Guess I should stop playing angel's advocate for them now. 

Although I believe such an automated city would still be a valid "product" also in a market economy. Some people don't want to be concerned with these pesky earthly belongings all the time.

All in all, one man's utopia is another man's dystopia. Maybe a free world can only mean that like-minded people can come together in respective communities and implement their vision of society. Some would be more individualist and based on the performance principle, and others more on redistribution and equality principles. Then let's hope they'd all respect each other.

yup, this is also a strong point for the simulation argument. The player has to enter the simulation at some point, and you'd design it in a way that he can't explain how the hell he got there. ("Where do we come from, where do we go?")

No. Welcome to Neo-Marxism.


Remember they want to abolish private property. They say it's unnecessary because everything will be sufficiently abundant, also because of sharing. Cars will be available in an underground garage in your living area, and you just take one if you need one. Computers would track the frequency of usage, as said.

Now what if at a certain point in time all cars are gone? Your gnash your teeth and take the transit. Takes a little longer, but you'll survive. If it bothers you because it happens too often to you and you really prefer cars over the transit, and you believe they are more important than smartphones (using the same rare earths), I imagine the RBE system will have plenty of parameters where people can democratically vote if cars or smartphones are more important to them, and the system will recalculate the production processes.

If you don't agree with what most people vote, maybe you can even move to another city where you'll get more cars because people there vote more in your favor. Also you probably can study engineering and contribute to more efficient production processes so you and everyone can have more cars.  

@memvola: All I really want to say is I wouldn't state it's absolutely impossible either. That said, I would want to see Zeitgeist people working on more detailed, low level concepts too, like writing simulations, whatever.


I guess the important point and main difference to our current model of economics is that the Zeitgeisters want to eliminate competition, which of course means we'd have a globally computer-controlled planned economy and a giant single point of failure.


I guess the essence of RBE is there'll be no companies, and the resources that are currently available are a given. When harvesting, the computers would also calculate what's sustainable what's environmentally tolerable. Where supply of goods is rather limited than abundant due to scarcity of resources, they postulate recycling and much more modularity and sharing, as said. Recycling would also be more effective in a market economy at some point of course, but probably doesn't happen because third world mining and labor is unfortunately still cheaper (i.e. political reasons).

I'm a bit torn here.

The 1.0 stateless model fits better with the browser navigation model. Wikipedia (for the consumer) is the power app for this.

Web 2.0 allows complex applications to run completely in the browser inside one webpage. Then you don't need to be concerned with problems of storing state information in sessions on the server alongside other users and all the bugs and security problems that can come with it. Most information can be kept client-side, just like in the old age of desktop apps.

yup, we're probably a worker colony, prison or zoo in the outer belts. The law and the long arm of the galactic federation can't reach our keepers so easily.

That was just one guy working on it at one time. I have faith such problems would be eventually solved. For now I can imagine to rather apply fuzzy logic, statistical analyses, etc... Decentralized crypto-currency was considered impossible for quite some time either.


I still don't see the problem here. Tracking and measuring the rate of consumption of a certain good makes it very well comparable to other goods. This is equivalent to price information. This is not the labor theory of value, where salt and gold would cost the same if the effort to mine them was same.

A dream within a dream within a dream...

or, for tech-oriented left-brain people:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Then the question is if your consciousness data will be reused and expanded in some way or not by the outside computer system or its operator. This operator may very well be your (higher) self, and you are the avatar.

Right, they say abundance is achieved due to automated recycling technologies, which will make people stop being needy and greedy and unnecessarily hoarding food and stuffs. These technologies don't happen today because of profit motives.

Of course, in reality it's not because profit motives are in the way. Such a Venus Project city would be a perfectly valid endeavor also in an market economy. But I guess in reality no entrepreneur is willing to take on the risk to develop and implement these technologies, or entry costs are too high because of some laws (the evil state). Either way, the Zeitgeisters don't describe how to get there either, or are waiting for the big revolution, from what I gather.

For scarce resources, like (maybe flying) cars etc, they advocate a sharing model, so nothing that people who prefer it that way already do today. Of course, the question is unanswered that the scarcity can also be on the time axis. Like, I dunno, tickets for the super bowl final. Still they want to abolish money, and if people use cigs to trade them on the black markets, big brother PJ will jump out of the TV screen and smack them over I guess.

Well, this is not the problem I see with it. They postulate that RBE will achieve abundance, and a smart computer system has all information and will track all consumption, i.e. the rate at which items are taken from the shelves in the "stores", i.e. demand.

What concerns me rather is the political implications, i.e. the organ that is given the power to control all computers, machines, resources, and land to harvest them.

o rly?  where's the academic studies? 

Jo 2140 oder was wird meist angegeben, theoretisch kann das Mining aber immer weiter gehen, wenn die Satoshi-Untergrenze erweitert wird und der Bitcoin (immer noch) an Wert gewinnt, weil sich die Menschheit (exponentiell) ausbreitet und die Planeten besiedelt.  

then we could afford a new dumbphone instead of every year only every two years 

both correct. Originally, they're from Aldebaran actually and quite popular in, ahem, certain circles of the German conspiracy scene.

is aber ned auf da wiesn oder? 

irreführender Titel, es gibt doch bereits Bitcoin-Banken.

Lediglich aufpassen muss man, dass sich nicht die Geschichte wie mit dem Gold wiederholt. 

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Pywallet
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.0

 

Bitcoin ist auch dahingehend interessant, weil es viele althergebrachte Theoriegebäude der Makroökonomen über'n Haufen wirft. Denn die gehen immer von einem monolithischen System mit einer Währung und einer Zentralbank aus. Auch bei der österreichischen Schule wird meist von irgendeinem dominierenden Tauschmittel ausgegangen (Gold, regression theorem, Gresham's law, blah).

Da Bitcoin auf absehbare Zeit jedoch parallel zu Fiatwährungen laufen wird, kann man auch gut auf die Arbeit von Prof Bernard Lietaer aufsetzen, der nicht weniger als einer der Mitbegründer des Euro ist, aber nun für Komplementärwährungen missioniert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9EI2PrDpmw

Auch wenn sein Fokus natürlich ein anderer ist (Nachhaltigkeit etc), und er wahrscheinlich den Bitcoin daher gar nicht mal so toll findet. Von diesen ganzen alternativen Geldtheoretikern geht er aber noch am wissenschaftlichsten vor. Dieses Papier finde ich sehr interessant: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26248658/Is-Our-Monetary-Structure-a-Systemic-Cause-for-Financial-Instability-Bernard-Lietaer

Bitcoin ist meiner Meinung nach im Moment noch auch quasi eine Lokalwährung, i.e. eine Nischenwährung für nerdige Crypto-Anarchisten, auch wenn der Scope natürlich global ist. Somit kann der Bitcoin daher ebenso wie von Lietaer beschrieben das Fiat-Geldsystem ausbalancieren und damit die Gesamtwirtschaft stabilisieren.