I'm not talking about an unequivocal definition, I'm talking about morals. No matter how many research they make on human happiness, spiritual health and the like: I will still want to measure and seek my own happiness myself.
I just don't care what the experts say is good, because I don't believe in good. Talking about experts on happiness and quality of life reminds me the Inquisition and its moral experts.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and his mental health was enforced.
You are discussing the sex of the angels.
Do you agree that starve to death, being enslaved, drink polluted water, have no house and no access to education is not
a desirable thing?
It's certainly a not desirable thing for me. I can't tell if it's not desirable for everyone in the world and for those still to come.
If some rare monks decide they want to starve to reach the nirvana, I wouldn't coerce them to stop their death.
Anyway, the critical point here is education. I don't want a centrally planned education. I don't want a designed culture.
The dog whisperer educating stable dogs comes to mind.
The degree of freedom will be decided? That doesn't sound like letting the free market be.
The free market doesn't put any limit of what can be produced/consumed beyond the limits of nature and the imagination of the producers.
The free market doesn't care about the limits of nature.
is its fundamental flaw.
The free market can't surpass the limits of nature.
The free market cares about what people cares. If people care about sustainability, the market will.
In the RBE, some form of government (again, I don't care how efficient and democratic your new system will theoretically be, if is not the private sector the one that feeds the world through trade and charity, then is the public sector, period) will set the limits.
You keep thinking anthropocentrically.
I think you're more anthropocentric than me.
You claim that a whole race can be sustained through central planning and science and interact harmoniously with such a complex system as the biosphere.
I don't even believe nature has immutable laws.
I've had tons of laughs thanks to scientists talking about the universal constant and math being the language of god.
I'm definitely not anthropocentric.
You seem to avoid all the questions about how the RBE would coerce people to avoid wasting resources.
RBE needs some form of government to make decisions if there's no private property.
With private property, each owner decides the allocation of his resources.
My soul is arrogant because I live in the clouds with other geniuses of the past.
Yes I think I'm a genius. Still I show more humility than you.
The planet decides what is the limit. Not me, not you, not anyone else.
Not the free market nor the RBE.
As I said before, programmed obsolescence has the prerequisite of a monopoly/cartel.
All companies do that, because it would not be profitable for them otherwise, and they could not survive.
Not all the companies do that. Some of them rely on the production of durable goods for their survival.
Others even rely on producing environment friendly products. Others produce free software for profit.
In a competitive market, if people demand durable products, they're the ones that will be produced.
Nice wish. Too bad it doesn't happen, you are talking about a utopia.
What proof do you need to admit that the market tends to produce what people demand?
Also, the short-term thinking that interest imposes us makes people care less about durability.
It's called "profit motive".
We've identified a thing neither of us like: short-term thinking.
You think is motivated by profits and I blame interest.
I've already provide an example (the tree metaphor) that shows how interest affects financing to promote the short term over the long run.
If you want to change my mind, you have to use the logic rather than keep on repeating your claim.
Without interest and capital yields, maybe the term capitalism is not very accurate.
Ripple and freicoin would disable interest within a free-market.
That's why I think programmed obsolescence is not a problem caused by the free market.
Could you elaborate on that, and explain how freicoin plus free market would address the two questions I posed?
As shown in the tree metaphor, removing interest would suppress the short term thinking inherent to our current monetary system.
Interest also introduces an element of artificial scarcity of capital. The capitals of the same type compete with each other so the more capital of the same type there is, the lower capital yields are.
If you have a capital yield of zero, that means that you've gained from the use of the capital the same that you have invested building it.
But with interest, the production of a certain kind of capital "stops" when the capital has an inferior yield that money itself.
Money is just a symbol of value, doesn't produce anything in the real world just by being and shouldn't have yield on its own.
I'm talking about the basic interest and not the costs of banks. They provide a service and they'd keep on doing it with free money.
Profits tend to zero by competition.
With capital yields and profits near zero, everything is for wages.
We cannot achieve "full employment" today because the same restriction applies to human capital and because of minimum wage laws and other regulations.
Just a counter-example that proves your point wrong. A man working on sustainability for profit. Just like solar panels producers, permaculture advocates...
What those guys produce is 10 times less efficient that what could be achieved.
Permaculture is sustainable because it works with closed cycles.
Sure they can add automation, but I think they're pretty efficient without it.
I expect arduino to bring cheap automation tools to permaculture.
With hydroponics, you're using resources that comes from some place outside the system.
If you think that sustainability and profit are compatible, you have never worked in a multinational corporation, you don't know how it works, and you've never talked to the guys at the top.
I'm currently working in a multinational corporation. Again, what makes you think you know me?
The mouths of the guys at the top are full of sustainability, not because they give a shit, but because it sells.
And yes sustainability and profit are compatible, I just need an example to prove that.
Do you think solar panel production is compatible with sustainability?
I have. I talked to industry professionals, biochemists, engineers and managers of multi-billion dollar corporations, and they confirm 100% what I stated.
Appeal to authority again.
You have nice wishes, but they clash with the real world.
I think the same about you.
We have many similar wishes, but we have different views about economics.
I don't get it. I'm not religious, I hate gyms and I like that channel.
What you don't like about the channel?
Oh, they prefer reuse rather than building all brand new efficient, like new cities. Is it what you don't like?
States are coerced by corporations and then states coerce any other corporation/individual that tries to compete. What I claim is that private property and free market is not enough for monopolies to appear. Coercion is needed.
Play it as you like, it's because of profit that all this happens. Try to take you hands off your keyboard, stop thinking, close your eyes, pause, then think again.
You might get it.
That's your answer? No coercion is needed, is all because of profit?
I'll reverse it then. How do you propose to avoid corporations coerce governments? And what do you think it's reason they do so, if it's not for profit and power?
I would remove the incentive for corporations to corrupt governments. The reason, as you said is profit and power. Corporations access this power through governments.
The more governments regulate, the more advantage from the regulations big companies get.
The more big public projects, the more resources go to the big companies that can develop them.
So to reduce the damage of corruption, I would reduce the size and power of the state.
Have you been reading Gesell's book? Anything about austrian economics? Anything about economics at all?
I read several books about economics, both when I was in college and also recently, including some of the writings you posted in the thread.
Which of the writings I posted?
Anything about austrian economics?
Just to know what can assume you'll understand.
I have yet to read Gesell, and I will.
Still, you haven't yet explained how any profit-based system tackles the two issues I posted earlier.
I successfully answered dozens of you questions. You were the only one to admit a couple of times when the point I made was correct, all the others just went over the next sentence, or the next topic, trying to find a single line to debate/debunk, among the hundreds of sentences that I wrote, which were correct.
There's some questions that I don't think you've answered properly. Don't know what you mean by successfully in this context.
I've answered all of your questions and if you think I've not do it properly, you can reformulate the question like I've been doing.
I have admitted that you were making a correct point more than a couple of times.
As I've proved in this forum, I'm not afraid to change my mind.
The fact that you didn't change your mind in this discussion doesn't mean you're correct.
Then, I ask for two, very simple things, and nobody can give a satisfactory answer that stands the grounds of logic and evidence.
I rest my case.
I've already answered those a few times, but you're not satisfied. You can try to prove my answers as incorrect (as you're doing) or reformulate your questions (as you're doing).
This remember me two questions I made. Please let me know if I got your answers wrong.
1) Do you believe that absolute values exist?
No. But I still want public education, I still think there's an absolute definition of mental health and happiness. I still think science can decide the right amount of people on earth, I still believe in self-evident distribution of resources and I still don't like private property and free trade.
2) Do you reject free trade (and thus freedom)?
No. But it will disappear on its own. When people receive what they need
for free and are educated properly
, they don't want
Although free trade leads to the destruction of the planet and the starvation of the masses, I don't think TZM should fight against free trade because it will just disappear when robots are the only workers and people are educated to not want what they don't need.
It woulnd't be for free. That's impossible. Some resources would be used, even if they're not traded for money.
Don't you see what you are saying?
There are only two real things, the rest is bullshit: resources and time that people are willing to dedicate. We have both, and many people will work for free (as it has been shown). Put the two things together.
It's not that difficult.
That's it. You can't feed the world for free. You will use natural resources and people's time.
It's because it would destroy the fucking market, that's why. People won't have to enslave themselves, and will have time to read some books, think for themselves and realise that this system is fucked up.
If it were for free, you'd do it immediately despite the "fucking market".
Only if enough people had the right values and culture. And they don't.
So you could build the RBE right now but you're waiting for the people of the world to reach the right values?
That's why we want to change the culture.
I want to change the culture too. But you don't need public education (coercion) to change culture.
Sure. In a system of universal access and infinite resources private property would be nonsense.Corrige
: in a system of universal access and finite
resources private property would be very impractical and useless for most goods
No. With finite resources private property is very important. Public property results in the tragedy of the commons
Private property is compatible with sharing. You're confusing individual property with private property.
I own some tools and games collectively with friends. But we've decided to do so, nobody forced us.
I'm not against voluntary communes.
I just don't believe such a system is possible. If you mean universal access only to food, we still private property for the rest.
Let's start with universal access to the necessities: food, water, house, transportation, education.
You mean the public sector takes care of it. I'm against.
Then you can have all the private property you want, I don't care, as long as it's sustainable.
We can't do anything beyond the carrying capacity of the earth just because it's physically impossible.
We already passed it, a long time ago.
I was including energy reserves such as oil. Maybe I should have said just capacity instead of carrying capacity.
Interesting concept though.
There will be also a day when these "natural savings" won't influence our management of resources. We will manage them within closed cycles.
You mean without reducing the future carrying capacity. You mean thinking in the long term.
Any other way to think about it?
Yes, in the short term as we do today.
The Earth is a system with cycles.
A very complex system complex system indeed, that you claim can be managed centrally. Who's the anthropocentric?
Science can tell us a lot more about soil destruction today, but that technical attempt to end starvation has only lead us to an increased population size and to soil destruction.
Talk to a biochemist, please, or read some scientific literature.
What am I asking them?
Can you just tell me why you think I'm wrong instead of trying to discredit me?
Profit does not require growth. Not even monetary profit. You can make profit, for example, by producing the same good in a more efficient way. By downsizing your company.
Exactly! Technological unemployment.
So, the more efficient you are, the less people will be able to work, the more will starve in a system without universal access.
Don't you see the complete idiocy of this wretched system?
Technological unemployment is another point of disagreement between us.
I think it's just temporal and people will just find another valuable ways to serve one another.
I'll make a prediction about a recently released technology.
Google's Accessory Development Kit (on open source hardware based on arduino and developed for profit) will enable a revolution in automation and will create thousands of new jobs.
Many people will starve to death during the coming energy crises (unless we make a disruptive discovery or invention, like economic nuclear fusion).
No, we won't. We already have disruptive technologies, but underused and underdeveloped due to the profit-structure.
You know what will happen if we discover nuclear fusion? Patents, corporations, same shit over and over, prices just a litte lower than the competition, huge profits.
Fuck that. Let's liberate humanity from this nonsense.
If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve.
I can't accept that. Billions of deaths just to prove (again) that central planning doesn't work? Fuck that.
In Boole's algebra:
-(-If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve) = If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve.
We don't have to speculate, billions are starving right fucking now thanks to your beloved free market.
Time to change, for the better.
We don't have a free market right now. There's more regulations today than ever in history.
The monetary system is flawed and managed by "financial experts" (and indirectly by governments).
Our current monetary system is a great example of a non free market.
But to replace the exponential monetary system you don't want any monetary system at all.
What qualities should have a monetary system for the transition period?
As I stated, what I care about is universal access of basic necessities and sustainability. You can have the monetary system of your choice within those boundaries, I don't care.
It doesn't matter if the monetary system is flawed and leads to unsustainability?
Can RBE lead us the "good" path? You've already agreed with me that there's no such thing as good.
You are discussing the sex of the angels.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out the conflicts between the absence of absolute values and your proposed central management of resources.
Do you agree that starve to death, being enslaved, drink polluted water, have no house and no access to education is not
a desirable thing?
On the subject of feeding the people of the third world, I would prefer to give them the rod rather than the fish.
5 words: "Confessions of an economic hitman".
Do you agree or not? What I'm going to find in that book?
Also stop abusing them instead of "trying to help" them.
Africa was pretty well fed before our governments (and then our macro-corporations) went there to coerce its peoples.
You are amazing! That's exactly right. And... you know why they did it? That's right! Yes! PROFIT!
Yes, power and profit.
And rapers do rape looking for sex, but that doesn't make sex a bad thing.
What Africa needs is we stop our coercion, not that we stop to seek profits.
"We're in a free market and we have plenty of problems. Therefore, free market causes a lot of problems."
That's not a logical reasoning even if it seems to you.
Furthermore, the premise is false. We're not in a free market, there's more regulations than have ever been.
You've not provided any evidences that prove the free market is incompatible with economic and social sustainability, just examples of non sustainable actions and industries.
Non sustainable actions and industries act on the sole motive of making profit, and that's why they act this way.
So, if you can prove that the "free market" does not seek profit, you may have a point.
Many people in the free market seek monetary profits, I don't deny that.
I deny that's the cause of problems you mentioned.
We're not on a free market and if we where and we still had problems, you still couldn't assure (logically) that the free market is the cause of those problems.
If I kill 40 people within a free market, you can't blame the free market.
Anyway, you haven't answered my question. I'll ask again:
Against all available evidence that shows exactly what i am saying, tell me how that could be possible.
Please, illuminate me.
I've already answered your two questions and you've replied "evidences all around say you're wrong", "Is evident that I'm right, if you can't see it, you've not been properly educated".
What part of my logic is wrong?
What premises are false?
Don't confuse examples and data with proved conclusions.