because it is within human nature. Human nature is simply a blueprint we are born with that can be changed to a degree by cultures we are born into, but only within our genetic limits. Cultures can be designed to bring out more desirable behaviors than others, such as compassion over murder, but stop pretending you can just change everybody to adapt and behave strictly within desirable parameters regardless of genetic predispositions.
I stumbled upon TVP just 5 days ago. Of course their vision of the future seems to good to be true, so I did more and more research on RBE. I also actively sought out criticism of RBE. That is what brought me here.
I just watched the video. I have to say I don't see how von Mises destroys RBE. He attacked basically communism and we all know, why it failed.
To get a starting point I will immediately go into a specific example: In the USSR the small nails for roofs got depleted, because of bad management. In the RBE of TVP something like that does not have to happen. As soon as the small nails get fewer, the "computer" (what ever it is that keeps track) would observe this long before they're all gone and order more. In the hightech society of TVP the production of something like nails would be automated and new nails would arrive within mere days. And even if the required good takes longer to get produced - lets say 5 years at max - the computer can extrapolate into the future, how many are going to be needed and add upp extra buffer to that. And if suddenly the demand skyrockets, it could happen that people indeed have to wait for their goods. But this would be the same in capitalism. So... what's the problem? You don't need prices, you just produce what is demanded and the higher the demand, the higher the priority of production. After all it is irrelevant whether you use e.g. your steel most efficiently and cost effective. You are not selling the end product so the "worth" of a product is just meassured by how much it is needed. If it is needed it has high "value" and the production of this product is therefore "profitable". The "price" is just the degree of demand.
The argument isn't "If RBE happens there will be a shortage of roofing nails." Because they did figure out how to solve the nail problem later on but at the expense of thousands of people being homeless and dying. Top down central planners cannot account for this until the damage has been done. Feedback is slow without market prices. Central planning has never work and will never work because it doesn't account for the marginal utility and subjective values of all the people in it like market prices, then send that information quickly to producers.
Your comment really illustrates my point about economic illiteracy: "And if suddenly the demand skyrockets, it could happen that people indeed have to wait for their goods." If there are no prices and no restrictions on what they can demand, people will choose high end and unsustainable goods and services until the system quickly collapses. This is why in the USSR money was quickly reintroduced after it was taken out even when your choice of goods are extremely limited. Under this type of economy, people will eat filet mignon and porterhouse steaks and waste the other cuts because "why eat chuck roast when I can eat steak for the same effort?" Same with rocketships, there's a reason not even the wealthiest people in the world don't own personal rocket ships; it's a total waste of resources to give all these people rocket ships. Not just iron, steel, computer parts, engines..etc. But time and energy that could of been focused on other goods that are in higher utility.
Okay, I'm trying to learn something here, so let's see what you said.
"Feedback is slow without market prices" -> people die in the streets
As I said, if computers keep track of supplies, how is that slow? When in a free market a good becomes more desired the price rises. In RBE a local computer would just "realize" that the demand of cheeseburgers in his city has risen in relation to the day before and report that. From all those reports you would have a dynamic calculation of future demand of cheeseburgers. It is as instantaneous as in a free market. You could keep track of every eaten cheeseburger, if you'd want to.
"If there are no prices and no restrictions on what they can demand, people will choose high end and unsustainable goods and services until the system quickly collapses."
Why? In your example everybody just wants to eat the best parts of a cow. This could work. In the past nearly every part of a cow was used, now there's also a lot of waste (who wants to eat the brain, for example?). In the future there will be even more parts considered waste. But in a RBE those parts don't just go to the trash. It's biomatter. You can degrade it use is as fertilizer or something. Not much waste. And I think future people will eat less meat overall or artifical meat out of a petri dish. Could you come up with an example that is neccessarily applicable to a future RBE?
As for rocket ships: As no one owns a rocket ship, you just need enough for the demand of usage. When the population is constant (as is anticipated by TVP) the demand of rocket ships is finite. Only that much people can and want to fly into space at one given time. And if for some reason the demand rose and you have not produced more yet, people just queue up for space flights. That is also acceptable because everybody has the chance to use it. In a free market just the richest could use them.
"But time and energy that could of been focused on other goods that are in higher utility."
If other goods ARE in higher utility, then you make them first. Again, where is the problem? You could just ask "What is more important to you? A new generation of mobile phones or more spaceships so that waiting time for a space flight gets decreased?" People could just file their unfullfilled demands every day in the computer. If there are enough resources (as was made sure beforehand) there will be no problem. After all people can't use an infinite number of products at the same time. The old goods get recycled and new ones are made from the resources. Probably the goods are even designed to be easily degradable.
And do you really think society collapses just because they have to wait for space ships? Obviously food, shelter, education and so on have a much higher priority. And as long as that is secured, people will not riot in the streets.
It's not about keeping track of what exists now, it's about figuring out what to do with them. Computers don't "realize" anything because they are not cognizant. They do not have predictive capabilities, they are not omniscient beings, they are number cruncher that only do what you tell them to do.
"who wants to eat the brain, for example?"
Beef brain is a saught after good for some people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_brain Lymph nodes, salivary glands, tongues and cheeks are used in chorizo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorizo
Beef tripe (stomach) is popular among hispanics in menudo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menudo_(soup)
Pigs feet and intestines (chitterlings) are very common is southern and "soul food" cuisines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitlins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigs_feet
Haggis (sheep heart, liver and lung pudding) is very popular in Scotland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haggis
...etc.
These dishes are not uncommon in the US capitalist system where the'st SO MUCH WASTE!!!!!1!1ONE!
So per your own words: RBE wastes resources capitalism use more efficiency. Where's the part about "infinite growth in on a finite planet" come in again?
Also you just can't assume people will do things in an RBE because you think it's nice. People will do what they will and you can't predict it, you can only give a forecast. Like a weather forecast; you're often wrong. If a company (of any size) forecasts demand wrong, only a small amount of resources are misallocated an the capital used to create it gets shifted to more productive use. In a global RBE system where decisions are made top down with a monopoly on production, these errors are huge, resources are grossly misallocated to less valuable goods to the point of societal decay.
"In a free market just the richest could use them."
Right now that's true, in 100 years, probably not. Pagers and cell phones at one time were only for people who had way more money than they knew what to do with. Now pagers are obsolete, even poor people don't want them because they have cell phones. This is basic economics. As demand is high, companies strive to lower prices to expand consumer base. Space travel will be at some point no different than travel to Hawaii. However, seeing is that this is extremely capital intensive, this would be a gross misallocation of resources to let just anyone do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FB0EhPM_M4 <- more on this.
"If other goods ARE in higher utility, then you make them first. Again, where is the problem?"
How will you know? Utility is not a mensurable unit no matter what kind of survey you conduct. The on;y way to can determine is though a bidding process. If people want it, they will buy it and they will buy it over other things that are less valuable. This is the law of marginal utility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqlwN7JWGPk <-- More on this.
Most of the topics you talk about on here are wealth, demand, and "human nature". I'll try to discuss some points of views on each.
In a country named Palai, a island of the south pacific 60 years ago, if you wanted a banana, you would pick it from the tree, if you wanted a coconut you would do the same. Fish, water, anything that they needed was abundantly available. So in a abundant society, in the definition of wealth(a abundance of possessions), everyone was wealthy.
The uncertainty abundance draws, is demand. how do you calculate production if theres no demand? I'll quote a question that Ludwich proposed:
"Picture the building of a new railroad. Should it be built at all, and if so, which out of a number of conceivable roads should be built? In a competitive and monetary economy, this question would be answered by monetary calculation... That can only be calculated in money"
This decision would be based on price and profitability. Facebook doesn't think in terms of price and profitability, how do they prosper? They replace 'PRICE' with 'NEED' and 'PROFITABILITY' with 'USEFULNESS'. If they think there is a 'need' for a more useful photo sharing application, they use their resources (the same as any other Company, time, developers, servers, editors, etc.) to create it. They then evaluate how 'useful' it is by testing it in a small part of their community (which in a monetary system would be considered Market), if percentages show that is in fact, useful, they implement it site wide.
And I'm sorry, but i'm not sure what you mean when you say "human nature". I watched a video that you suggested about Steven Pinker's theory, and I didn't see any examples of it. Could you elaborate on it, or give me some examples of what you mean when you say "human nature cannot be re-engineered"?
Sorry for the delay.
Re: Palai. No one is disputing that communalism can work on a primitive level. Once you try to bring that into an industrialized economy is when you need money, exchange and private property. Making spear requires only one person to gather wood and stone and twine and fashion a spear. A pencil requires a network of experts and entrepreneurs in various fields all across the world in an elaborate and intricate system of trade and production. There are plenty of people who know how to make a spear, but not a single person can make a pencil. Let alone a toaster. This is what will happen if you try.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODzO7Lz_pw
We we go by things people "need" (which is always arbitrary definition) People only need water, basic sustenance and air. Anything beyond that is subjective and varies from person to person. If you want to live in a world that gives everyone a soy and lentil paste with water and maybe a large building with cots to sleep on sure this is possible. Once you want to expand beyond that then you need economics. Because what's economically efficient is not always scientifically efficient. Profit and loss is a signal to people that what they are creating is more valuable than the resources used to create it. If people do not find it useful, they will not buy it. And the law of supply and demand will dictate that the prices will fall to where it is not profitable. To know what is truly useful requires input from every person in the marketplace for goods and can only be achieved though market prices.
As far as human nature stuff goes, it's a way to assume it's possible to make everyone be upstanding and perfectly rational peaceful people so that an RBE can exist despite the economic calculation and incentive problems in socialism. There have been attempts in history to alter human behavior and nearly every fascist, communist, and non democratic socialists states have tried to institute programs to do this and fail. Even if these premises are true, we cannot assume the outcomes will go according to plan.
Hi Jim,
I find the "Economic" objections you pose to RBE to be base on a bit of a circular argument. That is, RBE does not work, why?, because "Free market" economy theory says it does not work. But who says "FMT" is right? Well the "FMT" says so. Now, this is how I understand your arguments. I may be wrong.
Honestly leads me to mention that I not an economist, but a Law School Graduate. However, Contract law is based, for the most part, in economic theory. I was able to learn more in depth about the relation between "law and Economics" when i was preparing for my thesis paper while taking a class, under a libertarian professor. The class taught the "perfectly competitive model" and its usage in creating public policy. I have to say, that although not a libertarian, i learned a lot and because of my professors' objectivity, i gained some "respect" for this type of analysis. Yet, I still do not considered myself a Capitalist.
I think that both theories assumed that we have limited resources. The issue is how to best "manage" such limited resources. Free market theory advocates the law of supply and demand as the true managerial forces of our limited resources. RBE, in my understanding, advocates for management of our resources not based on "supply and demand" but on "availability and need." There lies a problem, "need" is someone subjective: what do we really need to survive? and in some ironic way "need" becomes "demand." I think supply and "availability" are objective, and for the most part measurable.
So, maybe it is just semantics? maybe both mean the same?
I think, however, that they can be distinguish. From my perspective, "supply/demand" is based on "want" or "desire" of the individual with disregard to future negative effect on society or sustainability. The system works by asking, "what do i want NOW, and can I get it NOW."
On the other hand, RBE is based, in my opinion, on long tern sustainability. in this case, the first step is a survey of what resources are "available", and then, how can those resources meet future "foreseeable" necessaries and for how many.
I know there are many other issues, but because of space this would be a good start, because at least to me, efficient resource management is the main issue.
Second, I also would like to point out, that although i do lean towards RBE, I understand there are many hurdles to its "current" implementations (Political, maybe technological and logistical, current human nature or sense of social consciousness). But, I do believe that it is possible in the future. Just as "Democracy" has evolve in the course of 2000 years, so can Economic Systems.
Dear Jim
with all due respect, I think you´re a coward.
Regarding your video "Why I Don't Advocate The Venus Project and The Resource Based Economy", you don´t allow Likes, Dislikes, nor Comments, but you demand a challenge to people. In this page you say you don´t reply...
I wont watch your so called "2 hour reading" economy documents, nor watching any of your videos related to your challenge, nor any other stuff,
BECAUSE YOU´RE NOT OPENED TO DIALOG. Its not that you don´t have a point! You´re just too afraid of what others have to say. You´re NOT:
. open 4 debate
. willing to find solutions
Let´s see if I´m even allowed to put this comment on your page.
Good luck to you on your journey.
Literally everything you say and imply is dead wrong per usual with Zeitgeist members.
1. I do enable comments and ratings on all of my videos except 1 because of the sheer volume of comments that flood my inbox. I did post a mirror on my backup channel with ratings and comments enabled
2. I ended my challenge, twice. Once in the video and the final time in August. You should pay attention more.
3. Then don't read it. I don't care if you leave your religion or stay.
4. I am "opened" to dialog, in case you haven't seen the vast ammounts of dialog I've had just on this blog post alone. I've also have had various other blog posts and video debates with TZM over the span of 2 years. I'm just done debunking magic beans because hardly anyone is buying TZMs magic beans any more.
5. I do have a point, but you just said you were going to read it, dumbass
6. Aside from spam, VTV's sockpuppet trolling, and blatantly racist or violently threatening comment here; all comments are set to auto approval. Always has and always will.
7. I do care what others have to say, just not about Zeitgeist, Venus Project, homeopathy, creationism, multi level marketing or any other bullshit scam.
8. I am open for debate, just not about bullshit irrelevant things people don't subscribe to anymore.
I might as well debate flat earth idiots than TZM, they have more believers.
Good luck in your religious studies.
It's quite funny that people who are living in USA with capitalism and free-market are arguing if they should live in communism, socialism and centraly-planed-market.
Why? I was born and live in Poland. When I was born Poland was a communistic country with what we call "socrealism" deployed. Since World War II for over 30 years people were put and used into different economy system than before the War. The system has a motto "Everyone gives as much as he can and receives as much as he needs". Capitalists were evil. Everything was state controlled. Nicely planned. Well designed. In theory.
Communism had very good theory, especialy for people who survived nightmare of war. Who had to recover ruined cities. Who live in dangerous environment. They had clean start. No conversion and transitions required. Just build up everything from scratch.
At the beginning it was impressive. Cities were planned. Buildings were rebuilt. Factories and heavy industry was developed. Agriculture was restored. My grandparents were a first adult generation of this society. When they describe their feelings it sounds that after the nightmare of War they really believed in better system.
After that started first symptoms that you can not plan centrally. That you can not predict weather, events, demand, growth, development. And that the resources are limited. RBE is for me an utopia of unlimited resources. Of course they are. The Universe compared to human civilisation is so huge that we will never exhaust it. There is plenty energy in stars, and plenty minerals in distant planets and moons. But it costs us effort and time to harvest and process this resources. And our outcome is limited.
So how it was in Poland? Everyone had lots of money. Everyone had a job. 0% of unemployment. Police ("Milicja") were chasing people who did not want to work. Everyone had an education, medical healthcare. My parents as young couple received a small community flat.
So did we live in utopia and ideal society? Obviously not. And I can say that not because lack of computing power, technology, resources... because such system does not work.
In pracitice it was a disaster. Everyone had a job and plenty of money but shops were empty. Used cars were more expensive than new cars because for new car you had to wait several years with no guarantee of success. And there was no consumer market at all.
It is what I remember as a child. Everything was grey, boring and same. Soap is a soap. Why to develop various colors and smells of it? It is a waste of resources. Central planners say "Produce soap!" so here it is. Furniture? How many types of furniture you need? Three-four designs is enough. Car? We had three factories - for passenger cars, for delivery vans and for trucks. It will move you and you things from point A to point B. More is a waste of resources. Flats and houses? Individual house is a waste of resources. There were "factories of houses". They produced unified prefabricated concrete flats. "M1" type for single. "M2" for couple. "M3" for couple with child. Central planners decide how many flats is needed and allocated them.
At the end of this system another factor appeared. Which stays deep in Poland. It is carelessness. Why should I care if I have no reward? It does not matter if I do my job with passion or not. The effect is the same. I have same amount of resources allocated and my "customers" also. There was a saying "Czy sie stoi czy sie lezy 1000 zlotych sie nalezy" which means "Does not metter if you are standing or lying - you get your 1000 zl of payment anyway".
What happens next. You get some people who are against "central planers". Who do not agree. Who want something different. Then starts comitees, politics, support... When significant number of people is disapointed they do not follow the rules of the society. They do "black market" of centrally developed goods, they use "state production resources" to provide goods and services for them and their families. And usually there are people who claim that they would be better planners, better designers. If you let them to do so - the system will be no longer existing. So you don't. Then you need a force to keep the order. If you need this people, their skills or workforce - you can not let them leave you. So you close the borders. At the end you need propaganda. You need security forces. You need leaders, their administration and leaders.
And you can have it even without money or financial system.
So to sum it up. I read Jim's posts and I fully agree with them. The Venus Project, RBE and similars are unreal.
If you still do not believe it:
1. I can send you links to photos and films about everyday's live in Poland 1945-2012. You can see how RBE utopia looks in practice.
2. Now we have computers - you can simulate. Try to develop a simulator which covers every aspect of human economy. Make it open source. Proove that you can handle the topics. Good luck.
3. Do a proof of concept. Try to do central planning for your family for a month. For your wife, children, brother, sister, parents. Make a survey about their food preferences, how many clothes they need, fuel etc. You know them and their habbits. Plan not in terms of money but in terms of goods. You can publish your plan to them. And go to shop and buy them in advance for complete month. If it is not possible write down your estimations (even with buffers). After the month you will see how impossible is to plan all aspects of unpredictible.
I am open for discussion.
Few pictures for RBE enthusiasts...
Prefabricated blocks of flats. Quick to build for thousands of families. Free for every member of community (if available):
http://www.rzeszow4u.pl/upload/Polska/pierwsze-bloki-z-wielkiej-plyty-za-kilka-lat-zaczna-sie-kruszyc.jpg
http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/8/6298/z6298178X,Osiedle-Zwyciestwa-w-Poznaniu.jpg
Distribution of resources:
http://www.rodzinapolska.pl/poznajprawde/archiwum/2004/kartki/kartka1.jpg
To control the demand everyone was given a special card. It could not be exchanged (issued for particular name, valid with identity document). With every purchase the part of card was cut off and collected by the shop who had to settle it with controllers. Under a link you see a card for luxuries like flour ("maka"), candies ("cukierki"), sugar ("cukier")...
http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/3/7814/z7814633X,Papier-toaletowy---dzisiaj-powszechnie-dostepny--towar.jpg
Toilet paper was completly unpredictible and underplanned. My theory is that simple goods are hardest to plan because their components are used in many more complex products. At the picture couple of happy young people who get collected their limit of toilet paper.
http://republika.pl/blog_vf_4702969/7160295/tr/kolejka.jpg
Usualy there were a limit of quantity for single transaction in the shop. So if you wanted more you standed in queue multiple times...
Empty shop with no queue means for sure that the demand is fulfilled and all goods are corectly distributed. Let's buy some meat for dinner...
http://www.zgapa.pl/zgapedia/data_pictures/_uploads_wiki/t/Towary.jpeg
What is that queue for? Does not care. It is so hard to get anything that I will take everything up to the limit and exchange with neigbours and friends.
http://www.wszechnica.solidarnosc.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/IS_1978.11.-04-72.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdjxrcL3U61rurv44.gif
What he said wasn't non-sequitur. Of course food isn't a binary choice like turn or not turn a switch. But that doesn't matter when you've got no scarcity at all (which is completly possible when technology is used at its best, like using hidroponics to plant our food).
If there's a city with 100 people, and 10% of them want baked potato but there isn't any baked potato on the supply, they will have to choose anything else. When they demand "baked potato", they are informed that there is none at the moment and the statistics of how many people ordered baked potato in that day/week would be sent to the Center of Food Supply and the agronomy engineers would work out so there would be baked potato next day/week/month. This is how it would work.
And I'm not a ZeitTard, I'm just trying to debate about this issue and see what's best. As for now I still think the Venus Project is possible if there is enough effort and if people put their greed away.
A critic I'd have about the venus Project is: how it would begin? If it started in a single Country, there would not be enough resourses and the other countries would retaliate. What you think about this?
"If there's a city with 100 people, and 10% of them want baked potato but there isn't any baked potato on the supply, they will have to choose anything else."
Meanwhile the market that supposedly never does anything right according to Zeitgeisters, I've never been to any store and seen any ingredient for backed potatoes that were out of stock. Ever.But here I am in Zeitgeistopia and I'm already told there's a shortage of baked potatoes.
I hate to break it to you, but that idea you have was tried many times. It's basic central planning. It doesn't work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PxUHanjoyw
Apparently we know what we need to consume because corporations and local grocery stores have calculated using statistics of hundreds of years to produce, so that we, the consumers, have the ability to eat these foods that would allow us to have these nutritious values and minerals circulating in our bodies. The amounts of proteins we need are calculated all the time by these local stores, or better yet we calculate how much we need or want to eat. Because we need to calculate everything we consume, so we can consume more product based on our calculation........ OMFG nicely retardedly done. Of course, we need to create a distribution system in the Venus Project because of its inconsistency to feed and distribute from the central government that needs to calculate each individual's need. Apparently you haven't watched The Venus Project, and you ass-ume of course that it is similar to Marxism or Socialism Soviet Union of the Republics. Please observe the logic behind what the Zeitgeist ILLUMINATI CONSPIRATORS WANT WHEN THEY TRY TO CONTROL THE WURLLLDDD! Apparently you didn't see that there needs to be a paradigm shift in logic and comprehension where people will need to understand that beef may be not such a great product to extract protein from. Plant life is more than welcome to be abundant due to the highly over-productive use of cattle which graze the fields excessively. No we shouldn't calculate for communities based on need, and oh, let's forget about intrinsic incentive. We should focus only extrinsic and only based on demand. TVP is not meant for people who have wants that are destroying this planet. TVP is a new philosophical progression to suggest that we are aware that our planet has finite resources, and that we live with other organisms that share the planet. But of course, this is the same as what Marx says, definitely because you must have read Marx, it seems, apparent.
1. Grocery stores rely on prices to calculate what we want; not nutrition. Enjoy your Potato-Soy-Lentil paste. Because that's all you "need"
2. RBE is Communism. Period. I have read Marx, it's communism. THere's not a Zeitard on this planet that knows what communism is. Instead of just believing everything Fresco tells you about Marxists; fucking ask one. http://www.revleft.com/vb/zeitgeist-movement-t97520/index.html Shit's communism. End of story.
3. "Paradigm shift" is the new way of saying "HUmans are blank slates so we will mold them to fit our society." Soivets tried to evolve human behavior and failed. Not just them, virtually every high modernist scheme ever tried tries this and failed because: humans are not blanks slates and humans have innate behaviors. Here's a peer reviewed scientific literature which you won't read because TZM and TVP isn't interested in science, they're only interested in shitty YouTube videos. But if you're going to at least play the role about knowing anything about science, you can read a copy of Hustler and use this book a to hide the cover. "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Prof. Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0142003344/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0142003344&linkCode=as2&tag=intjimjesblo-20
Talk on the book: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL85BB1CDE6E756138
3. "TVP is a new..." Let me cut you off there. There is absolutely nothing new about TVP except the lingo.
4. No one gives a shit about RBE, TZM or TVP: Not even TZM and TVP. Or me. People are leaving in droves, viewership is down, events like Z-Day and media festival are more empty and sad, and hardly anyone one is making videos (pro or against) about shitty robo-commune-utopias. Shit's dead. Times to find a new conspiracy cult of personality to follow and regurgitate every word of.
TZM and TVP: the ever egoistic, conspiracy nutter, pseudoscience ideology cult of personality of last decade. RIP: 2008-2011
*sips wine.* We hardly knew ye.
Jesus Jim, my mom says God doesn't make dump people but after reading your logic God definitively doesn't exist.
Yes, God doesn't exist. Just a pointer for future reference: If you're going to call people dumb, at least spell it right. It makes you look dumb.
Jim Jesus,
You say that "peoples wants are infinite". I learn psychology (as an online marketer) especially manipulation techniques since half a decade now. Where is your evidence that "peoples wants are infinite"? That's a pretty bold statement and needs very good evidence. I don't see any evidence for it.
The wants of people is simply correlated to their value system, which is the result of the underlying system (or rather, which values are vastly supported and enforced both directly and indirectly). So, peoples wants HIGHLY depend on their environment.
The excessive wants are a result of MARKETING MANIPULATION over the past 7 decades or so. The needs of people 70 years ago where A LOT different than today.
In regards to RBE/TVP. I honestly don't know if it can work. What I know is that it CANNOT work if you simply put people from our current society into this new system. Atleast, it would bring a TON of problems with it until the society has adjusted their values.
So, the only way to have an RBE is if the people change their values. This can only be done through very efficient education. Our current education system is utter crap. We have to get better education in place.
In regards to capitalism. I can safely tell you that it is absolutely impossible to have capitalism without corruption. In all the years I worked in business, there is ONE thing that is ever-present:
Manipulation and Deceive is the MOST EFFECTIVE way of business. PERIOD. I have yet to find a company that isn't corrupt.
One of my best teachers once told me: "Business cannot be fair. If you're being fair, you're not trying hard enough".
>Where is your evidence that "peoples wants are infinite"?
Um, everywhere? I don't understand why people want to deny this, it's rather evident. You don't want a tablet? A cure for cancer? To explore the galaxy? We all do.
>The excessive wants are a result of MARKETING MANIPULATION
So make me an ad that will make me want to buy tampons or surströmming. People want to pretend that marketing is so powerful, but it's not. It only works on the margins. No amount of advertising will ever manipulating me into buying rotten fish or personal hygiene products for parts I don't have. The reason why we have different desires is because we are more wealthier and are more technologically advanced than 70 years ago. Why do I need ice delivery service? I have a refrigerator.
>In regards to RBE/TVP. I honestly don't know if it can work. What I know is that it CANNOT work if you simply put people from our current society into this new system.
Of course not. The problem is the idea of social engineering is false. There's a great book on this The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. This idea that you can re-egineer human behavior to bring about a communal stateless utopia is not new and is not untested.
>I can safely tell you that it is absolutely impossible to have capitalism without corruption.
And you can't have RBE free from corruption. The point is to have ways for checks and balances and for RBE there are none. We're just to assume that scientists, technicians and engineers are free from corruption or nefarious intent. Capitalism has property rights enforcement and consumer advocacy organizations.
>In all the years I worked in business, there is ONE thing that is ever-present:
Manipulation and Deceive is the MOST EFFECTIVE way of business. PERIOD.
So make me an ad that will make me want tampons.
Post a Comment