A Resource Based Economy

[4v4l0n42]

Those questions should be asked to voters and representatives. Voters are (or should be) the ones who control every political aspect, and of course what economic model to follow. It's called democracy.
Yeah, you can improve a lot our democracy, but only giving everyone more direct power, allowing liquid/direct democracy.

A common misconception regarding the word democracy is widespread, largely because of bad news reporting and a fundamental lack of understanding of the political system.

AFAIK, there are no functioning democracy in the entire world. For example, the United States is a Federal presidential constitutional republic, nowhere the word "democracy" comes into place, and for a very good reason. Italy is a Unitary parliamentary republic, and so on and so forth. If democracy were to be put in place, it would be highly impractical, even with today's technologies and e-voting. Why would you vote for everything that there is to agree on, maybe even with a quorum? Nothing would get done.

The political system as we know it was practical and had its use before the evolution of complex systems of collaborations, such as FOSS and the scientific community at large. A saner system would rely on these advances in technology, sharing of information and collaboration and integrate them in the workflow.

When you have to deal with a technical process, it doesn't matter what the majority believes, it matters what is true and can be tested, based on scientific knowledge. Complex systems organisation don't work on democratic grounds, but on the scientific method. Yet, we apply the notion of electing officials, who have no understanding whatsoever of what they are doing, to mange our lives. In the US, the overwhelming majority of congressmen and women are lawyers and bankers, who make laws for bankers and lawyers, go figure. It's a self-perpetrating system that has no business in making the lives of everyone better, and that is inherent in the design.

As I said, we can give a good education to everyone, so that if they want, they can contribute to this new saner system, much like Wikipedia, Linux, Firefox, Open Source Architecture Network, Open Source Ecology work. That would actually improve people's lives.

As for the matter of ethics, yes, that can be a democratic system, but for technical processes it doesn't make any sense, much less the various forms of republics.

[4v4l0n42]

Yes, I'm sorry. That's the right definition. My fault.

My point is...
With the same complexity class, we have a problem in which, (unlike tick-tack-toe)  the human brain is better computing than the machine the greater n is, precisely in a field (computable problems) in which the human has been defeated numerable times, with the notorious example of chess.

That is a valid point, the brain uses pattern recognition and many shortcuts, so that it doesn't have to brute force all the possible solutions. However, that's just a problem of software and algorithms. With the recent advancements of machine learning and evolutionary algorithms, computer are now already much better than humans in many tasks that were once thought relegated to our bains (e.g: IBM Watson, suggestions from Amazon, GMail priority inbox, Adense et cetera).

As I stated before, instead of one general purpose AI, we have many hundres of purpose-specific AIs, which can function much better and more efficiently than we do, with the aim of utilising those arrive at better decisions. See "Where are we going? Section project earth" for a general presentation on this issue.

http://vimeo.com/7857584

I think the machines have to learn more about the brain in this particular problem than the brain has to learn from the machine. The robustness and adaptability of humans will keep us in the employment market for a long, long time (maybe forever?).
We'll never build a machine that "values" better than us, whatever that means. And politics/economics is all about what society and individuals value.

Just analyze what we really to do, and what is relevant to make our lives better. If we didn't have to fuel this nonsensical economic growth just for the sake of profit, we could eliminate 70% of the current jobs and have people live much healthier lives with a 8-hours/week work schedule. And before replying to this, please do some research, don't just tell me what you feel in your guts.

Sorry again. I've asked to this reply without reading the next one.

[4v4l0n42]

Ok, I should read the material of TZM more deeply before having an opinion on it. I'm just talking about what I heard (or wachted), but I must admit I haven't read much about the movement.
I still don't know what's the difference between RBE and TZM is, so I should definitely study it before making risky claims about any of them.

 

You're right again, my criticism could be more productive if I do.

And I hope you will. What TZM propose is just what we could come up with through analysis, logic and scientific understanding, but we are still very limited in knowledge. By having more people analysing it, we can hugely improve it, spot the fallacies and inefficiencies and make it more viable.

[jtimon]

AFAIK, there are no functioning democracy in the entire world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

Is not total democracy though, but  it's much better than, for exmple, in Spain.
Anyway, I don't want to enter ina democracy discussion. I just wanted you to know. As far as I know is the more direct democracy in the world.

[anderxander]

. ..Let me begin by counter-posing two different
conceptions of democracy. One conception of
democracy has it that a democratic society is one
in which the public has the means to participate
in some meaningful way in the management of
their own affairs and the means of information
are open and free....

An alternative conception of democracy is that
the public must be barred from managing of their
own affairs and the means of information must
be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may
sound like an odd conception of democracy, but
it's important to understand that it is the
prevailing conception....

Chomsky 1991

evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/chomsky03.htm

Full speech

[4v4l0n42]

Hey guys,
thanks for the feedback.

At first, I was a bit reluctant to join the conversation. So far I've seen that most of the times in forums the argument goes a bit like "ur face is stoopid!", and the whole conversation just deteriorates to nothingness.

I gave it a shot, and I found rather intelligent people instead, capable of putting their beliefs aside and evaluate what others present. So, thank you for the civilised discussion, I hope to get more sound criticisms so that we can improve our model even more.

If anybody is interested, I hosted the TZM global radio show last week, topic Automation and Technological unemployment.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/zmglobal/2011/06/15/june-15th-11--tzm-global-radio-host-federico-pistono

I also mentioned you guys

[Bitcoin_Silver_Supply]

Utopian collectivism with a central computer is, unfortunately, still collectivism

Detached from the current monopoly of central bank notes, currency is just one of many means of exchange. The right to barter for both needs and wants is essential if individuals are to live in a society with any semblance of individual choice and basic freedoms.

Freedom of choice often comes with error and personal responsibility, thus there is no absolute utopia for those who believe in voluntary interactions. However, barring individuals from choosing to use currency and dispensing all "abundant" goods through a central computer is far from a favourable situation.

Beyond the monetary issue, I have also been disturbed by the views espoused by Joseph and Fresco concerning how families would cease to exist in this system due, in part, to overpopulation hysteria (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX9Ds_8jG38). If people were to spontaneously choose to stop having families for personal reasons so be it, but Fresco and Joseph suggest that this value would be trained into them through "scientific education." In this, I see TZM's methods as being no different from those used by countless totalitarian regimes in the 20th century

[4v4l0n42]

However, barring individuals from choosing to use currency and dispensing all "abundant" goods through a central computer is far from a favourable situation.

Agreed. Nobody has proposed such nonsense (read what I wrote earlier).

[...] suggest that this value would be trained into them through "scientific education." In this, I see TZM's methods as being no different from those used by countless totalitarian regimes in the 20th century

You misinterpreted. It is a simple recognition of the fact that as education rises, the natural consequence is decline in population, we see that in every civilised country. It is by no means a value imposed, nor would anyone be compelled not to have children (as it happens in totalitarian regimes like China).

What Joseph referred to was his own view of life, he said that, for him, it would be irresponsible to bring a child on this planet without thinking of the consequences, he didn't say people shouldn't have children.

[LightRider]

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/tzm-town-hall

The Zeitgeist Movement recently held their first Town Hall meeting in LA this weekend. It is something that is going to be down more frequently to help engage the community with these ideas. Please check it out if you're interested in the subject!

Also, thanks for keeping the discussion ongoing and relevant. It is good to see.

[cbeast]

I see a lot of people labeling things as "isms." While labels are somewhat useful, they are limited by the context in which they are covering. Capitalism, collectivism, communism, etc. are a convenience for casual conversation within a limited scope, but they have no more relevance to science than talking about creationism versus evolution. Using "isms" require fallacious support when talking about real world, rather than hypothetical systems. For example: people often use terms like entropy to describe something that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Ridiculous. I don't have a problem with analogies, metaphors, and allegories; but when overgeneralizing about enormously complex subject matter it's best to build an argument one-piece-at-a-time. This takes a lot of self education. The science will take care of itself.

[jtimon]

I see a lot of people labeling things as "isms." While labels are somewhat useful, they are limited by the context in which they are covering. Capitalism, collectivism, communism, etc. are a convenience for casual conversation within a limited scope, but they have no more relevance to science than talking about creationism versus evolution. Using "isms" require fallacious support when talking about real world, rather than hypothetical systems. For example: people often use terms like entropy to describe something that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Ridiculous. I don't have a problem with analogies, metaphors, and allegories; but when overgeneralizing about enormously complex subject matter it's best to build an argument one-piece-at-a-time. This takes a lot of self education. The science will take care of itself.

I disagree. Capitalism and communism are not labels but clear concepts to me. Their context is politics and economics.
However, my definition of capitalism is quite unusual, since it requires not only free market but also a monetary system in which money is loaned at interest.

[Findeton]

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/tzm-town-hall

The Zeitgeist Movement recently held their first Town Hall meeting in LA this weekend. It is something that is going to be down more frequently to help engage the community with these ideas. Please check it out if you're interested in the subject!

Also, thanks for keeping the discussion ongoing and relevant. It is good to see.

A resource based economy? Stupidest thing ever.

Also, The Venus Project is a sect/cult.

[cbeast]

I see a lot of people labeling things as "isms." While labels are somewhat useful, they are limited by the context in which they are covering. Capitalism, collectivism, communism, etc. are a convenience for casual conversation within a limited scope, but they have no more relevance to science than talking about creationism versus evolution. Using "isms" require fallacious support when talking about real world, rather than hypothetical systems. For example: people often use terms like entropy to describe something that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Ridiculous. I don't have a problem with analogies, metaphors, and allegories; but when overgeneralizing about enormously complex subject matter it's best to build an argument one-piece-at-a-time. This takes a lot of self education. The science will take care of itself.

I disagree. Capitalism and communism are not labels but clear concepts to me. Their context is politics and economics.
However, my definition of capitalism is quite unusual, since it requires not only free market but also a monetary system in which money is loaned at interest.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'clear concepts' here. The terms have dictionary definitions, but so what? They are reifications. Reifications are concepts that we use as generalized shortcuts to convey a complex idea quickly; but ideas themselves aren't real things. Capitalism and communism are often considered opposites, yet in China they work together. The 'ism' generalization becomes way too murky in the real world. Where is capitalism? Where is communism?

[jtimon]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'clear concepts' here. The terms have dictionary definitions, but so what? They are reifications. Reifications are concepts that we use as generalized shortcuts to convey a complex idea quickly; but ideas themselves aren't real things. Capitalism and communism are often considered opposites, yet in China they work together. The 'ism' generalization becomes way too murky in the real world. Where is capitalism? Where is communism?

If you mean pure capitalism or pure communism, nowhere neither of them. But they are useful concepts to express ideas in the real world.
Not sure what reifications are, but "concepts that we use as generalized shortcuts to convey a complex idea quickly". Yes. The same with all concepts and words. Words are just shortcuts to ideas. What I don't understand is why we can use "town" but shouldn't use "communism". Are words ended in -ism worse for any special reason?

[killer2021]

We already live in a resource based economy.

The major problem we have is the fact that the monetary system is transferring wealth from the bottom to the top. With each new dollar that is printed a little bit of your current dollars goes down in value. The wealth is transferred to bankers and Washington (who gets to spend the new dollars first).

With bitcoin this does not occur. Rather the money supply inflates very quickly early on but slows down over time. Eventually it gets to the point where the increase in new money being created is marginal and results in little or no inflation. The power to print money is returned to the people who ought to be the rightful owners of it. Bitcoin is the currency of the people.

Thomas  Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

What he is referring to is that the power of the printing press allows banks to create artificial booms and bust cycles. When you want to create a boom cycle you simply start printing lots of money, which the banks lend. This creates easy/cheap credit which businesses and individuals borrow. This also creates an artificial boom in the stock market/asset prices. When you want to create the bust you simply stop printing money or reduce the rate at which you print. This makes it difficult for people to repay their loans. As a result they default. When people start defaulting it sends panic in the market and you get a bust. It is at this very moment that banks will fire up the printing press once again and buy up large amounts of assets for cheap. This is what occurred in the great depression and the more recent 2006 housing bust.

There is also the problem of interest. All money put in circulation has been done so by borrowing it at interest from the fed. It is impossible to repay 14.5 trillion in loans from the fed if there is only 14 trillion total money supply.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."    Thomas Jefferson

When you use bitcoins rather than fiat currency you are returning the power of money back to the people.

[LightRider]

We already live in a resource based economy.

The major problem we have is the fact that the monetary system is transferring wealth from the bottom to the top. With each new dollar that is printed a little bit of your current dollars goes down in value. The wealth is transferred to bankers and Washington (who gets to spend the new dollars first).

With bitcoin this does not occur. Rather the money supply inflates very quickly early on but slows down over time. Eventually it gets to the point where the increase in new money being created is marginal and results in little or no inflation. The power to print money is returned to the people who ought to be the rightful owners of it. Bitcoin is the currency of the people.

Thomas  Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

What he is referring to is that the power of the printing press allows banks to create artificial booms and bust cycles. When you want to create a boom cycle you simply start printing lots of money, which the banks lend. This creates easy/cheap credit which businesses and individuals borrow. This also creates an artificial boom in the stock market/asset prices. When you want to create the bust you simply stop printing money or reduce the rate at which you print. This makes it difficult for people to repay their loans. As a result they default. When people start defaulting it sends panic in the market and you get a bust. It is at this very moment that banks will fire up the printing press once again and buy up large amounts of assets for cheap. This is what occurred in the great depression and the more recent 2006 housing bust.

There is also the problem of interest. All money put in circulation has been done so by borrowing it at interest from the fed. It is impossible to repay 14.5 trillion in loans from the fed if there is only 14 trillion total money supply.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."    Thomas Jefferson

When you use bitcoins rather than fiat currency you are returning the power of money back to the people.

Money artificially favors an arbitrary group of people, no matter how "free" it is. It is also entirely irrelevant to natural resources and processes. A true RBE does not require money because there is no way to conjure value or utility from an idea.

[Vinnie]

The futuristic, hypotrophic cities (hitech strip malls) on your home page make me want to puke. Give me a narrow alley and a 450 squarefoot apartment crammed in between hundreds of other apartments, please.

[Vinnie]

Also, I spent 5 minutes reading The Venus' projects about section and couldn't figure out what the fuck you guys are talking about. I mostly read sentence after sentence that basically said this over and over again:

"The Venus Project is a leap forward in technological thinking. Old ways of thinking clearly are not serving humankind. Read on to find out about our innovative solutions to the challenges the world faces today. For too long we've been living in a world that.... blah blah blah."

It led me to believe that your project doesn't actually have anything to say.

[shady financier]

Zeitgaist Movement says some interesting things, but ultimately they are a vacuous techno-cult. It's not the first time in history that misguided and somewhat misanthropic dreamers have asserted that mankind's redemption can be found only in technology. Laughably naive in sum.

[4v4l0n42]

Quick reminder for the last comments, obviously you did not read the thread.

1. TZM != TVP

2. Techno-cult bla bla bla bullshit: don't just put labels, read the material, argue with reason and provide actual criticism or STFU.