Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:08:04 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 124 »
  Print  
Author Topic: A Resource Based Economy  (Read 261246 times)
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 28, 2011, 06:33:47 PM
 #381

So you agree with my definition of freedom?
Can you answer to this post?
LightRider's answers didn't told me much.

I address both issues on the video I'm editing right now, so the proper answer will come with that.

Generally speaking, the movement doesn't "reject" anything: you have to understand that this is not a coercive process. Nothing is outlawed, nor imposed, but we work in order to reduce the conditions that generate negative retroactions. So, trade would be acceptable in and RBE, it just wouldn't make much sense because you'll be given access to what you need. Still, if you want to trade, no problem, go ahead and do it.

What I think is missing is the central point of the whole RBE argument: we need to find a way to live sustainably on the planet in a peaceful, non coercive manner. The free market clearly fails in such regards, as do the socialists regimes, so there is a need for different system. We're trying to figure out the best way to do it with an open discussion, that's all.
Unlike traditional banking where clients have only a few account numbers, with Bitcoin people can create an unlimited number of accounts (addresses). This can be used to easily track payments, and it improves anonymity.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481177284
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177284

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177284
Reply with quote  #2

1481177284
Report to moderator
1481177284
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177284

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177284
Reply with quote  #2

1481177284
Report to moderator
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2011, 07:32:43 PM
 #382

So you agree with my definition of freedom?
Can you answer to this post?
LightRider's answers didn't told me much.

I address both issues on the video I'm editing right now, so the proper answer will come with that.


Cool. I'll wait and I hope to be answered there.

I'm cool with everything but the bold parts:

Generally speaking, the movement doesn't "reject" anything: you have to understand that this is not a coercive process. Nothing is outlawed, nor imposed, but we work in order to reduce the conditions that generate negative retroactions. So, trade would be acceptable in and RBE, it just wouldn't make much sense because you'll be given access to what you need. Still, if you want to trade, no problem, go ahead and do it.

Will I be given access to anything I want too or just what my body needs to survive?
Who is going to give me free access to those resources?

What I think is missing is the central point of the whole RBE argument: we need to find a way to live sustainably on the planet in a peaceful, non coercive manner. The free market clearly fails in such regards, as do the socialists regimes, so there is a need for different system. We're trying to figure out the best way to do it with an open discussion, that's all.

I don't think so. What free market? Do we live in a free market?
You think on money as a form of coercion and that's why you think it will just disappear, but money doesn't have to be necessarily coercing.
As I told you before, I don't completely agree with the austrian view. I think the structure of most moneys is flawed. Even sound money like gold or bitcoin. Their scarcity and everlastingness lead to interest, the real flaw of capitalism and not the free market.
I guess asking you about Gesell is too much. Although if you read long texts with the ease you refer them, you should definitely read his book. If you're interested in a critique of capitalism from a free market perspective, there's plenty of links in the post linked from my sign.
Gesell attacked money's everlastingness but you can also defeat interest with non-scarce moneys such as LETS or Ripple.
Maybe TZM can mention bitcoin or ripple as less coercive or transitory moneys to substitute the current ones before the coming extinction of money.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Michele1940
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW
June 28, 2011, 07:56:00 PM
 #383

But, what are these ambitions that we have ? Surely all of us have different goals and different levels of personal satisfaction, but if we scream off all the surface and go deep into the real meaning of our ambitions, we would see that we are all searching for the same thing :  Loved.

That's what you think. But if only one person disagrees with that, your theory goes to the trash can.

michele.siciliano :CAN U PROVE THIS USING YOUR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ?

In order to be Loved, we should first learn how to Love. This is a "spiritual law ". Actually the most important one. References can be found in the New testament when Jesus said to his disciples : " I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another". John 13:34. There are others of course.

I might as well use Harry Potter as a reference. I mean, the bible and Harry Potter are both fiction literature. I mean, you realize that there are atheists in here, don't you?

michele siciliano: PROBABLY YOU DO NOT REALIZE HOW TRUE IS THE ABOVE STATEMENT YOU HAVE MADE. HARY POTTER, THE HOLY BIBLE, THE LORD OF THE RING, STAR WARS AND MANY OTHERS, YOU CAN USE FOR REFERENCE.

SEE, THE DOCTRINE THAT LIES IN THE BACKGROUND OF ALL THOSE "FICTION LITERATURE", IS EXACTLY THE SAME. YOU JUST NEED WHAT THIS DOCTRINE IS. BUT YOU DON'T. STILL YOU CAN LEAR.

The word Love, does not have to be misunderstood as a term that describes a "sentiment", this is not the case. By Love it is intended a total let go of our material interests in order to follow the Universal Evolutive Plan.

Universal Evolutive Plan? That sounds like religion to me. I'm an atheist.

michele.siciliano: BEING AN ATHEIST IS A CHOICE. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT I WOULD RATHER SAY YOU ARE A PROFANE. WITHOUT ANY INTEND TO GIVE OFFENCE TO YOUR BELIEVES.

In order to do this, Freedom is essential. Cannot be otherwise. Saying that there is no freedom and that we are all subject to the law of nature, my dear Ligthrider, it is not possible since one thing exclude the other ! But I might have missed your point on this and if this is the case, I apologize.

I'll repeat it: Lightrider says that "there's no freedom" because he BELIEVES that "There is no free will". But science, at this moment cannot confirm not deny whether there's free will or not, because there's this little thing called Heisenberg uncertainty principle, therefore we DON'T KNOW right now if we live in a causal deterministic world or not. Therefore you cannot scientifically state that there's no free will.

michele.siciliano: WELL, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A RELIGIOUS PERSON TO HAVE SUCH A STRONG FAITH AS YOU HAVE !! ........IN SCIENCE OF COURSE......AND YOU CALL YOURSELF AN ATHEIST ?

We just don't know.

michele.siciliano : YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW THE SUBJECT, THE ACTUAL DOCTRINE HIDDEN EVEN IN HARRY POTTER LITERATURE THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED. BUT YOU CAN LEARN IT IF YOU WISH SO AND YOU WILL LEARN WHEN YOU WILL BE READY FOR IT.



Signed: Twitter @Michele1940 Blog: pointapp.blogspot.com ; http://twitpic.com/photos/Michele1940
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 28, 2011, 08:17:40 PM
 #384

Will I be given access to anything I want too or just what my body needs to survive?
Who is going to give me free access to those resources?

http://vimeo.com/7857584
http://vimeo.com/7938805

I know, they are long videos, but if you want a decent answer, you haver to take the time to understand it. Wink

I guess asking you about Gesell is too much. Although if you read long texts with the ease you refer them, you should definitely read his book.

I'll look into it Smiley
anderxander
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 28, 2011, 10:26:26 PM
 #385

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

Because he believes that dollars are debt.

Dollars are debt. The creation of dollars starts with loan origination. All dollars are brought into existence through loans. All dollars represent debts.


Not always. The fed issues dollars simply by buying things. If what they buy is, for example, US bonds or a debt (at interest) from a bank, then you're reasoning can be applied. But they can buy stocks, ETFs, gold, bitcoins or just tons of shit if they want.
Not that I like the Fed, but that's how it works.


Yes they can only after the dollars have been created by buying bonds and using them as the basis for new loans and money creation.

They don't just print dollars and buy whatever. Read modern money mechanics.

Yes all federal dollars are debt.




1NhQB9dPCRKWJGBJmBhNJxCUnbrbXTiYY2
Findeton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 28, 2011, 10:37:41 PM
 #386

But, what are these ambitions that we have ? Surely all of us have different goals and different levels of personal satisfaction, but if we scream off all the surface and go deep into the real meaning of our ambitions, we would see that we are all searching for the same thing :  Loved.

That's what you think. But if only one person disagrees with that, your theory goes to the trash can.

michele.siciliano :CAN U PROVE THIS USING YOUR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ?

If one person is not searching for love, then NOT ALL people are searching for love. There, just proved it.

In order to be Loved, we should first learn how to Love. This is a "spiritual law ". Actually the most important one. References can be found in the New testament when Jesus said to his disciples : " I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another". John 13:34. There are others of course.

I might as well use Harry Potter as a reference. I mean, the bible and Harry Potter are both fiction literature. I mean, you realize that there are atheists in here, don't you?
michele siciliano: PROBABLY YOU DO NOT REALIZE HOW TRUE IS THE ABOVE STATEMENT YOU HAVE MADE. HARY POTTER, THE HOLY BIBLE, THE LORD OF THE RING, STAR WARS AND MANY OTHERS, YOU CAN USE FOR REFERENCE.

SEE, THE DOCTRINE THAT LIES IN THE BACKGROUND OF ALL THOSE "FICTION LITERATURE", IS EXACTLY THE SAME. YOU JUST NEED WHAT THIS DOCTRINE IS. BUT YOU DON'T. STILL YOU CAN LEAR.

Doctrine = dogma = belief = zero knowledge = not science. Therefore I don't care about doctrine.

In order to do this, Freedom is essential. Cannot be otherwise. Saying that there is no freedom and that we are all subject to the law of nature, my dear Ligthrider, it is not possible since one thing exclude the other ! But I might have missed your point on this and if this is the case, I apologize.

I'll repeat it: Lightrider says that "there's no freedom" because he BELIEVES that "There is no free will". But science, at this moment cannot confirm not deny whether there's free will or not, because there's this little thing called Heisenberg uncertainty principle, therefore we DON'T KNOW right now if we live in a causal deterministic world or not. Therefore you cannot scientifically state that there's no free will.
michele.siciliano: WELL, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A RELIGIOUS PERSON TO HAVE SUCH A STRONG FAITH AS YOU HAVE !! ........IN SCIENCE OF COURSE......AND YOU CALL YOURSELF AN ATHEIST ?

Science needs no believers, as it's a knowledge system based on falsifiable experiments repeatable by anybody. You don't need to believe in anything, you can check it by yourself if you want.


We just don't know.
michele.siciliano : YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW THE SUBJECT, THE ACTUAL DOCTRINE HIDDEN EVEN IN HARRY POTTER LITERATURE THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED. BUT YOU CAN LEARN IT IF YOU WISH SO AND YOU WILL LEARN WHEN YOU WILL BE READY FOR IT.

I don't need no doctrine, I just need falsifiable scientific knowledge.

Bitcoin Weekly, bitcoin analysis and commentary

14DD7MhRXuw3KDuyUuXvAsRcK4KXTT36XA
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 10:13:56 AM
 #387

Will I be given access to anything I want too or just what my body needs to survive?
Who is going to give me free access to those resources?

http://vimeo.com/7857584
http://vimeo.com/7938805

I know, they are long videos, but if you want a decent answer, you haver to take the time to understand it. Wink


I'll watch them when I have the time, but I was just waiting short answers.

I guess asking you about Gesell is too much. Although if you read long texts with the ease you refer them, you should definitely read his book.

I'll look into it Smiley

Great!

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 10:51:38 AM
 #388

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

Because he believes that dollars are debt.

Dollars are debt. The creation of dollars starts with loan origination. All dollars are brought into existence through loans. All dollars represent debts.


Not always. The fed issues dollars simply by buying things. If what they buy is, for example, US bonds or a debt (at interest) from a bank, then you're reasoning can be applied. But they can buy stocks, ETFs, gold, bitcoins or just tons of shit if they want.
Not that I like the Fed, but that's how it works.


Yes they can only after the dollars have been created by buying bonds and using them as the basis for new loans and money creation.

They don't just print dollars and buy whatever. Read modern money mechanics.

Yes all federal dollars are debt.


I can't find a paper from the fed where they say literally that they issue dollars simply by buying things.
But I found this:

http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2002/0209.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities

It seems like you were right when you said they can't buy whatever they want, but they definitely can buy things different from US bonds.
Gold certificates or SDRs, for example, don't sound much like debt.



2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
anderxander
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 02:07:04 PM
 #389

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

Because he believes that dollars are debt.

Dollars are debt. The creation of dollars starts with loan origination. All dollars are brought into existence through loans. All dollars represent debts.


Not always. The fed issues dollars simply by buying things. If what they buy is, for example, US bonds or a debt (at interest) from a bank, then you're reasoning can be applied. But they can buy stocks, ETFs, gold, bitcoins or just tons of shit if they want.
Not that I like the Fed, but that's how it works.


Yes they can only after the dollars have been created by buying bonds and using them as the basis for new loans and money creation.

They don't just print dollars and buy whatever. Read modern money mechanics.

Yes all federal dollars are debt.


I can't find a paper from the fed where they say literally that they issue dollars simply by buying things.
But I found this:

http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2002/0209.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities

It seems like you were right when you said they can't buy whatever they want, but they definitely can buy things different from US bonds.
Gold certificates or SDRs, for example, don't sound much like debt.




Buy SDRs? They are not for sale.

Their gold holdings are from the 70s when they confiscated the united states gold and left the gold standard.

 The feds holdings serve as the reserves for the creation of loans inside the banking system. Chase, us bank and every bank in the country is a member of the federal reserve system. They put the nation in debt and manage the nations credit through the banking system and loans. They have a monopoly on money creation and control the price of money and subsequently the price of all goods and services.
 
All federal reserve dollars represent debts in the system. All federal dollars are debt, not all money is debt.

Dollars are only created when someone goes in debt to the banking system. Whether its a car loan or government spending.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics/

1NhQB9dPCRKWJGBJmBhNJxCUnbrbXTiYY2
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 06:15:59 PM
 #390

Will I be given access to anything I want too or just what my body needs to survive?
Who is going to give me free access to those resources?

http://vimeo.com/7857584
http://vimeo.com/7938805

I know, they are long videos, but if you want a decent answer, you haver to take the time to understand it. Wink


After watching the videos I'm able to answer them myself with a few words:

I would have access to the resources that "self-evidently" I must use.
The government would give access to those resources.

The first video has some arguments that we could discuss:

-Competition breeds monopolies/cartels

That's an opinion. You can read, for example, The machinery of freedom to know another one.

-Lobbying

Is it a problem of money or of the state?

-All laws must be interpreted

And ones are easier to interpret than others. I think the more objectives the laws the better. That's why private property is a good idea.

---

I have also picked some cultured pearls that the guy has dropped through the second video. I hope you disagree with most of them.

"Distribution of energy would be self-evident"
Seriously?

"Arriving at decisions, not making them"

Again, science can't tell you what to do. Not even engineering, because goals are not provided.
You make decisions to attain certain aims.
Ethics is not a science. Hedonism can't be proven right or wrong.  

"...to achieve peak efficiency of our resources..."
There's no efficiency in resources, the efficiency is in the use of resources to fulfill certain task.

"What do people need?
[...]
water and food
[...]
Desalinization and Hydroponic agriculture"

Why not collecting rain water and permaculture?
Is that part of the movement?

"Food, air and water are only scarce if we decide they are."
What about other resources? What are made those desalinization plants made of? Haven't they an impact on nature?

Also, what happens with population? If the survey of optimal food production can't feed the expected population, how population is going to be controlled?
What women would have access to motherhood?

"...the efficiency of the planet..."
Again, efficiency at what.

"...artificial scarcity..."
But there's no natural scarcity?

"...freeing the human labor force..."
The cornucopia.

"the free market leads to planned obsolescence"
It's possible with monopolies and cartels.

"
Government :
   resource management
   production management"
and this is not communism?
   
"increase social evolution"
Where does directed scientifically evolution goes?
Also isn't uniformity bad for evolution?

"Corruption won't exist without money because there's no reward for it"
What about sociolismo?

"Their rewards are the fruits of the society as a whole...self interest becomes integrated with social interest...everything is for the greater good"
This certainly sounds like a religion. Not one that is for diversity.

"power is maintained by ignorance"
So we should build more public schools?
 
"constantly monitoring the earth resources"
Good that labor aren't resources anymore thanks to the cornucopia. Otherwise it would sound like big brother.

"The only real problems in life are the problems that are common to all humans"
What was that Fischer thinking about. We don't care about chess.

"we should leave the old cities"
Oh, yes. And the cars too. Let's just burn it all and make more ecological and reusable products.

"innovative buildings"
But wait, is what you build today going to be innovative in 10 years?
 
"can be mass produced with little environmental restriction"
And without any limit I guess.

"we still don't have ocean cities"
That's what's wrong with our society?

a fish farm: "non contaminating integral parts of the ocean"
Isolated in the holistic sense.

"families will be happy without the monetary system"

"property is not necessary without scarcity"
Totally agree. That's the whole point of property.

"everyone has access to everything"
Some future invention will allow people to even access the same resource at the same time for sure.

"you won't steal things because you can't sell them"
No thieves in Cuba nor the URSS.

"TZM: we are the activist communication arm of the venus project"
Oh, now I know what is what

"...hopefully the logical spread of greater forms of central planning..."
That sounds like communism to me because I've read too much 1984.


2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 06:39:30 PM
 #391


Questions for the expert in Modern_Money_Mechanics.

Buy SDRs? They are not for sale.
Does the IMF create them just to show them to their friends?

Their gold holdings are from the 70s when they confiscated the united states gold and left the gold standard.

So the fed cannot buy gold certificates?

The feds holdings serve as the reserves for the creation of loans inside the banking system. Chase, us bank and every bank in the country is a member of the federal reserve system. They put the nation in debt and manage the nations credit through the banking system and loans.

Only US banks have an account with the fed?

They have a monopoly on money creation and control the price of money and subsequently the price of all goods and services.

Can they price each good individually?
 
All federal reserve dollars represent debts in the system. All federal dollars are debt, not all money is debt.

I see. There's other currencies.

Dollars are only created when someone goes in debt to the banking system. Whether its a car loan or government spending.

That's what I'm denying, I didn't forget it.


Have you ever saw the image on my first links? The fed sometimes creates dollars by buying gold certificates or SDR (to the IMF) and I bet that also euros to the ECB and other securities.
Your link seems out of date or something. There's nothing about the dollar there.
Is that link what you have read about modern money mechanics?
Have you actually read any book on money or you send me to read while you watch videos?

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM
 #392

-Competition breeds monopolies/cartels

That's an opinion. You can read, for example, The machinery of freedom to know another one.

No, it's not an opinion. It is the very design of competition, you always end up with an oligopoly or a cartel. The anarcho-capitalist faith is a blind belief in a supernatural force that has no relevance with the physical reality. Like believing in Santa.

Quote
-Lobbying

Is it a problem of money or of the state?

In a monetary, profit based state, the two are closely interrelated, so it' doesn't make much difference.

Quote
-All laws must be interpreted

And ones are easier to interpret than others. I think the more objectives the laws the better. That's why private property is a good idea.

We are not discussing whether people should have private property or not. Private property is allowed in an RBE, it just becomes meaningless for most things, when you have access to them. It's way more efficient and convenient to have integrated systems that provide services, instead of useless redundancies that produce many negative retroactions.

Quote
"Distribution of energy would be self-evident"
Seriously?

If you apply the scientific method, yes.

What else do you propose? Free market? That inevitably brings slavery and subjugation of the majority in favour of a small elite.

Quote
"Arriving at decisions, not making them"

Again, science can't tell you what to do. Not even engineering, because goals are not provided.
You make decisions to attain certain aims.
Ethics is not a science. Hedonism can't be proven right or wrong.

I explain this clearly in the video, but very briefly: once you agree on what is the desired result, you follow a scientific process to arrive at the best decision.

There is no clash whatsoever and no need to confuse ethics and science. You decide what you want to achieve, and then you apply the scientific method to do it.

Instead, what do you propose to do?

Quote
"...to achieve peak efficiency of our resources..."
There's no efficiency in resources, the efficiency is in the use of resources to fulfill certain task.

It's obviously "usage of", it was misspoken. Come on, you can be better than that. Wink

Quote
"What do people need?
[...]
water and food
[...]
Desalinization and Hydroponic agriculture"

Why not collecting rain water and permaculture?
Is that part of the movement?

Whatever works best will be utilised. These are just some suggestions.

Quote
Also, what happens with population? If the survey of optimal food production can't feed the expected population, how population is going to be controlled?
What women would have access to motherhood?

That is a very difficult issue. The best way to approach it with education, forced measures are unacceptable.

In any case, it's a problem that we will have to face soon in the current infinite growth and wasteful paradigm, but we may never have to face it in a system that is focused on peak efficiency and strategic conservation.

So, applying an RBE will, if anything, greatly reduce a problem. Keeping the current system will result in an inevitable collapse, either of the population or of the environment, or both.

Since this is a movement that advocates peace, we would prefer the former.

Quote
"...artificial scarcity..."
But there's no natural scarcity?

Sure, that's why we need strategic conservation, instead of wasteful infinite growth and a throw away society.

Quote
"...freeing the human labor force..."
The cornucopia.

Don't project into it. Again, it's "greatly reduced until the system finds its balance" bla bla bla, is there really a need to explain this every single time?

Quote
"the free market leads to planned obsolescence"
It's possible with monopolies and cartels.

Huh

Quote
Government :
   resource management
   production management"
and this is not communism?

You assumption is wrong. It's not the "government", each ecosystem find its balance according to its carrying capacity, the outdated ideas of "government" and such do not apply.
   
Quote
"increase social evolution"
Where does directed scientifically evolution goes?
Also isn't uniformity bad for evolution?

Sure, in fat, we advocate biodiversity and dynamic equilibrium, not uniformity and statism.

Quote
"Corruption won't exist without money because there's no reward for it"
What about sociolismo?

Greatly reduced with full transparency and Open Source approach to "governance".

And, in any case, do you see any other solution?

You have to understand that this is not the perfect system we advocate. We see lots of mistakes and inefficiencies, we try to come up with solution. If a new, better solution comes up, we integrate it. So, instead of keep repeating "this is not perfect", why don't you propose something that works better?

Quote
"Their rewards are the fruits of the society as a whole...self interest becomes integrated with social interest...everything is for the greater good"
This certainly sounds like a religion. Not one that is for diversity.

?

The recognition that your self interest can also be the interest of others is a religion?

Quote
"power is maintained by ignorance"
So we should build more public schools?

Are you playing dumb or is that a real question?
 
Quote
"innovative buildings"
But wait, is what you build today going to be innovative in 10 years?

If you design things to be easily upgraded, they will always be up to date.

Quote
"you won't steal things because you can't sell them"
No thieves in Cuba nor the URSS.

Those places have nothing to do with an RBE. Nothing. It's just in you mind.

Quote
"TZM: we are the activist communication arm of the venus project"
Oh, now I know what is what

That video was prior to the split, as I already explained, we split up for good a few months ago.

Quote
"...hopefully the logical spread of greater forms of central planning..."
That sounds like communism to me because I've read too much 1984.

No, that sounds like communism to you because you live in the 19th century and you haven't studied systems theory.

Leaving that aside, let me ask you something: given that we already surpassed the carrying capacity of the Earth and that we are effectively destroy the very nature from which we depend on, what do you propose we should do to ensure that we find an equilibrium with nature, so that we can survive as a species without resorting to mass killings?

TZM advocates using the best method available. If you can come up with something better, and you can prove it, we'll advocate that. it's as simple as that. The farthest you can be from a religion, a faith or a cult.

A believer in free market, communism, capitalism, socialism or any other -ism is much more "religious" or "cult-ish" than any of us.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 11:10:49 PM
 #393

Oh, yes, from David Friedman's book:

Quote
Marx was scientist enough to make predictions about the future that could be proved or disproved. Unfortunately, Marxists continue to believe his theory long after his predictions have been proved false. One of Marx's predictions was that the rich would get richer and the poor, poorer, with the middle class gradually being wiped out and the laboring class becoming impoverished. In historical capitalist societies the trend has been almost the exact reverse. The poor have gotten richer.

I don't really care for Marx, but this is such an enormous bullshit that it would be enough to discard the book immediately.

The historical evidence is that the poorest are getting poorer, and the richest are getting richer.

Here's some data from 2010.

#1) In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1.  Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.

#2) A USA Today analysis of government data has found that paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of 2010.  During the same time period, government benefits (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.) rose to a record high.

#3) According to the United Nations, the United States now has the highest level of income inequality of all of the highly industrialized nations.

#4) Four of the biggest banks in the United States (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup) had a "perfect quarter" with zero days of trading losses during the first quarter of 2010.

#5) According to economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two-thirds of income increases in the United States between 2002 and 2007 went to the wealthiest 1% of all Americans.

#6) 39.68 million Americans are now on food stamps, which represents a new all-time record.  But things look like they are going to get even worse.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture is forecasting that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011.

#7) For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.

#8) Over just one three day period, approximately 10,000 people showed up to apply for just 90 jobs making washing machines in Kentucky for $27,000 a year.

#9) Executives at many of the big banks that received massive amounts of government bailout money during the financial crisis are being lavished with record bonuses as millions of other Americans continue to suffer.

#10) Younger generations of Americans are particularly struggling.  For example, according to a National Foundation for Credit Counseling survey, only 58% of those in "Generation Y" pay their monthly bills on time.

#11) Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.

#12) Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.  Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy in March 2010 than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005.

#13) An analysis of income tax data by the Congressional Budget Office a couple years ago found that the top 1% wealthiest households in the United States now own nearly twice as much of the corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.

#14) A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.

#15) Once great blue collar manufacturing cities such as Detroit have turned into rusted-out war zones while corporate executives rake in record bonuses by moving factories to third world nations.

#16) The bottom 40 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.  So what does that say about America when nearly half the people are dividing up just one percent of the pie?

Full links and references (http://goo.gl/mVmSm)

The only places where that doesn't happen is in scandinavian countries, where services are provided by the State and their right wing "conservatives" are more to the left than your wildest liberals.

I'm not here to defend socialism, I don't think it's a real solution either, but you've got to stand in awe at just how lightly one can lie so much and people blindly follow his church without even bothering to check the scientific evidence.
LightRider
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1488


I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 01:39:03 AM
 #394

Quote
How can the addictions that might arise in an individual be prevented from causing disruption in society? Where is this explained?

We don't prevent it. We mitigate it, minimize it and help people with such afflictions, not put them in a cage. Current disruption is the result of the profit motive reinforced by government institutions.

Quote
Government is the core problem.

Government is made up of people. Are you asserting that only a certain type of people are the problem? The reason governments have vast authority and power is due to the monetary systems that have been employed, and the distorted values they engender in the population. Eliminating the monetary system and associated profit motive will render government unnecessary.

Quote
There is a difference between fiat or paper money which is no more of a commodity than the paper and ink which represents it, and metals that are used for coin as real money; the former relies upon confidence in its exchangability whereas the latter have practical purposes when not in a form used for money.

The idea of money can be made manifest in anything. It is dependent upon people to promote the idea in the first place. Gold is not money, it is simply a natural resource. Imbuing anything with extra-physical properties is the real religious threat to our continued well being. The Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project promote science, objectivity and ecological sustainability.

Quote
Capitalist economies approach maximal efficiency; governments interfering with business through legislation and regulation cause increasing inefficiency; gov’t is the problem, not a sound financial system. The current financial system of fractional reserve banking has been created by and for banks, legalized by gov’t, and enforced by police/military under authority of that government.

There are no capitalist economies, because they could not operate without a government or other authority to protect their operation. When everyone is out for themselves, what limits do you impose on people's actions? Choosing to work together for the benefit of everyone is less likely to generate the corrupt government that you demonize so readily and frequently.

Quote
Businesses can scale back during slow times by reducing employee hours, laying off, moving production to cheaper areas, diversifying, etc… gov’t is nearly impossible to cut back once it has spread out, mostly due to increased societal dependence on gov’t.

The well being of business is not the utmost concern in a resource based economy, but the well being of individuals. Sacrificing the individual for the business is what the monetary system does vigorously and repeatedly at an accelerating rate. Government monopolies derive their social dependence by the use of force, again supported and encouraged by the monetary system.

Quote
There is a continuum/range of product type and availability in any arena; the best/most effective balance of cost and quality, not just the ‘best’ of everything. As a point of contention, who determines what ‘best’ entails?

This is one of the reasons a monetary system is so wasteful. A wide range of products to support a stratified population is antithetical to a resource based economy. Why produce increasingly shoddier and unreliable products except to sell a newer one to the same person next year? Efficiency and efficacy are determined using the scientific method, measuring results and updating methodologies and concepts according to new found knowledge. The monetary system promotes using ancient methodologies until such time as it becomes unprofitable not to, increasing the amount of waste and inefficiency in the system.

Quote
Cost efficiency approaches limits of efficacy at which point there is a drop in profit, indicating that some aspect of the product or service is on a decline. This is a feedback mechanism in the same way that blood pressure and heart rate are indicators for circulatory system performance in the body. If I have no heart rate, it is difficult, if not impossible to determine my cardiac performance and respond or treat accordingly.

Poor metrics can be replaced with better ones. Using an inefficient and destructive monetary system as your metaphorical heart beat does not give you any information regarding true resource supply, human necessity, goods durability or efficiency of production. These are all distorted in favor of maximized profit and do not promote the well being or people or the planet that sustains us. Knowing all these things objectively will prove to make for a much better circulatory system for everyone involved.

Quote
Universal business and consumer objectives are to find a quality good or service at a reasonable price; this is not always the cheapest nor the most expensive.

You are correct. The monetary system forces people to compromise. A resource based economy does not serve an arbitrary, artificial and destructive money interest, so there is no need to compromise.

Quote
Planned obsolesence is not an objective; case in point - IBM Thinkpads: they developed a reputation for being so durable and reliable that they sold like hotcakes; I’m still using a 7 year old Thinkpad which, as anyone here can easily attest to, is generations for a computer product; meanwhile, cheap old chinese knockoffs that fell apart after a few months during the same era didn’t garner repeat sales. Without return in the form of profit, IBM would not have known the level of success generated by the series.

Yet the resources were spent on such knockoffs, and such companies continue to produce such products today. Their motive was short term profit, which is increasingly becoming the only focus prevalent in business today. In  an RBE, people would collaborate and design long lasting high quality products, not compete for diminishing profits.

Quote
It is absence of competition that prevents new ideas and greater efficiency from taking hold, particularly through new legislation instituted by gov’t; until established big businesses, mostly with assistance from and pressure on gov’t for enforcement, can implement these new ideas and efficiency measures, they will not be brought to market. Thus, it is government collusion that needlessly slows progress.

The monetary system discourages competition and innovation. It is human ingenuity that produces newer models, products and ideas. It has been shown that people do better at creative tasks when they don't have a profit motive.

Quote
The lifespan of a product is the result of a balance in quality and cost; if an item outlives its usefulness for one person, but breaks before another has finished making use of it, is that planned obsolesence or waste?

Cost is an imaginary, arbitrary opinion based concept. It forces people to compete for a diminishing pool of currency by producing cheap wasteful products in mass quantities. As stated before, the monetary system discourages competition with artificial and intrinsic barriers to the market. If the item was not designed to be produced sustainably, function well over many lifetimes and be recycled easily, then yes, it is generally wasteful.

Quote
Money is a proxy for resources, particularly services and finished products. Money has many functions, including incentive and feedback. Run a business and you’ll certainly understand.

It also hides the true cost of such products and services. What cost is assessed to the people who will die from working with hazardous materials in a developing nation? What cost is reflected by the untold amounts of environmental destruction? What is the cost of an entire generation of people denied education, health services, food and water for the benefit of a few businessmen? What cost is reflected in entire countries being invaded, destroyed and ransacked for the benefit of a few multinational corporations? Monetary cost is a poor metric of anything meaningful.

Quote
Economic sustainability is synonymous with life sustainability, but this video uses subtle fear tactics to misdirect on that point. An economic system can apply to a single cell or an entire planet. A better term might be a logistics system.

Economic sustainability refers to business perpetuation, not life sustainability. Business, profit and money do not concern themselves with the well being of people, just the amount of profit can be generated, usually at the continually deplorable conditions that it subjects them to.

Quote
None of the economic points in this video cut down to the core of why things are the way they are; why businesses find incentive to waste instead of gear toward efficiency and quality. The culprit is government, but the focus is on the symptom (monetary system disruption) rather than the cause (gov’t).

No government can be sustained without a monetary system. Your blind adherence to fantastical economic theory does not let you see the natural consequences of the monetary system, which is centralization of authority.

Quote
Status symbols have been present throughout mankind’s history; does the ZM think it’s going to just stop what seems to be an inherent predisposition?

It is not an inherent predisposition, but reinforced by the culture that people develop in.

Quote
A business that kills its clients or does not provide a worthwhile and quality product or service will not remain in business. There is no debate on this in any realm of economics. Cigarette and alcohol producers neither directly, nor immediately kill users of their products. Users find an appeal to using the products and the companies obtain returns so long as their customers make use of them. There are some short-sighted businesses that do cause rapid harm, but they quickly lose a customer base and fail.

You seem to switch stances here, praising those industries that have garnered government support for their murderous products. Interesting.

Quote
This video attempts to do away with any sense of personal responsibility; history has already seen this in the catastrophes that have been government-managed economies. Even reliance on automation through robotics has its own dangers that have been debated ad infinitum for the past century. Who repairs the robots? What if the repair mechanism breaks down? Is there supervision? What if the computer system concludes that humanity has become an ‘inefficiency’? And so on.

Please define what you mean by personal responsibility. People like to use that phrase, but don't understand what it implies. The legitimate questions that you bring up pale in comparison to the questions generated by our current monetary system. What happens when we run out of potable water for people? What happens when we can no longer rely upon plentiful fossil fuels as a source of energy? What happens when nuclear war breaks out? The assertion that machines will decide to attack humanity is a popular fiction used to cause sensationalism and sell entertainment products. It is unlikely that computers will take any meaningful negative actions against people.

Quote
This is another version of creating equality where there never has been, and attempting to do so will destroy the productive capacity of society. This is the result of socialism. Providing for the base needs of human life (food, potable water, shelter) is no guarantee of either equality or success.

No one is creating equality or even promising such nonsense. When we value the individual, we allow them to reach their highest potential, so that they contribute to society to the best of their ability. Millions of people who could potentially help change the world are sacrificed to the monetary system in order to keep the few comfortable.

Quote
Money itself is any commodity used as a proxy for other forms of wealth, therefore money is not debt; credit is debt.

Money is an idea, and in our current dominant paradigm, it is debt.

Quote
Individual businesses need to compete, innovate and excel in their respective fields in order to survive and thrive. Any grand ideas may be all well and good, but the natural order of things will eventually take its course. Rather than fighting those forces, working with them provides the best results.

Why should we confine such competition and innovation to businesses? That seems contrived for the benefit of the monetary system, not people. Businesses do not adhere to natural order, they attempt to ignore it in their pursuit of profits, always with negative effects.

Quote
Figuring out the logistics requires plugging the numbers into a computer and interpreting the results? Yeah, time to catch up - that’s so 20th century. Every automobile manufacturer, steel production facility, energy generation utility and countless other businesses have been doing this for decades. Before that, it was done by hand in ledgers.
‘Proximity strategy’ already takes place. It’s a natural process of civilization. Cities don’t magically spring up near major sources of water for no reason. This has been a natural principle since before the Sumerian civilization.
Shared use? How is this a new concept? Perfect case: Zipcar. In general, any rental by whatever name for the past… millennium. This kind of service fulfills a need. Once again, forcing individuals to adhere to this is no different from government mandates.

Scaling such systems out for the benefit of everyone and not just private interest would allow for much better resource management. That is the whole point of the film. We have the technology to reach these goals, but the influence of the monetary system inhibits such actions.

Quote
What empirical evidence and testing can be pointed to with economics?

None, because it is a contrived fantasy that has successfully fooled many people into believing its tenets. It cannot be subject to scientific inquiry.

Quote
If every system than can be tested, should be tested, doesn’t it stand to reason that a free market without government interference would be a good test? It is a system that hasn’t been formally attempted on any long-term basis without external interference.

Bitcoin seems to be engaging in such a test to a limited extent. However, there is no such thing as a free market. Everyone and everything is subject to the laws of nature, and there is no freedom from that.

Quote
Profit and loss are the measurements that a business uses to determine its success and accuracy of its predictive assumptions or ‘math’. Without this feedback, endeavors with useless or destructive tendencies would last far longer than normal. Note the existence of ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions.

Basing your success on fantasy is not going to give you accurate feedback. Abusing math to your own benefit does not free you from the physical reality on which you truly rely on.

Quote
Mundane actions are not the only things compensated for by monetary reward. Nor is money in and of itself a reward, yet it is an incentive and feedback mechanism which maintains a significant level of economic and societal stability.

Stability is not the same as sustainability. We can see that with the coming unrest due to the recent severe financial instability. Trading long term problems for short term stability is a poor way to conduct human affairs.

Quote
By any other name, capitalism has been the only system to pervade throughout history.

Due to use of force.

Quote
Natural gas can replace oil. It’s mostly a matter of reconfiguring existing infrastructure. It isn’t a final solution, but it could push collapse out by about 50 years. During that time, a transition might occur to a more sustainable platform.

It certainly appeals to established interests, and its promotion and widespread production is also induced and encouraged by government collusion, which you supposedly oppose. Not to mention the environmental destruction and natural resource poisoning associated with its extraction. This is only the result of putting business concerns ahead of people and environment.

Hopefully you realize that the idea of money is obsolete and its associated power structures will no longer be necessary to provide a high quality of life for all people, both now and in the future.



Bitcoin combines money, the wrongest thing in the world, with software, the easiest thing in the world to get wrong.
Visit www.thevenusproject.com and www.theZeitgeistMovement.com.
LightRider
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1488


I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 03:14:14 AM
 #395

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=94503&cmd=tc

For those interested, Z-Radio has discussed bitcoins in a recent podcast. Z-Radio talks about the Zeitgeist Movement usually. I haven't heard the episode yet, but I'm interested in hearing what they have to say.

Bitcoin combines money, the wrongest thing in the world, with software, the easiest thing in the world to get wrong.
Visit www.thevenusproject.com and www.theZeitgeistMovement.com.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 07:45:00 AM
 #396

Here's a nice introduction made by one of the members, which goes back to the central point and focuses on what's relevant.

http://possiblefuturesfilmcontest.org/watch-vote/film-detail/?film_id=25333537

 Smiley
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 09:26:49 AM
 #397

Quote
"...hopefully the logical spread of greater forms of central planning..."
That sounds like communism to me because I've read too much 1984.

No, that sounds like communism to you because you live in the 19th century and you haven't studied systems theory.

Please stop insulting me. I've studied systems theory. The first time in the context of biology and environmental science.
Later in college studying computer science (Ingeniería informática in spanish). Stop trying to discredit me guessing what I have studied and what not.
"You don't get my point because you haven't been properly educated". You can do better than that Wink
I'm not assuming that you haven't studied economics because you blame the free market for all the bad things in our society.

Quote
"Arriving at decisions, not making them"

Again, science can't tell you what to do. Not even engineering, because goals are not provided.
You make decisions to attain certain aims.
Ethics is not a science. Hedonism can't be proven right or wrong.

I explain this clearly in the video, but very briefly: once you agree on what is the desired result, you follow a scientific process to arrive at the best decision.

There is no clash whatsoever and no need to confuse ethics and science. You decide what you want to achieve, and then you apply the scientific method to do it.

Quote
"Distribution of energy would be self-evident"
Seriously?

If you apply the scientific method, yes.

Quote
"increase social evolution"
Where does directed scientifically evolution goes?
Also isn't uniformity bad for evolution?

Sure, in fact, we advocate biodiversity and dynamic equilibrium, not uniformity and statism.

Quote
"...to achieve peak efficiency of our resources..."
There's no efficiency in resources, the efficiency is in the use of resources to fulfill certain task.
It's obviously "usage of", it was misspoken. Come on, you can be better than that. Wink


I don't think it is misspoken. He really thinks there's an absolute direction to go.
As you said, you have to decide what you want to achieve first. But you assume we all want the same thing, that ethics are absolute or something.

Quote
Also, what happens with population? If the survey of optimal food production can't feed the expected population, how population is going to be controlled?
What women would have access to motherhood?

That is a very difficult issue. The best way to approach it with education, forced measures are unacceptable.

In any case, it's a problem that we will have to face soon in the current infinite growth and wasteful paradigm, but we may never have to face it in a system that is focused on peak efficiency and strategic conservation.

So, applying an RBE will, if anything, greatly reduce a problem. Keeping the current system will result in an inevitable collapse, either of the population or of the environment, or both.

Since this is a movement that advocates peace, we would prefer the former.

So your answer is education would be enough to control population growth. What if not?

Quote
"...artificial scarcity..."
But there's no natural scarcity?

Sure, that's why we need strategic conservation, instead of wasteful infinite growth and a throw away society.


Isn't that incompatible with "everybody would have access to the resources"?

Quote
"Corruption won't exist without money because there's no reward for it"
What about sociolismo?

Greatly reduced with full transparency and Open Source approach to "governance".


So there would still be corruption and self interest within the RBE.
Self interest probably reduced by education, right?

Quote
"Their rewards are the fruits of the society as a whole...self interest becomes integrated with social interest...everything is for the greater good"
This certainly sounds like a religion. Not one that is for diversity.

?
The recognition that your self interest can also be the interest of others is a religion?

No, "everything is for the greater good" sounds like religion.

-Competition breeds monopolies/cartels

That's an opinion. You can read, for example, The machinery of freedom to know another one.

No, it's not an opinion. It is the very design of competition, you always end up with an oligopoly or a cartel. The anarcho-capitalist faith is a blind belief in a supernatural force that has no relevance with the physical reality. Like believing in Santa.

Insulting Friedman doesn't prove he is wrong.
Yes, "free market always leads to either monopolies or cartels" is an opinion to be proven.

Quote
"the free market leads to planned obsolescence"
It's possible with monopolies and cartels.

Huh

I'm saying planned obsolescence would disappear without monopolies and cartels.

Quote
"power is maintained by ignorance"
So we should build more public schools?

Are you playing dumb or is that a real question?

Quote
-Lobbying

Is it a problem of money or of the state?

In a monetary, profit based state, the two are closely interrelated, so it' doesn't make much difference.

Quote
-All laws must be interpreted

And ones are easier to interpret than others. I think the more objectives the laws the better. That's why private property is a good idea.

We are not discussing whether people should have private property or not. Private property is allowed in an RBE, it just becomes meaningless for most things, when you have access to them. It's way more efficient and convenient to have integrated systems that provide services, instead of useless redundancies that produce many negative retroactions.

Quote
Government :
   resource management
   production management"
and this is not communism?

You assumption is wrong. It's not the "government", each ecosystem find its balance according to its carrying capacity, the outdated ideas of "government" and such do not apply.

Quote
"you won't steal things because you can't sell them"
No thieves in Cuba nor the URSS.

Those places have nothing to do with an RBE. Nothing. It's just in you mind.

   
I understood that all the production/distribution would be planned by the public sector using the scientific method and an improved form of democracy.
If it's not the public sector and the private sector (free market) will become obsolete, where operates the RBE?
Isn't the access to resources without private property controlled by the state?

Leaving that aside, let me ask you something: given that we already surpassed the carrying capacity of the Earth and that we are effectively destroy the very nature from which we depend on, what do you propose we should do to ensure that we find an equilibrium with nature, so that we can survive as a species without resorting to mass killings?

TZM advocates using the best method available. If you can come up with something better, and you can prove it, we'll advocate that. it's as simple as that. The farthest you can be from a religion, a faith or a cult.

A believer in free market, communism, capitalism, socialism or any other -ism is much more "religious" or "cult-ish" than any of us.

I'm not a believer in free market, just an advocate. Are you an advocate of RBE or it's just self evident?

Instead, what do you propose to do?
What else do you propose? Free market? That inevitably brings slavery and subjugation of the majority in favour of a small elite.
And, in any case, do you see any other solution?
You have to understand that this is not the perfect system we advocate. We see lots of mistakes and inefficiencies, we try to come up with solution. If a new, better solution comes up, we integrate it. So, instead of keep repeating "this is not perfect", why don't you propose something that works better?

I propose to change the current monetary system in a way that makes the economy compatible with long term thinking and social justice.
I think we need to eliminate interest and get the government out of the issuance of money to achieve that. I think Ripple can make it, maybe freicoin too.
I'm also an advocate of decentralization and permaculture.
I love robots too, but I don't think they're going to end labor. I see many people employed extending arduino in the near future, for example.
I'm an advocate of free culture.
I "believe" in moral relativism, that's why I won't ever agree with the concept of "arriving at decisions".

Profits tend to zero in a free market. But with our current monetary system (and older ones) capital yields do not.
Interest on money prevents capital yields to tend to zero too.
You could blame interest instead of free market for many of the things you say it is responsible for.
Free market it's just about people deciding their own wants and cooperating with each other to achieve their goals in a non coercive way (trade).
 

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 09:38:16 AM
 #398

Oh, yes, from David Friedman's book:

Quote
Marx was scientist enough to make predictions about the future that could be proved or disproved. Unfortunately, Marxists continue to believe his theory long after his predictions have been proved false. One of Marx's predictions was that the rich would get richer and the poor, poorer, with the middle class gradually being wiped out and the laboring class becoming impoverished. In historical capitalist societies the trend has been almost the exact reverse. The poor have gotten richer.

I don't really care for Marx, but this is such an enormous bullshit that it would be enough to discard the book immediately.

The historical evidence is that the poorest are getting poorer, and the richest are getting richer.


I linked to you the book because of what he says to refute that free market leads to monopolies.
Even if he got wrong marx, I think the book is very interesting. I had never thought of private law before, for example. Not that I'm sure it would be a good thing for everything, just that I didn't thought it at all.
I don't through away books because I disagree in one thing. If I did, I'd never seen the whole Zeitgeist series of videos because they lie in the first one.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 10:03:02 AM
 #399

Please stop insulting me. I've studied systems theory.[...]

Fair enough, I apologise.

In return, please don't use false associations with loaded terms such a any-ism, which brought me to believe that you haven't studied.

Quote
Where does directed scientifically evolution goes?

I dont' really understand the question, but I guess the direction we propose is Dynamic equilibrium with the planet.

Quote
As you said, you have to decide what you want to achieve first. But you assume we all want the same thing, that ethics are absolute or something.

We are not discussing all the realm of ethics. Just the basics: do we agree that we want the survival of the species on the planet and that we want to ensure the well being of all the people? That's what we are talking about.

Quote
So your answer is education would be enough to control population growth. What if not?

As I said, it's a difficult issue, I don't know what if not, we'll have to discuss it. In any case, why not trying education, first?

And again, what is your proposal?

Quote
Quote
Sure, that's why we need strategic conservation, instead of wasteful infinite growth and a throw away society.

Isn't that incompatible with "everybody would have access to the resources"?

No, it's the basis for that. As I said a million times, you have to change the values before you change the system. First, people need to understand that their desires need to take into account what's actually possible in the real world, and that wanting a 500-rooms mansion in unsustainable, and that many people will suffer because of that.

Quote
So there would still be corruption and self interest within the RBE.
Self interest probably reduced by education, right?

Greatly reduced, through education and a change of values. The same way we now consider horrible owning slaves. We evolve our culture.

Quote
No, "everything is for the greater good" sounds like religion.

As opposed to "everything is for the good a a very small elite that can impose its power on the rest of the starving population"?

Quote
Insulting Friedman doesn't prove he is wrong.
Yes, "free market always leads to either monopolies or cartels" is an opinion to be proven.

I addressed the fallacy of Friedman's arguments in the post below, I didn't just pick on him.

Anyway, here's a very clear rebuttal that explains why the free market proponents get it wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTw

Quote
I'm saying planned obsolescence would disappear without monopolies and cartels.

... and they are a product of the profit-based market system, whether it is free, partly free, or socialist. The underlying mechanism doesn't change. See the video posted above.

Quote
   
I understood that all the production/distribution would be planned by the public sector using the scientific method and an improved form of democracy.
If it's not the public sector and the private sector (free market) will become obsolete, where operates the RBE?

Isn't the access to resources without private property controlled by the state?

If, by State, you mean the people directly, according to what they really need and what can be scientifically accomplished, yes.

If by State, you mean what we have now, a big and loud no.

Quote
I'm not a believer in free market, just an advocate.

That's good to hear. Smiley

Quote
Are you an advocate of RBE or it's just self evident?

I advocate a way for the species to survive, without destroying the planet's resources and without forced slavery for billions of people.

What do you advocate, and how's the "free market" going to solve that?

Quote
I propose to change the current monetary system in a way that makes the economy compatible with long term thinking and social justice.

So, it doesn't matter if we destroy the planet from which the depend in the process? And what is social justice? the richest 1% controlling 40% of resources is social justice? Billions of people starving to death is social justice? How's this "long term thinking" going to prevent that?

Quote
I think we need to eliminate interest and get the government out of the issuance of money to achieve that. I think Ripple can make it, maybe freicoin too.

Again, the question is sustainability. How's that addressing the issue?

Quote
I'm also an advocate of decentralization and permaculture.
+1

Quote
I love robots too, but I don't think they're going to end labor. I see many people employed extending arduino in the near future, for example.
+1. When we say that labour will be reduced, we talk about jobs that don't produce anything useful for society. And by having the necessities provided automatically (technically possible, really, if you look into it) the only jobs that remain are the ones that you would like to do, not the ones that you are forced to, otherwise you die.

Quote
I'm an advocate of free culture.
+1.

Quote
I "believe" in moral relativism, that's why I won't ever agree with the concept of "arriving at decisions".

For morality, that's fine. But what you need to survive is not an opinion, it's a scientific fact, and the market system is not designed to provide what's needed for the survival, you have to fight for it at the expenses of others. A cruel game of musical chairs, where the poor and the weak always loose.

Quote
Profits tend to zero in a free market.

W-w-whaaat? o_O

Why?

Quote
But with our current monetary system (and older ones) capital yields do not.
Interest on money prevents capital yields to tend to zero too.
You could blame interest instead of free market for many of the things you say it is responsible for.
Free market it's just about people deciding their own wants and cooperating with each other to achieve their goals in a non coercive way (trade).

Again, that doesn't address the problem of sustainability, which is the number one priority.

We can discuss all day about exchange rates, capital investments, Stste intervention, free market and the like, until we end up in a time where there is no more a planet to host our philosophical discussions.

4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 10:04:47 AM
 #400

I linked to you the book because of what he says to refute that free market leads to monopolies.
Even if he got wrong marx, I think the book is very interesting. I had never thought of private law before, for example. Not that I'm sure it would be a good thing for everything, just that I didn't thought it at all.
I don't through away books because I disagree in one thing. If I did, I'd never seen the whole Zeitgeist series of videos because they lie in the first one.

It's a way of saying that his reasoning is invalid. He thinks that market system based on competition will make people better off, and that's exactly the opposite of what happens in real life.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 124 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!