A Resource Based Economy

[LightRider]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

You think we can have an economy where everything is free?

haha.

You're worse than the the worst of the pinkos.

Actually, you have it backwards. In the monetary system, everything is free, because money is a nothing thing. We want to consider the full costs of production and only provide the best for people and the environment. Something that cannot be done within a monetary system.

[1714308472]

1714308472

[loulis]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

I propose an altcoin with x% inflation/year & x% tax/year. Mining for ever, without total coin inflation. This would be a good start. Also this is a very good idea:  "Cybercurrency: bandwidth-as-a-currency" https://github.com/Tribler/tribler/wiki

[Erdogan]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

I propose an altcoin with x% inflation/year & x% tax/year. Mining for ever, without total coin inflation. This would be a good start. Also this is a very good idea:  "Cybercurrency: bandwidth-as-a-currency" https://github.com/Tribler/tribler/wiki

When bitcoin has freed the world, you can create such money and much more.

[neurotypical]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

You think we can have an economy where everything is free?

haha.

You're worse than the the worst of the pinkos.

Where does he say that and where do you address the 3 questions?

[Rassah]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

Yes, it was posted, and I answered here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373.msg9341977#msg9341977

[manselr]

You need to be several levels of delusional as hell to think things can go on the way they are perpetually. We will sooner or later hit a zero point where automation is simply too advanced for a market to function as we know it, because the people needed to be productive will be less than the people needed to be productive. We are heading more and more towards some sort of universal wellfare for a lot of people that simply aren't needed, because as advanced species we recognize human rights and people that aren't born with the capabilities to be intellectually useful for an advanced society don't deserve to die thanks to a life of shitty resources because like I said before, you aren't lucky enough to be useful enough for that society to create wealth and get paid. This is creating most of the crime right now: If you need resources but you don't know how to create wealth, well you are going to take it by force because you need these resources. So if you get stabbed by some desperate person in need of basic resources, don't cry and next time consider if things would have been the same if he had basic requeriments to live a decent life guaranteed.
In 1000 years automation will be insanely advanced, we can now pop houses out of a 3D printer, in 1000 years automation will be insane, we can't even comprehend it now. Only engineers and technical people that can fix the machines if they malfunction will be needed. Most of the stuff that breaks is due programmed obsolence to boot. So get it through your skull: We are approaching a serious zero point within our current system. It may take 100, 1000 years, but it will happen, because we are headed towards it and technical progress only drivers us closer to it.

And lol at needing competition for BASIC RESOURCES to create interesting things. How dumb is that? Do you thing Tesla, Einstein, Bach, DaVinci and so on, where interested on their sciences/art because of that? or because they wanted a lot of wealth? get some perspective there. The notion of how if everyone had their basics needs needed no one would come up with more innovation is one of the dumbest theories of all time. We will always be under treats if you still want to maintain that theory, we are on constant treats of illneses, or even the sun eventually exploding. Our future is in space, colonizing other planets. If everyone had their basic needs meet tomorrow, there would still be people inspired to create good art and there would be people inspired to research and discover unknown things. Only a delusional out-of-touch person would think otherwise.

[LightRider]

You need to be several levels of delusional as hell to think things can go on the way they are perpetually. We will sooner or later hit a zero point where automation is simply too advanced for a market to function as we know it, because the people needed to be productive will be less than the people needed to be productive. We are heading more and more towards some sort of universal wellfare for a lot of people that simply aren't needed, because as advanced species we recognize human rights and people that aren't born with the capabilities to be intellectually useful for an advanced society don't deserve to die thanks to a life of shitty resources because like I said before, you aren't lucky enough to be useful enough for that society to create wealth and get paid. This is creating most of the crime right now: If you need resources but you don't know how to create wealth, well you are going to take it by force because you need these resources. So if you get stabbed by some desperate person in need of basic resources, don't cry and next time consider if things would have been the same if he had basic requeriments to live a decent life guaranteed.
In 1000 years automation will be insanely advanced, we can now pop houses out of a 3D printer, in 1000 years automation will be insane, we can't even comprehend it now. Only engineers and technical people that can fix the machines if they malfunction will be needed. Most of the stuff that breaks is due programmed obsolence to boot. So get it through your skull: We are approaching a serious zero point within our current system. It may take 100, 1000 years, but it will happen, because we are headed towards it and technical progress only drivers us closer to it.

And lol at needing competition for BASIC RESOURCES to create interesting things. How dumb is that? Do you thing Tesla, Einstein, Bach, DaVinci and so on, where interested on their sciences/art because of that? or because they wanted a lot of wealth? get some perspective there. The notion of how if everyone had their basics needs needed no one would come up with more innovation is one of the dumbest theories of all time. We will always be under treats if you still want to maintain that theory, we are on constant treats of illneses, or even the sun eventually exploding. Our future is in space, colonizing other planets. If everyone had their basic needs meet tomorrow, there would still be people inspired to create good art and there would be people inspired to research and discover unknown things. Only a delusional out-of-touch person would think otherwise.

This guy knows what's up. I doubt it would take 100 years to reach such a state given the rapidly accelerating rate of technological innovation and scientific discovery though.

[LightRider]

Three questions which point out the failures of the monetary market system. What do you propose to do about it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

1) Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for improved ecological sustainability in the world today?

Yes. It's the price. As resources get too used, and become scarce, their supply, and thus price, will go up. Things like cost of oil, gas, and other resources going up will make us look for cheaper alternatives, like solar, wind, nuclear, wave, and other more easily acquired, though less dense, sources of energy. Removing barriers to being able to bring lawsuits against companies that damage other's property (the environment those others live in), the barriers which are ironically instituted by regulations created by the environmental protection agencies meant to prevent pollution from happening in the first place, will help a lot too. (For example, we can't sue BP and Horizons for the oil spill, because they made a deal with the EPA that they will pay a relatively minor fine for the damage, as proscribed by prior environmental regulations and related punishments for damages, in exchange for protection against any future lawsuits by private entities).

Dude makes a blatant mistake here by claiming that the market "promotes and rewards infinite consumption." Yes, if we could consume infinitely, then the company creating that product would be able to make infinite products, but in the real world, real scarcity forces the market to look for alternatives when things we consume become more scarce. So, price of the scarce thing goes up, companies look for alternatives, jobs involved with the old consumption product die, jobs around a new product gets creates, and we move on to consuming something else. (Do note that, right now, mining out, refining, and burning oil is still much more efficient than mining materials for, creating, and using solar panels and batteries. We know this because one is much cheaper than the other, the price telling us how scarce and efficient each option is.

2) In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs (“cost efficiency”) in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?

Human beings are able to perform much more diverse jobs than machines, and are much easier to teach complex tasks than computers. As long as this is true, we will still need human beings to perform jobs machines can't, OR perform jobs that machines are too expensive to use for. So the premise that "the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply..." is false. Farming equipment can do the job much cheaper than human farmers, but we need humans to design, maintain, and operate it. Office software can create and manage documents and spreadsheets much faster and easier than dozens of humans with pencils, papers, and calculators, yet we need people to design and code this software, and know how to use it. Likewise, a fast food place that uses a burger making robot will not be able to compete with a fast food place where unskilled labor humans can be taught to make different types of burgers and other food items every few months. Robots are cheap only because they can make a lot of the same thing over and over, but the machines themselves are extremely expensive, so buying one of these pretty much locks you into producing a single type of item for a long time. And time is ALWAYS limited in our lives, so there will ALWAYS be something out there that we would rather hire someone else to do for us (clean house, walk dog, watch baby, cut lawn, etc.) The main limits are not machine automation making jobs obsolete, since that has been happening for centuries and has been creating more and more different jobs in the process. The main limits are the legal and regulatory limits to whom you can hire to do what and for how much.

So, to answer this question, the structural incentive is competition itself, driven by our need for things to be new, unique, and different, and by our ever scarce time, which means companies have to diversify and customize the products and services they can offer, and do it quicker, meaning those people who used to make shoes by hand, can now instead use those shoe-making robots to design a bigger variety of shoes, invent much more complex and technically advanced shoes, or make custom shoes that are very specific in design and function to each customer that orders them.

As for the "thinking machines" fear. we used to do all math on paper using nothing but pencils. Calculators came about, and instead of losing all our math skills to calculators, we simply used them as tools to make more complex math easier for everyone. Advanced calculators, and eventually computers came out, and instead of losing all our math jobs to computers, we are simply focusing on doing much more abstract math, such as calculating financial forecasts, mechanical loads on a construction design, or interaction of radio and magnetic fields for complex communications systems, at a MUCH higher and more complex level, letting computers do all the nitty gritty mathematics stuff. Even the much more advanced and involved stuff. This frees the financial analyst, bridge engineer, or communications systems designer, to focus on the larger picture and more abstract and complex designs, rather than have them slave in front of a paper and pencil, or even a calculator, for weeks for every single tiny change in their idea (changes that are now processed and results given for in seconds). These "scary" more and more complex thinking machines that are being shown as boogie men will simply keep making the job of thinking and processing data easier for us, just as calculators have improved on the abacus, and computers have improved on the calculator. So, for example, instead of losing your architectural design job to a thinking robot that can design architecture just as well as you could, you will work to come up with architectural concepts, like "Colonial mixed with Greek, X meters wide, Y meters deep, Z meters tall," the thinking robot will whip up the best design combination it can think up of, and you will spend your time tweaking to make sure it looks pleasing, unique, and functional, without having to recalculate every window and every load bearing wall's structural integrity.


By the way, side comment, his claim that "All it takes is 20% to 30% rate of unemployment to destabilize society into disorder and outrage" is complete and total bullshit. I won't even ask where he got that number from, but for the longest time women didn't even work, meaning that unemployment was near 50%. Right now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000), 59% of the population in US is employed. That means that, right now, in USA, about 40% of the population is unemployed. No "disorder and outrage" here. At least not yet.

3) In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral, emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an effect?

"Structural Violence" is a made up bullshit term for "some people are not skilled enough to produce and survive in this world as others." There is no answer to this one, because we are all different, and some people will simply be more skilled, more driven, and more clever to survive than others. Moreso, there SHOULDN'T be an answer, because this difference and competitiveness is what drives us to create, invent, and come up with ways to survive more efficiently in the first place. A business that is committing so-called "structural violence" on a group of people by producing a product those people are not able to produce more efficiently, DRIVES those people to invent a completely new product that itself will be more efficient, or more useful, than that business's product. Overcoming of "structural violence" is the key to progress, and will not happen without it. This is why the idea of everyone being taken care of, and everything anyone ever wants can be provided to them, is the idea of nothing changing, everyone sitting around being content and not doing anything, and our race becoming a dull, boring parasite.

So, in short, Peter Joseph is still a moron with no understanding of the thing he criticizes, and no creativity or imagination.

1. Price, in the context of a fiat monetary market system, is a poor indicator and signal of resource requirements, use and distribution. In a resource based economy, we would use reality based, rational and scientifically valid data about human needs, efficiency and real social and environmental costs into consideration when it comes to arriving at such decisions.

2. Automation has, is continuing to, and will ultimately replace human labor for a significant percentage of the world's labor needs. Machine learning is already at a point where it is better than human output in some critical areas or is at least catching up rapidly, and is only getting to get better. While we do need humans to engineer and teach the machines, this number is tiny in comparison to the total population that "need jobs" in order to live. This is the great fallacy of capitalism that we've known about and ignored for many decades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx310zM3tLs

3. The fact that you do not or can not recognize structural violence as a real phenomenon indicates that you are ignorant of a great many things. Please try to be more aware of reality.

[BitCoinNutJob]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

You think we can have an economy where everything is free?

haha.

You're worse than the the worst of the pinkos.

Depends on what you mean by everything and free.... i can see basic provisions being free in the not too distant future (100 years or whatever). Homeless people/diseased people/people committing petty crime are a pain in the ass for society & rich people cant exploit these types too easy.

So... For someone who wants to live the life of a monk for example.. if basic life standards are supplied then they have everything they need/want.

[Rassah]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

You think we can have an economy where everything is free?

haha.

You're worse than the the worst of the pinkos.

Depends on what you mean by everything and free.... i can see basic provisions being free in the not too distant future (100 years or whatever). Homeless people/diseased people/people committing petty crime are a pain in the ass for society & rich people cant exploit these types too easy.

So... For someone who wants to live the life of a monk for example.. if basic life standards are supplied then they have everything they need/want.

Supplied by whom?

[steelhouse]

Suppose you have a mile of fence to paint.  According to a liberals, it is good for you if you start to use corporate tools you will be labeled as a corporatist.  The greedy corporation selling you stuff and making a profit.  You will be continually taxed to the point no matter what you do you are still spending the same amount of time to paint the fence.  Thus a resource based economy is an economy without the communists, democrats, socialists, progressives, marxists.  It is an individualistic based republic, anarchy, where capitalism is taken as good.

In summary, I just wanted the fence painted to watch the football game and go to Europe.  But, the liberals hurt me.

[Rassah]

I do not see how people have such a hard time comprehending the true nature of capitalism as that of violence, greed & war

Some people just have no idea what capitalism is, so they think it has something to do with violence, greed, and war. When actually, war is caused by governments, not capitalism, and all capitalism is, is two people willing to trade resources, be those physical property, labor, or intellect. That's all. Capitalism is competition and cooperation. Violence and war are the opposite of capitalism, perpetrated by governments and criminals.

[Erdogan]

I do not see how people have such a hard time comprehending the true nature of capitalism as that of violence, greed & war

Some people just have no idea what capitalism is, so they think it has [not] something to do with violence, greed, and war. When actually, war is caused by governments, [who really are nothing but men in the business of rulership in the free market] , not capitalism [since an idea cannot physically war], and all capitalism is, is two people willing to trade resources [to enrich themselves at the possible expense of others], be those physical property, [which they don't really own], labor, or intellect. That's all. Capitalism is competition and cooperation, [kinda like your local hooded thugs]. Violence and war are the opposite of [an RBE, in contrast to] capitalism, perpetrated by governments and criminals.

There, fixed your bromide comment for you!

When you vote, you believe that it is your views and wants that are executed by the chosen leader. That is an illusion. What really happens, is that the power to use violence is inherited, but now not through blood, but through the popular will. The sovereign/serf relationship is the same as with the kings.

When you consume an olympic game or a free mobile phone, you think that the leader has given you the game, when it is really you who have given him those resources, and more.

You think that you choose to give up those resources for your own good, but when you learn that it is for him, you become an enemy of the state and you will be killed, proactively.

[Erdogan]

The relative freedom you sense, if you live in a democracy, is real, just as it was in the time of the kings, if you happened to live under a benign sovereign. The chain is invisible, and you can even cut it altogether, but only if you choose to live in poverty and keep your knowledge to yourself.

[picolo]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

You think we can have an economy where everything is free?

haha.

You're worse than the the worst of the pinkos.

Depends on what you mean by everything and free.... i can see basic provisions being free in the not too distant future (100 years or whatever). Homeless people/diseased people/people committing petty crime are a pain in the ass for society & rich people cant exploit these types too easy.

So... For someone who wants to live the life of a monk for example.. if basic life standards are supplied then they have everything they need/want.

Then it will not be free, it will be subsided and if you need to give away 1Billion to a group, you will need to take by force 1.5Billion to an other group

[Erdogan]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

You think we can have an economy where everything is free?

haha.

You're worse than the the worst of the pinkos.

Depends on what you mean by everything and free.... i can see basic provisions being free in the not too distant future (100 years or whatever). Homeless people/diseased people/people committing petty crime are a pain in the ass for society & rich people cant exploit these types too easy.

So... For someone who wants to live the life of a monk for example.. if basic life standards are supplied then they have everything they need/want.

Then it will not be free, it will be subsided and if you need to give away 1Billion to a group, you will need to take by force 1.5Billion to an other group

Peace, freedom and nothing at all free. That's what we want.

[Rassah]

all capitalism is, is two people willing to trade resources [to possibly enrich themselves at the expense of others]

LOL! What? If I give you $40 for an old video card of yours, at who's expense is that trade made??? If you ask me to proofread a document of yours, and pay me $5 for my time, at who's expense is that trade made???

be those physical property, [which they don't really own]

Ok, then who owns it? Who owns the collection of comics, or art, or statues in my house? Who owns the bitcoins that I have the private key to?

[Rassah]

You're asking the wrong question. At whose expense am I sauntering down the street? Depends on the situation.

OK, at whose expense are you sauntering down the street, and how does this sauntering apply to " possibly enrich themselves at the expense of others"?

Who owns the raw material? You control the private keys; you don't own them.

OK, then who owns the raw materials, and who owns the bitcoins I control?

[BitCoinNutJob]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

You think we can have an economy where everything is free?

haha.

You're worse than the the worst of the pinkos.

Depends on what you mean by everything and free.... i can see basic provisions being free in the not too distant future (100 years or whatever). Homeless people/diseased people/people committing petty crime are a pain in the ass for society & rich people cant exploit these types too easy.

So... For someone who wants to live the life of a monk for example.. if basic life standards are supplied then they have everything they need/want.

Supplied by whom?

Maybe we will create some kind of decentralized basic resource allocation network system, perhaps some rich people wont like it and try to shut it down/control/manipulate and they might have some success but the poor/others will defend it.  Just like how the internet is now.  

[BitCoinNutJob]

Did anyone post this?

Founder of the zeitgeist movement asks for 3 answers and propositions for the following 3 questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

You think we can have an economy where everything is free?

haha.

You're worse than the the worst of the pinkos.

Depends on what you mean by everything and free.... i can see basic provisions being free in the not too distant future (100 years or whatever). Homeless people/diseased people/people committing petty crime are a pain in the ass for society & rich people cant exploit these types too easy.

So... For someone who wants to live the life of a monk for example.. if basic life standards are supplied then they have everything they need/want.

Then it will not be free, it will be subsided and if you need to give away 1Billion to a group, you will need to take by force 1.5Billion to an other group

Internet is "free" to receive information resources from, the internet doesnt have to take anything by force to provide this.

I say "free" cause obviously to connect to the internet you have to use some of own personal resources, but its very cheap overall and the highest quality of diverse information available.