The Three Questions: What do you propose?

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

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

The Three Questions: ( please watch video before answering the below as the premise is explained as in great detail. )

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

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

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

[1713453241]

1713453241

[1713453241]

1713453241

[1713453241]

1713453241

[1713453241]

1713453241

[odolvlobo]

1) I disagree with the premise that the market economy requires consumption in the context described in the video. I agree that the planet's resources are limited, but I disagree with his assumption that a market economy cannot sustain itself under these limits. In fact, he contradicts himself by pointing out that it has in the past.

2) Automation results in cheaper goods, which means that people have to work less in order to sustain themselves. Keep in mind that the goal is to work less, not to work more. Anyway, he responds directly to my answer, but I disagree with his hand-waving response.

3) I don't have an answer to the question, but I completely disagree with his statement, "there is no principled difference between being killed by a gun shot to the head ... or dying of heart disease because of the causal chain reaction set in motion by the market economy."

Furthermore, he says the low economic status is the leading cause of death, but that can also be stated as high economic status is the leading promoter of life. We should all be striving for a higher economic status, but ironically that is exactly what he is arguing against.

[practicaldreamer]

In the light of the 2008/09 crash do you know the best solution the UK Government could come up with ?   The Vehicle Scrappage Scheme . What a joke.

   Seems to me that there's something very wrong here.


Anyhow, as to solutions, how about a dose of Participatory Economics ?

How might the blockchain help facilitate a participatory economy ?

[worle1bm]

I propose you're asking loaded questions, so your purpose isn't to seek a discussion but to inject your forgone conclusions into others.

[practicaldreamer]

I propose you're asking loaded questions, so your purpose isn't to seek a discussion but to inject your forgone conclusions into others.

I have no forgone conclusions about parecon - I don't know enough about it. So I would therefore, welcome a discussion on it. The question wasn't loaded - it was speculative.

Do you have anything to add ? Or are you gonna tell us all everything will work out OK in the end - I'm alright Jack etc ?
    (Those were loaded questions you fuckin dimwit.)

BTW- you're a bona fide troll and you're now ignored

[worle1bm]

I propose you're asking loaded questions, so your purpose isn't to seek a discussion but to inject your forgone conclusions into others.

I have no forgone conclusions about parecon - I don't know enough about it. So I would therefore, welcome a discussion on it. The question wasn't loaded - it was speculative.

Do you have anything to add ? Or are you gonna tell us all everything will work out OK in the end - I'm alright Jack etc ?
    (Those were loaded questions you fuckin dimwit.)

BTW- you're a bona fide troll and you're now ignored

Dude, I was replying to OP, not you.

[shawshankinmate37927]

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

Oh great, Peter Joseph.  Hasn't Stefan Molyneux already addressed his mindset and this Zeitgeist thing?

[twiifm]

Those are pretty good questions.

My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.

But PJ has the same problem as Marx.  The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption

[shawshankinmate37927]

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

Oh great, Peter Joseph.  Hasn't Stefan Molyneux already addressed his mindset and this Zeitgeist thing?

I couldn't even get halfway through it.  Just illogical nonsense.  Sounds like he wants to replace a centrally planned economy with a new, improved, centrally planned economy.

[twiifm]

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

Oh great, Peter Joseph.  Hasn't Stefan Molyneux already addressed his mindset and this Zeitgeist thing?

I couldn't even get halfway through it.  Just illogical nonsense.  Sounds like he wants to replace a centrally planned economy with a new, improved, centrally planned economy.

I doesn't really talk about the solution.  He talks about his premise (the 3 questions) which are quite correct and not illogical at all.

He only talks about getting rid of markets, but he has no idea how to do it.  That's my big critique of RBE there's no way to get to there without disruption on the scale of bloody revolution like France or Russia

And BTW, Stefan Molyneux is an idiot.  At least this Peter Joseph guy has a brain

[shawshankinmate37927]

1) Demand for human employment is not something that needs to be "maintained".  I would actually prefer not to work.  Why is further economic growth a goal?  What collective decided this?  Yes, there is an incentive to reduce resource use, he refers to it in the video, it's the incentive to maximize profit.  Price keeps the supply and demand for a resource in balance.

2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.

3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week?  The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.

[shawshankinmate37927]

And BTW, Stefan Molyneux is an idiot.  At least this Peter Joseph guy has a brain

You must have missed this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtv5E6CkLE

[twiifm]

And BTW, Stefan Molyneux is an idiot.  At least this Peter Joseph guy has a brain

You must have missed this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtv5E6CkLE

Yeah exactly.  Molyneux cant even stay on point and likes to talk over people.  If his ideas are any good he wouldn't need to do that.

The problem w Peter Joseph is RBE is utopian.  His critiques of market forces are correct.  He just doesnt have a good solution yet what to do about it. 

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Im not going to start counterargumenting these which would be easy... I'll leave it for other posters for now. What im going to say tho is: Besides trying to counterargument the 3 points, you have to PROPOSE solutions. TZM proposes solutions, let us hear yours.

Also, the last time I saw Molyneux vs Joseph Molyneux got obliterated, only a fanboy would think otherwise.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

1) Demand for human employment is not something that needs to be "maintained".  I would actually prefer not to work.  Why is further economic growth a goal?  What collective decided this?  Yes, there is an incentive to reduce resource use, he refers to it in the video, it's the incentive to maximize profit.  Price keeps the supply and demand for a resource in balance.

2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.

3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week?  The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.

So you are proposing an economy where the only needed labour is a basically repairing the machines and you expect this to work?

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Those are pretty good questions.

My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.

But PJ has the same problem as Marx.  The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption

You really expect things to go on forever the way they are without disruption? disruption is a given, if what we get after is RBE or a madmax scenareo is another history. Disruption will happen as a natural result of our current system.

[twiifm]

Those are pretty good questions.

My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.

But PJ has the same problem as Marx.  The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption

You really expect things to go on forever the way they are without disruption? disruption is a given, if what we get after is RBE or a madmax scenareo is another history. Disruption will happen as a natural result of our current system.

PJ says markets have propensity for structural violence?  Yet we still have markets despite several large scale wars and revolutions.  So, yes, I expect markets to go on forever.  Boom and bust cycles but not madmax armageddon

[shawshankinmate37927]

1) Demand for human employment is not something that needs to be "maintained".  I would actually prefer not to work.  Why is further economic growth a goal?  What collective decided this?  Yes, there is an incentive to reduce resource use, he refers to it in the video, it's the incentive to maximize profit.  Price keeps the supply and demand for a resource in balance.

2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.

3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week?  The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.

So you are proposing an economy where the only needed labour is a basically repairing the machines and you expect this to work?

My only proposal is that people be free to participate in an economic system of their own choosing.  It sounds like David Joseph fears that machines and robots are going to make human labor obsolete.  I don't believe it's possible for machines to supply all of the goods and services that the market demands, but if they were, then yes, the only human labor required by the market would be to repair and operate those robots and machines.

What product or service would human labor produce or provide if robots and machines are supplying them all?

It's just a pretty silly thought experiment.  We have machines called automobiles that get us from place to place.  We have machines that wash and dry our clothes.  We have machines that plow farmland.  The list goes on and on.  These machines have to be designed, built, operated, repaired, and maintained by someone.

[picolo]

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

The Three Questions: ( please watch video before answering the below as the premise is explained as in great detail. )

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

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

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

When you produce more but you the people 't need to work as much it is a good thing, automation is a good thing because the aim is to enjoy comfort, safety, freedom while consuming products and services but not to work

[practicaldreamer]

freedom while consuming products and services but not to work

Yeah, I know what you are saying. But people need work. I don't mean working at Burger King on a zero hours contract. I mean doing something meaningful, something with responsibility, with scope for self expression. The traditional middle class jobs have cornered the market in this sort of thing. Teachers, artists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants.
   But even these jobs are going to eventually get eaten up thru tech advances.

What we going to do - all sit around all day watching Jerry Springer ?