1. You point out a bit of comedy Peter put into zeitgeist because lets face it other wise it was pretty boring ever watch a doc before?
2. The people programming the "computer" will not be deciding how resources are allocated. They will be allocated in the most efficient way according to the populations needs. Did you even listen to what Peter said ever?
3. The people who "drawn" to power are products of bad environment. A better education and family environment will fix this.
@stalkingcat123 hi,fellow resource based economist.your wrong.it is flawed.1,yes comedy,but he never answers the question set before the comedy.he used it to not answer the question.2 yes they will,you use circular resoning.the computer will have to be programmed with this ai.other wize how would it work.also could be hacked.3 he has shown how this is not true and you know it isent at the moment,we cannot assume we can irradicate anomilitys.also you did not address hos last point
I struggle to see the difference to now other than The RBE(a better option) as the people are in control of the computer and every resource is decided on the benefits of mankind.Computers already dictate our resource through stocks which are controlled by greedy people and If you trust the rich people that control our Resources now thats insane as they are wasting them Killing people. What do you think causes so much debt,They are already incharge of government,Money and of war , RBE all the way
@coolwater8u thats a really good point,but how would you enforce this?ie sustain dynamic equilibrim(YOU CANNOT LIVE WERE YOU WANT IN RBE)so what if i went against the "educated respectfull choice" and lived somewere else,how would you enforce me not too?not saying RBE is bad but every problem must be solved obviously
@ripedreality I struggle to believe that in an RBE you would want to live anywhere , If everything was free , wouldnt you want to travel the world and learn and see all its wonders .I wouldnt need a fixed home , I would stay in appartments for however long my stay would be , Then give it up and move on . Same as posessions . Whatever i need i would hire and give it back when finished , Thats what solves Over consumption of resources , Its good for the planet :)
Don't forget the Austrian criticisms of a centrally planned economy. It doesn't matter who programs the computer, it's calculations will be garbage. You can't compare steel to wood without prices. And if those prices are chosen arbitrarily by the programmer, the calculation will be meaningless. The system will end up consuming resources until it implodes like the Soviet Union.
@ArmednSafe.limit of resouce.needs for needed purpose.recyle time.distrobution,cost of other resouce to distrobute.etc.a computor will always do a better job then a person when programmed well enough.thats logic.but the idea is un-democratic.but i dont know if freedom or democray exist.
@ArmednSafe this video raises excellent points,the likes of which must be changed,explained or solved before an RBE can be introduced.But all the problems that storm clouds gathering makes have been explained or solved in a video response,it should be in the suggestions and its called response to storm clouds gathering.I would like to see storm clouds gathering respond to these explanations
@ripedreality None of the tinkering you can do with this plan can address the fundamental fallacy of all central planning. Read Mises' short book "Socialism". A centrally planned economy can't calculate what the difference is between a loaf of bread and a drill press. It doesn't matter whether that central planner is a Soviet politburo chief or a super computer.
@ripedreality I can give you a short version. In a modern economy there are an infinite number of things you COULD make and an infinite different ways you COULD make them. If your goal is to turn things people want less into things people want more, prices that come from voluntary exchange are the only way to tell whether you are in fact doing that. Without prices a central planner will go on destroying value(things people want) without having any indication that is happening.
@ArmednSafe thats not true because stock could still be taken,even if money was non-existant.meaning suppley and demand still functioned as normal(ie more produced or less produced based on demand)Like a libary,books that were less popular,can become more popular and be more well stocked,etc.Im not shure if this is exactly what your talking about,sorry.I may need to read the book if im compltely off the point.
@ripedreality Sure, you can know how much of something you have. But that doesn't allow you to compare costs. Nothing is free, there is always a cost. The cost is the next best thing that you would have done with the resources. In your library example, you wouldn't be able to know whether you should replenish your stock or not. Sure, the shelf is empty, but what is the cost of getting new books? If books don't have prices, how would you know if that was an efficient use of paper?
@ArmednSafe you would measure books by popularity(how fast it is taken and how often),then index that against the amount of wood/ink etc available per time period of production and factor in the time it takes to replenish these materials.the book would not be created unless demand was already surveyed.also stacking the importance of resource for other purposes in rank.(basicaly just ensuring that resource dosent become like oil is today etc)also resouced would be more shared and
@ArmednSafe less produced proabably,ie that statistc for increase of consumerism,per person per year would drop due to illimination of manipulative advertising.also book is a bad example,as im shure they would just be replaced by kindels(type hardware) which would come in near exact representation of classic books,but that generation would die out(who like books,that are unpractical just because they are books)
@ArmednSafe also your whole argument is invalid because as they are money does not represent how effeiciently some resource was used at all,in any way shape or form,what so ever.and how did you even manga to come to that mad idea?and just because there is a high demand for something,dosent mean said resource is being used effciently.money just stops efficiently altogether ie planned obsolescence.we can never truly be effectiant with money(even space ships cannot be build to last ect)
@ripedreality Economic efficiency is measured by the value of things produced divided by the value of the factors of production. By value, I mean the market price. As I said before, we want to turn things people want less into things people want more, right? And your hand waving scheme for avoiding prices doesn't compute anthing. How do you measure demand without prices? What does, "indexing" the rate of something being taken against the resources required to make it, mean?
@ArmednSafe.first,why would you want to make people want things more(there is no profit in RBE,if you want to spread somthing(because you want to) you put it online,give it to people etc)prices do NOT represent effiency of resouces.measuring amount used,needed vs amount of resourcesavailable does.Do you understand that?In a monetary system resources are wasted all the time on things people do not need.(remeber we are talking about effeciency(need) not want)
@ArmednSafe.like what are you actually saying,we need money or we wont know the vaule of things?what the are you talking about,gold is valuable.but it dosent serve any purpose apart from being preety.in a monetary system companys create scarcity so as to maximize profits,they damge ecosystems(resouces) to lower waste disposal costs)prices fluxtuate based on fake value.money is noting,it is legal tender.it does not represent resources.houses without people,people without houses?
@ArmednSafe you know money is the biggest problem in the world,why do u think we need it?we can survey en mass to see what people want(with the remaining resources,after essentials)and then create these things.no planned obsolescence either!like are you just trolling or what?In US the economy does better if there are more sick and dieing people,then they can spend that money on bombs.yea money really represents logical use of resources
@ripedreality It is a good thing that our society is wealthy enough to satisfy more than just our basic necessities for survival. I don't know how you could attack that. And money isn't the problem. It's fiat money that is printed by a private bank backed by the force of government. It's government that misdirects resources away from what the public wants. And it's government that allows firms to degrade the environment by not respecting property rights.
@ArmednSafe "our society is wealthy enough to satisfy more than just our basic necessities" maybe for you.So what exactly is your position,do think we should just end the fed and the central banks and have a gold standard again?because that still perpetuates scarcity.
@ripedreality Scarcity is a fact of life. There is no organization scheme that can get rid of it. One day we could figure out how to make those "replicators" from Star Trek. That would get rid of scarcity. But as things are technologically and structurally, we need to optimize resource use. My position is very simple, get rid of all forms of institutional coercion and violence. Common criminals will always exist, but we can get rid of government violence and coercion.
The computers won't control anything, you need to look into it a bit deeper than that. The computers give answer to questions like "do we have sufficient resources?", "has this been done before?", and "can this be done without affecting the ecosystem/mother nature?" etc. Peter Joseph always uses generalizations in interviews, he can't go into detail because there is no real information yet, they're working on it still!
@hksbloa93 what about hacking?people are not satisfied with there needs meet today,how to we know we can eradicate this.If even one person(who had a phycologicaly damaging experience(relationships(un requited love)envoirment(accident))etc wanted to take over.there is no police,eveyone trusts each other etc.whats stoping them from shuting down the computor system etc?
Hey SCG, just saw an email notifying me that you co-hosted the TZM global radio show on the first of this month. Haven't checked it out yet but it sounds promising. I'm subbed to both you and TZM channels and the critique you have brought is both constructive and welcomed. We need more level headed people to create actual decent dialogue instead of the e-drama TZM sometimes gets bogged down with. Thanks for your time!
Accepting for a moment that ANY plan for survival in a post-economic/monetary society will have flaws, (based on the fact they are of human design, and by that nature, susceptible to flaw), why is it that people are so willing to pull down and discredit these ideas?
While I can fully understand the need for critical dissection of such plans, would it not be a more constructive use of our time and energies to look for a solution to identified flaws, rather than challenging the designer?
well... if an AI computer was programed to do what's best for humanity. ea. distribute all resources evenly between all people, i couldn't see how this system could become corrupt, because the computer have no incentive to be. it only focuses on doing what is most effective and best for all.
Sorry this serious? You can't be much older than 16, saying something like this. Do you study AI? Because the biggest gains in AI have been in the last twenty years, by modelling our brain in the realm of a computer. Treat the brain like a computer and you get your AI. But our AI have not gotten past the intellect of a mental insect. How in the hell do you expect an AI computer to evenly distribute resources for humanity? I'm baffled by the claim cuz your dreaming bub:)
@Reido2828 i have no doubt that we will within 20-50 years (that is if society does not collapse before that) have created an artificial intelligence that is a thousand if not a million times smarter than we are. you should read the book The Singularity Is Near by, Ray Kurzweil.
even tho Ray belives that we will eventually become like half machine half human, and we will live forever (witch i do not hope will happen, but he might be right) his knowledge on AI and robotics is waste beyond beliefs
I won't read Ray because many have debunked his claims and the way society is moving is not for Machines to distribute wealth to us but to eventually become apart of our biological system. Look at how technology develops, its done through our brain and body. I don't believe Ray though and don't take everything he says seriously.
@Reido2828 your making a big mistake not to take what Ray Kurzweil says seriously! almost every technological predictions he has made have come true. and could you please point me to a site where some of his theories have been debunked?
and you dont belive that our society is slowly moving to replace human jobs with automation?
You need to do your own research. Just google it and hear what the critics of Kurzweil have to say. He has made many predictions and has changed them around. Our society is slowly replacing human jobs but thats good. Humanity was not meant to do labour, were bad at it. Kurzweill's predictions come true because he says they do. Its good to get a different argument
Gosh guys you are soo stupid you cant even detect sarcsm, the story of Tesla is just an example of the negative and critisism that the tecnology and reason than can change of lifes of all for the better, can face. And just like in the case of Tesla, ruin his pegacy which could had been far greater. btw don't botter to reply, yours already shown you are soo stupid you don't deserve to be taken seriously.
Right now we have to change the though process and the values that people actually born into. Thus meaning you can't change a system without changing the individuals values/ideals first, because no matter what economical system you put forth it would collapse if humans kept the same mind set.
Let me tell you a story about a man: Nikola Tesla, and his potentially dangerous and flawed idea of using a certain type or energy known as alternating current (AC). This mad man poroposed that we the regualar ppl could use this dangerous and deadly power suply IN OUR OWN HOUSES. wich could lead to thousands of deaths because of electric shocks or cause electric fires, simply under the premise of it being fairly cheaper and capable of travel long distances. allowing it to reach remote locations.
@klaussone Your so stupid Nikola Tesla was the greatest scientist of all. He mad numerous breakthroughs in all types of electricity and radio transitions.
You ignore the circumstances that led Hitler to be the way he was & how someone like him was able to get into a position of power in the first place in Germany. Also, I think the fact you brought up that the elite still act like psychopaths, despite their wealth, demonstrates that you don't quite get it. The reasoning behind their actions is because they still live in an economy based on scarcity & therefore have instincts for self preservation. These circumstances would be eliminated in an RBE
All computer control systems obviously will be opensource, many, literally thousands of people, like in Linux Operating system, will design, contribute and control the system execution.
You keep thinking that very difficult is equivalent to impossible. Is not a good way to think to make your dreams come true.
The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project are no longer associated, and the idea that a resource-based economy came from Peter Joseph is a fallacy. It would be appreciated if you could make this clear to people in your videos attempting to discredit them, for demonizing them as one in the same simply doesn't work anymore.
Who controls the media that brainwashes people into thinking like you? Who controls the monetary mass? Who controls the resources you need to live? Who controls the access to the knowledge you need to understand how your own brain can be manipulated into believing things that only benefit others? Power/Control come from specialization and we needed it as a species, what corrupts it is differential advantage driven values, represented by money, and that fat psychopath you've shown is full of it.
lol, humanity needs a reset button. People will argue about a RBE when the type of economy we live in is clearly much worse. Other than people controlling a supercomputer, we have idiots controlling a bank; it's essentially the same idea. People have been adjusted to think about Money and money is the only thing that will make the world go around...not true. A RBE is about PRESERVATION. A monetary system is obviously NOT about that! Do you want to preserve, or diminish?
His sarcasm/mockery segment in Zeitgeist moving forward was only there to address mindlocked indoctrinated narrow views, people that make quick surface associations without any critical thought, and now after watching your video, i know these mentalities exist.
@TheDarkFenix excellent point, was thinking the same thing. I actually like this guys videos but thought this video was in particular a bit of an epic fail....
You're obviously a very intelligent person and you've done some EXCELLENT work!
BUT, ;D), the "Hitlers", "Lenins" and even "CHARLES MANSONS", these days are made not born; made by our Freemason owners that profit from "chaos".
Look at the patterns of India and Russia; you'll find them being used in AMERICA; the next step are FAMINES, after our next FAKE 'terrorist' attack triggers CIVIL WAR.
Humanity will evolve through many phases, and as such, so will our societies. When the current system fails, we may find through necessity that in order to survive, parts of western culture will have to evolve - to remember values that other cultures still hold. The most sustainable human cultures recognized they are part of the land, not its owners. I see an RBE as requiring a paradigm shift in most cultures, possibly caused by massive global resource scarcity. New humans, new system.
You could take those who dont want thier land involved in this new type of economy out of the first step which is a survey of all natural resources in the world sooo they essentially have the choice to participate in this economy or their own flawed capitalistic one
@Italianinfowarrior you never own what your calling your land, You never stop paying taxes on it, and if you do guess who steps in and tells you to get off your so called land
This is based on local taxes. I guess you have never owned land. Property taxes are based on the country and some counties have very low or no property tax. So yes you do own it.
The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity. In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow. When applying it to living breathing human beings will you make determinations based on how many people must starve? or will you simply experiment to see what the minimum amount of food a person needs is?
@zoulkyud Why would we do either of those things? Achieving an abundance of food would obviously negate the requirement for either of those conclusions...
So in venus city they would fix winter, all plant diseases, and forms of blight? This is amazing how did the venus project do it? Is the city also powered by your hopes and dreams?
My argument is not a straw man. Do you think food grows freely without problems? How do you intend to deal with these problems? I guess you can't, guess your city can't. Guess you will starve and you have resigned to the argument of a brainwashed coward.
@zoulkyud Would you like to learn about the RBEM? I can help explain it to you so that you do not reach these erroneous conclusions. You can also check out the FAQ from the main site thezeitgeistmovement(dot)com. If you'd like to argue you should first understand what you are actually opposing. }:^D
I asked questions... I didn't know questioning was opposition?
Still it does not answer the question as to what would you do if their was a short supply of food.
You can't just have magic abundance. That is the problem with the argument. it assumes this if this project succeeds you will have infinite supply for your needs.
Likewise who gets to have the beach view or lake view? Living arrangements are first come first serve?
@zoulkyud No, see I'm not trying to draw you into an argument, I'm saying you should first familiarize yourself with the materials presented before trying to point out supposed flaws. If you had, you'd realize why these questions are unfound to begin with. I won't be able to give you enough information in a youtube comment. You can PM me if you'd like, but you should really show some initiative yourself if you want to be taken seriously.
So you can't answer a question that isn't list in their FAQ? You know why. Because there is no answer. Its a wild unproven assumption. Its like me saying no one would "have cancer if the moon wasn't orbiting the earth". TVP RBEM etc, are all based on the assumption that if you build it, it is an automatic utopia. Which it is not.
@zoulkyud No. The methodology of the RBEM is entirely based in science... the attributes you straw man are products of that methodology, and do not constitute the model itself. Zeitgeist members, nor the RBEM methodology would tolerate unproven assumptions. I'm simply telling you to go read the FAQ because you obviously haven't familiarized yourself with even the most basic content of the process. I'm not even sure what your protesting - that creating an abundance is impossible?
The Zeitguiest movement makes some interesting points and shows some helpfull insights as far as the nature of the federal reserve. I don't think the system they propose will work, I'd like it to but I doubt it would.
You talk like an uptight geek that doesn't have sex enough.. Relax. Smoke some weed and get out of your constipated mental foolishness. If you think it's in our dna to be cunts and we are doomed to destruction just admit to being a nihilist.. I;m a recovering one myself so i have sympathy but you seem to just wallow in nerdy discourse instead of tackling the issue.
smart man good presentation all though you cant talk about every flaw in 5 to 10 mins you pointed out what i would consider the best analysis any one can ever make the reviewing of the content that shows its on hypocrisies you cant fix anything unless you acknowledge your own short comings
one joke in a long film was taken out of context here to make some failed point
The system could not be "seized", if it did it would not BE the system, it uses the scientific method, alterations would be more obvious then in any other system
You wouldn't need to recruit people living in rainforests who are not causing any trouble on the world stage, they are already living within their means.
Land ownership is not inherent in culture, culture pre-dates contracts any cave wall can tell us this
@psychotropicfan Is not self ownership inherent in culture? Land ownership is an extension self ownership and who says the contracts have to be Writen People of Honour will hold to a verbal contract.
Man I did a video about the same part of Z and now I am watching your video! I just removed the joke part with the narrator because it was there only to make the audience forget the previous arguments that were raised
What would you suggest? How would YOU feed the billion starving people?
If you can offer a realistic third option, I'll consider that, too. And don't say a free-market, because that has the same inherit flaws as does our current "Free Market."
@FreeEcon An infinite growth paradigm cannot sustain since resources are finite. Endless cyclical consumption and the discouraging of abundance are in no way economical in terms of planetary sustainability. I don't understand how any profit driven market system can curb corruption and exploitation. As long as competition is the name of the game, you'll always have people concerned with near-sighted self-preservation, nevermind who or what need suffer to enable individualistic consumer gain.
@anotherdrummer23 Who said anything about infinite growth. Look up the video "Are we running out of resources?" for a detailed refutation of your silly TZM dribble.
@FreeEcon Cool video. Really didn't "refute" the Zeitgeist Movement. Kinda reinforced some aspects of it. Anyway, we agree that we disagree and no amount of online bickering is going to change either your, or my, way of thinking. I answered your question the best that I can. There are lots of flaws in the monetary system, and I don't see how they can be avoided in ANY monetary system. Guess I'm just stupid.....
@anotherdrummer23 You're really bad at listening. When did I say it refuted TZM? TZM is asinine by its own right, but that's besides the point. Why don't you tell me when I said it refuted the Zeitgeist Movement?
@FreeEcon "Look up the video "Are we running out of resources?" for a detailed refutation of your silly TZM dribble." I guess I thought that "refutation" and "refute" were of the same root.... My mistake :)
@anotherdrummer23 When does your TZM dribble necessarily mean all of TZM? "Your TZM dribble" means you saying " An infinite growth paradigm cannot sustain since resources are finite. Endless cyclical consumption and the discouraging of abundance..." and bla bla bla. I think youre extrapolating meanings, but as we saw previously, you clearly have trouble understanding and absorbing information. I am not surprised.
@anotherdrummer23 ...if you have an infinite supply of copper? Oh, that's right! Because he didn't say that, nor did he mean that! Seriously, I feel like I'm explaining this to an eight year old, or at least one of those young earth creationists.
@FreeEcon Why is money necessary for us to find a substitution for a depleting resource? Without money, wouldn't we STILL be aware that we need an alternative to oil? Just disagree and move on, bro. I'm Obviously too stoopid to be able to wrap my tiny brain around these concepts that you're trying and failing to drill into my skull. Money does not allow for the efficient allocation of resources in regards to planetary sustainably. As is evident by the wasting of precious, finite resources....
@anotherdrummer23 Because it provides incentive. What you people at the TZM don't understand is methodological individualism. You keep thinking that people behave as though they have some collective brain, when in fact, they are self interested, though rational beings, who use prices as an information tool. This isn't just my theory. FA Hayek wrote this decades ago.
@anotherdrummer23 Also, he says, right after "we aren't running out of resources", that "What we're doing is learning to use resources more efficiently, and FINDING SUBSTITUTES FOR RESOURCES AS THEY DO BEGIN TO DEPLETE."
Hmm, me wonders, depletion, doesn't that imply finite resources?
I don't even know what we are arguing about any more. Can you tell me? I'm really not that good at thinking for myself.......
Still haven't figured out how money is necessary, but I suppose I'm just dumb like that.....
Guess I'll just go take my meds now. Mommy says the pills will make me smart.....You're right: "Depletion" implies finite resources. Just as "We are NOT running out of resources" implies the opposite.
@anotherdrummer23 I guess youre not familiar with the term "context". Which is more likely-that this professor is crazy and somehow the organization couldn't find someone a little more coherent, or that you were mistaken but are unwilling to admit it?
Clearly, since you and TZM intends to change the way I live as well as the way you live, if you want to gain any credibility, you can't just say "let's agree to disagree". Otherwise, the rest of us recognize you have nothing supporting your side.
So, you're saying that I could phrase it correctly, that you'd join the Zeitgeist Movement? What in particular do you disagree with?
And from where I'm sitting, you've nothing that supports your side. Studies done within the context of a monetary system that support the monetary system strike me as circular reasoning.... That's not unlike quoting the Bible to prove the Bible.....
Sorry that I can't change the way that you think. Sorry that I have no desire to try....
@anotherdrummer23 Well, no. First you have to prove to me that the TZM works. After TVP broke off with your movement, your credibility is in the gutter. Show me there's something that works in the movement, beyond logical deduction and what we "ought" to do.
To turn your own Bible analogy on you, what youre doing is using the Quran to refute the Bible; this current monetary system is fiat based, meaning it is worthless except by government mandate. True mediums of exchange would be different
@FreeEcon All that TZM does or tries to do is raise awareness and to educate people as to the failings of our current socio economic system. We live in a sick culture, all the movement wants to do is point that out. TVP was the most attractive solution. I guess I just like the idea of not having to labor 50+ hrs a week....
@anotherdrummer23 That would be a reverse naturalistic fallacy; Yes, it would be nice not having to work, just as it would be nice if we could just snap our fingers and our most desired food, which gives us no calorie gain in return, appears before us. Pretty nice, no?
Unfortunately, we have to deal with reality as is. Yes, today's world sucks, and we should change it, but not all change is equally good, or even better than the current paradigm.
@FreeEcon except that we could mechanize most of the jobs we do currently.... I don't know as that we have the technology to create your holographic food analogy. Would a Free Market with your "true mediums of exchange" feed and clothe the earth's population? Cause I'll advocate any system that encourages planetary sustainability and that meets the basic needs of the human population...
@anotherdrummer23 Again, we don't need to feed and clothe people. Their not helpless creatures. Most people in the world who are poor reside in repressive societies. Remove those barriers, and you can have people build up their own lives. Those who can't would rely on charity-you being poor doesn't entitle you to someone else's production.
Again, you can advocate that, but how's that different from me advocating a world where you can wish for something and it'll appear?
"you being poor doesn't entitle you to someone else's production."
Right you are. However, I mean "feed and clothe the population" not in charitable sense, but more that everyone can and should be able to eat without having to compete with one another and without having to toil in the fields. Technology could allow food to be available. That way everyone could live to their potential, as they're not toiling away just to live...
@anotherdrummer23 Which begs the questions: Who will be doing the feeding and the clothing? Who will produce the food, and who will produce the clothes? Why should they do this? In exchange for what? This stuff doesn't just come up out of a vacuum. And you keep mentioning technology, and yet you never really have any examples to point to, so why don't you create a small society that proves this can work and that all the technology needed exists?
@FreeEcon "why don't you create a small society that proves this can work and that all the technology needed exists?"
Seriously? Wow. Well, simply put: It'd cost a SHITLOAD of money, which I obviously don't have, otherwise I wouldn't be on the internet pissing at strangers about the evils of money.
Look, I know that the idea of mechanization and cybernation conjures up images of "I, Robot," "Terminator," and other science fiction stories, but to me, that's not a valid argument against PROGRESS
@anotherdrummer23 Tell me where exactly I mentioned science fiction? You do tell me that's not a valid argument against progress, but where did I mention that it was? Unless youre talking about in general, which makes that a waste of my time.
What is, however, a valid argument against your society is that it has no realistic way of functioning, which is obvious by the fact that you failed to show the resources are available for all this, and who will do the work to build this.
@FreeEcon "Unless youre talking about in general, which makes that a waste of my time." Isn't it ALL a waste of your time. Honestly, you don't think of this a "time well spent," do you?
As far as the resources being available: If we have resources for military bases and fighter jets and football stadiums and Olympic stadiums, and so on, than we have the resources for some test cities. Also, part of the slow, arduous process would be the dismantling and recycling of some of our current cities...
@anotherdrummer23 Because rather than establishing a complex rude goldberg machine to run our lives for us, we want to remove, and only remove, government control, and let people run their own lives and set up their own mediums of exchange and societies. Basically, it's letting people decide for themselves what is best for them. Unlike the TZM, we don't consider individuals to be helpless creatures who won't even be able to get what they need if they weren't told what they needed.
@FreeEcon So, we still need a value shift, because what people currently WANT (iPod, iPod, RockBand, STUFF STUFF STUFF!!!!), and what we truly NEED (food, water, etc.).
@anotherdrummer23 And before you mention mechanization, why don't you prove that is possible by starting your own little mechanized society in Venus, Florida, so we can see if it really works.
@FreeEcon I think that the factories full of machines that assemble cars and such pretty well prove that mechanization works. I really don't see Ford switching back to 100% human labor.
And a value shift will come only through awareness and education.
Technology needs to be better utilized in every facet of human existence.
@anotherdrummer23 Not all mechanization is the same. The technology behind replacing auto workers is not the same as the technology needed to replace farmers.
And who is going to do the education and awareness spreading? People like you who say "Let's agree to disagree because we won't convince each other of anything"? Give me a break. You'd have no chance of spreading anything.
@FreeEcon Not to you, I don't. You're already decided. You disagree with everything I say.
"The technology behind replacing auto workers is not the same as the technology needed to replace farmers."
So that technology doesn't exist? They have mechanical pickers and sorters, probes that monitor all environmental conditions, indoor hydroponic system eliminate the need for pesticides. The small percentage of the population required to keep systems operational would be volunteers.
@anotherdrummer23 There's a difference between technology that theoretically may replace ALL (key word is all) farmers from a farm, but its another thing entirely to have the resources available to do that throughout the world. But again, you (used generally here to describe you and people who agree with you, so that you can't use that straw man again) can show this is possible by establishing a society of your own like this. You already got the land in Venus, and just ask for donations...
@FreeEcon And for what its worth, I agree that there need be test city (cities, preferably). I'm not suggesting we switch it overnight.
And I think you suddenly using "you" to describe Zeitgeisters as opposed to "you" describing, well, ME, hardly constitutes a straw man on my part..... I never did make the debate team, though, so.....
This is fun though! Highlight of my day is coming home to find out that we STILL don't understand a word that the other is saying...Good old-fashioned nonsense=)
@anotherdrummer23 As for TZM's success rate: 50 million people saw the first Zeitgeist film, which Peter Joseph maintains is the main source of recruitment for the Zeitgeist movement. Last I checked, the movement has a little over half a million members. Not only is this roughly the same number I saw two years ago when I became aware of TZM, but that's a success rate of 1%, not counting viewers of the other movements. That's a failure, short and simple
Wow, what a cheap straw man. No, I don't think mechanization has anything to do with I, Robot. I mean, seriously, how dumb are you? You never fail to impress me.
Anyway, why should scientists and technicians produce these things FOR YOU? Why should volunteers (who have to be at least somewhat intelligent) have any incentive to run these things FOR YOU if it would make no difference who runs it because everyone will get the same reward?
@FreeEcon Its not "FOR ME" or "FOR YOU." Its FOR ALL. That's the basic premise. That we are one species that needs to behave as one organism. Common good. Not individualism. As one that WOULD be volunteering, that's would be the "why."
Most doctors are doctors because they want to help people. Teachers teach because they want to spread knowledge, not because of monetary incentive.
@anotherdrummer23 And that's what TZM fails completely to understand-methodological individualism. All social composition is the result of individual action and interaction, and can only be explained as such. With your naive little "We're all one, that's why we'll volunteer" pipe dream is exactly why your movement has failed.
For the record, most teachers wouldn't teach and most doctors would treat patients full time if they had to do it for free.
@FreeEcon Well, I just plain disagree. I don't see how competition and prices are the only way that we can live. I guess I don't understand "methodological individualism," as I fail to see how that means that we are unable to work together toward common goals. And since the Zeitgeist Movement is not even three years since its inception, "has failed" seems maybe slightly premature....
@anotherdrummer23 Well, its not the only way to live. You can form an armed gang, run around and steal everything you want and need. I GUESS that's another way to live. Or you can have the government do that on your behalf, but that's equally distasteful.
The point is that you need a little more than just "I disagree" in order for me to take you seriously.
@anotherdrummer23 On a side note, notice how all your statements are in the passive and not the active tense. For instance, if active tense looks like "Ms. Johnson gave Timmy a bad grade", passive tense looks like "Timmy got a bad grade." The distinction is clear-the latter does not identify the subject that is doing the action. In your case, you fail to identify who will be doing the educating, mechanizing, and producing.
@FreeEcon And I do apologize, I didn't realize that petty online Quasi-Debates required extensive sourcing. Who does the mechanization? I reckon it'd be the people that do it now: Scientists and technicians. Production would be handled by machines, managed by computer systems, assisted by humans when needed. I don't believe that this is the kind of thing that can happen over-night. I'm not THAT naive.
@anotherdrummer23 Methodological individualism is simple. It maintains that, since we think like individuals, we act like individuals, even when we are actually in groups (in which case we are individuals forming a coalition), and all social action and norm has to be explained as an extension of individual action. The reason why human sciences and praxeologies have failed was because they refused to follow this method.
@anotherdrummer23 What Hayek does is support the use of prices, not the monetary system, and certainly doesn't say why it would work ONLY in the confines of the "monetary system", but within the confines of reality.
What you have is a straw man. And the fact that you aren't willing to convince others of your movement, and since the only thing standing between you and an RBE is not having enough people, that's pretty telling in of itself.
If someone could show me how interest charges can be paid in a Free Market, maybe I'd stop conflating "TRUE" Free Market and current FIAT Free Market....
@anotherdrummer23 You keep suggesting that pro free market individuals think that all resources are infinite. That's a straw man.
In a free market, the medium of exchange is simply that, a medium. It doesn't need interest rates because its not BORROWED, which is why the FED has interest rates.
@FreeEcon I didn't mean to "keep suggesting that pro free market individuals think that all resources are infinite." I get that he doesn't literally mean that we've infinite resources. Like I said: Implication. Its dangerous to tell people that we'll always find more oil. It disregards environmental ramifications. (ie. BP Gulf disaster)
@anotherdrummer23 As for money, I have already told you, prices are used as a feedback mechanism; giving information to both producers and consumers as to the relative supply and demand of each resource and product. Read up Hayek's Prices and Production for more detail
@anotherdrummer23 Because only prices can bring together the decentralized information in a society. It's difficult to explain here, but basically, it informs the producers what the consumers want and how much they want it (ie demand), while at the same time informing them how many other resources must go into producing whatever they need to produce and the supply of those resources. Again, Hayek is able to state this in a much better fashion.
@anotherdrummer23 I'll give you one shot to show me you can actually think for yourself; why is that video wrong about resources? You do realize the implication is that we need money as an information mechanism to allocate resources (something you wouldn't know listening to Peter Joseph)
The video seems to imply that resources are infinite, that we'll always find more oil, more copper, etc, but realistically, there can only be so much of any substance. Maybe I'm just not getting something. I'll watch it again. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Nothing will change until something tragic happens.... Maybe you're right, "Stateless system based on voluntary interaction of people" might be the end result...
@anotherdrummer23 Wow, EXACTLY the opposite. The video states that it was the decrease in the supply of copper that made it more attractive to find new sources and new alternatives. It's one thing to be a little off, but you sir are 180 degrees off. Do you have comprehension issues? That's a serious question
@FreeEcon so go to the video Are We Running Out of Resources. At about 21 seconds, he says : "however, this is largely a myth. In fact, we are NOT running out of resources."
So, you understand why I would say that the video is implying that we've infinite resources. At the end of the day, I don't see how "we need money as an information mechanism to allocate resources."
I don't think money has proven itself very good at allocating resources: its been given a chance, and its time for a change.
@anotherdrummer23 So you think that one little out of context comment without any regard to what he actually meant is enough? In other words, youre telling a guy "No, that's not what you mean, this is what you meant. My word is better than yours." You never fail to impress me.
He even said "we began to run out of copper, so the raised price allowed it to become more attractive to look for other reserves, and eventually substitutes." So do tell, why would we switch to fiber optics if...
@FreeEcon yes, you are superior than me in every way. Congratulations: You are the victor. I am currently running away, stupid tail between my stupid legs. You win, you're wisdom is astounding. You are without doubt one of the most incredible semantic arguers I've ever had the pleasure of barking at. That's really all we're doing, man. HE said, and I quote: "this is largely a myth. In fact, we are NOT running out of resources."
Imply: Strongly suggest the truth or existence of.
@anotherdrummer23 The fact that, while TZM addresses Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman (incorrectly might I add), but not Hayek's work on using prices for information is very telling. Go ahead, read up on Prices and Production by Hayek.
Again, you haven't answered the question: IF HE THOUGHT RESOURCES ARE INFINITE WHY DID WE REPLACE COPPER WITH FIBER OPTICS?
Out of context: referring to one statement without regard to its meaning given the information presented before and after
you have been debunked by that girls response
ripedreality 5 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
could you unblock your other vids,cannot view them in ireland
ripedreality 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
You need to do some fact checking for your video
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
1. You point out a bit of comedy Peter put into zeitgeist because lets face it other wise it was pretty boring ever watch a doc before?
2. The people programming the "computer" will not be deciding how resources are allocated. They will be allocated in the most efficient way according to the populations needs. Did you even listen to what Peter said ever?
3. The people who "drawn" to power are products of bad environment. A better education and family environment will fix this.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 hi,fellow resource based economist.your wrong.it is flawed.1,yes comedy,but he never answers the question set before the comedy.he used it to not answer the question.2 yes they will,you use circular resoning.the computer will have to be programmed with this ai.other wize how would it work.also could be hacked.3 he has shown how this is not true and you know it isent at the moment,we cannot assume we can irradicate anomilitys.also you did not address hos last point
ripedreality 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
Someone hasnt done there homework .
coolwater8u 1 week ago
I struggle to see the difference to now other than The RBE(a better option) as the people are in control of the computer and every resource is decided on the benefits of mankind.Computers already dictate our resource through stocks which are controlled by greedy people and If you trust the rich people that control our Resources now thats insane as they are wasting them Killing people. What do you think causes so much debt,They are already incharge of government,Money and of war , RBE all the way
coolwater8u 1 week ago
@coolwater8u thats a really good point,but how would you enforce this?ie sustain dynamic equilibrim(YOU CANNOT LIVE WERE YOU WANT IN RBE)so what if i went against the "educated respectfull choice" and lived somewere else,how would you enforce me not too?not saying RBE is bad but every problem must be solved obviously
ripedreality 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
@ripedreality I struggle to believe that in an RBE you would want to live anywhere , If everything was free , wouldnt you want to travel the world and learn and see all its wonders .I wouldnt need a fixed home , I would stay in appartments for however long my stay would be , Then give it up and move on . Same as posessions . Whatever i need i would hire and give it back when finished , Thats what solves Over consumption of resources , Its good for the planet :)
coolwater8u 6 days ago
Don't forget the Austrian criticisms of a centrally planned economy. It doesn't matter who programs the computer, it's calculations will be garbage. You can't compare steel to wood without prices. And if those prices are chosen arbitrarily by the programmer, the calculation will be meaningless. The system will end up consuming resources until it implodes like the Soviet Union.
ArmednSafe 2 weeks ago
@ArmednSafe.limit of resouce.needs for needed purpose.recyle time.distrobution,cost of other resouce to distrobute.etc.a computor will always do a better job then a person when programmed well enough.thats logic.but the idea is un-democratic.but i dont know if freedom or democray exist.
ripedreality 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
@ripedreality I can't make heads or tails of your comment. Can you try rephrasing?
ArmednSafe 5 days ago
@ArmednSafe this video raises excellent points,the likes of which must be changed,explained or solved before an RBE can be introduced.But all the problems that storm clouds gathering makes have been explained or solved in a video response,it should be in the suggestions and its called response to storm clouds gathering.I would like to see storm clouds gathering respond to these explanations
ripedreality 4 days ago
@ripedreality None of the tinkering you can do with this plan can address the fundamental fallacy of all central planning. Read Mises' short book "Socialism". A centrally planned economy can't calculate what the difference is between a loaf of bread and a drill press. It doesn't matter whether that central planner is a Soviet politburo chief or a super computer.
ArmednSafe 4 days ago
@ArmednSafe thanks ill have a read,could you tell me the exact problem and save me,or would it be better if i read it,Its online anyway so I can?
ripedreality 4 days ago
@ripedreality I can give you a short version. In a modern economy there are an infinite number of things you COULD make and an infinite different ways you COULD make them. If your goal is to turn things people want less into things people want more, prices that come from voluntary exchange are the only way to tell whether you are in fact doing that. Without prices a central planner will go on destroying value(things people want) without having any indication that is happening.
ArmednSafe 4 days ago
@ArmednSafe thats not true because stock could still be taken,even if money was non-existant.meaning suppley and demand still functioned as normal(ie more produced or less produced based on demand)Like a libary,books that were less popular,can become more popular and be more well stocked,etc.Im not shure if this is exactly what your talking about,sorry.I may need to read the book if im compltely off the point.
ripedreality 3 days ago
@ripedreality Sure, you can know how much of something you have. But that doesn't allow you to compare costs. Nothing is free, there is always a cost. The cost is the next best thing that you would have done with the resources. In your library example, you wouldn't be able to know whether you should replenish your stock or not. Sure, the shelf is empty, but what is the cost of getting new books? If books don't have prices, how would you know if that was an efficient use of paper?
ArmednSafe 3 days ago
@ArmednSafe you would measure books by popularity(how fast it is taken and how often),then index that against the amount of wood/ink etc available per time period of production and factor in the time it takes to replenish these materials.the book would not be created unless demand was already surveyed.also stacking the importance of resource for other purposes in rank.(basicaly just ensuring that resource dosent become like oil is today etc)also resouced would be more shared and
ripedreality 3 days ago
@ArmednSafe less produced proabably,ie that statistc for increase of consumerism,per person per year would drop due to illimination of manipulative advertising.also book is a bad example,as im shure they would just be replaced by kindels(type hardware) which would come in near exact representation of classic books,but that generation would die out(who like books,that are unpractical just because they are books)
ripedreality 3 days ago
@ArmednSafe also your whole argument is invalid because as they are money does not represent how effeiciently some resource was used at all,in any way shape or form,what so ever.and how did you even manga to come to that mad idea?and just because there is a high demand for something,dosent mean said resource is being used effciently.money just stops efficiently altogether ie planned obsolescence.we can never truly be effectiant with money(even space ships cannot be build to last ect)
ripedreality 3 days ago
Comment removed
ArmednSafe 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ripedreality Economic efficiency is measured by the value of things produced divided by the value of the factors of production. By value, I mean the market price. As I said before, we want to turn things people want less into things people want more, right? And your hand waving scheme for avoiding prices doesn't compute anthing. How do you measure demand without prices? What does, "indexing" the rate of something being taken against the resources required to make it, mean?
ArmednSafe 2 days ago
@ArmednSafe.first,why would you want to make people want things more(there is no profit in RBE,if you want to spread somthing(because you want to) you put it online,give it to people etc)prices do NOT represent effiency of resouces.measuring amount used,needed vs amount of resourcesavailable does.Do you understand that?In a monetary system resources are wasted all the time on things people do not need.(remeber we are talking about effeciency(need) not want)
ripedreality 2 days ago
@ArmednSafe.like what are you actually saying,we need money or we wont know the vaule of things?what the are you talking about,gold is valuable.but it dosent serve any purpose apart from being preety.in a monetary system companys create scarcity so as to maximize profits,they damge ecosystems(resouces) to lower waste disposal costs)prices fluxtuate based on fake value.money is noting,it is legal tender.it does not represent resources.houses without people,people without houses?
ripedreality 2 days ago
@ArmednSafe you know money is the biggest problem in the world,why do u think we need it?we can survey en mass to see what people want(with the remaining resources,after essentials)and then create these things.no planned obsolescence either!like are you just trolling or what?In US the economy does better if there are more sick and dieing people,then they can spend that money on bombs.yea money really represents logical use of resources
ripedreality 2 days ago
@ripedreality It is a good thing that our society is wealthy enough to satisfy more than just our basic necessities for survival. I don't know how you could attack that. And money isn't the problem. It's fiat money that is printed by a private bank backed by the force of government. It's government that misdirects resources away from what the public wants. And it's government that allows firms to degrade the environment by not respecting property rights.
ArmednSafe 1 day ago
@ArmednSafe "our society is wealthy enough to satisfy more than just our basic necessities" maybe for you.So what exactly is your position,do think we should just end the fed and the central banks and have a gold standard again?because that still perpetuates scarcity.
ripedreality 11 hours ago
@ripedreality Scarcity is a fact of life. There is no organization scheme that can get rid of it. One day we could figure out how to make those "replicators" from Star Trek. That would get rid of scarcity. But as things are technologically and structurally, we need to optimize resource use. My position is very simple, get rid of all forms of institutional coercion and violence. Common criminals will always exist, but we can get rid of government violence and coercion.
ArmednSafe 9 hours ago
The computers won't control anything, you need to look into it a bit deeper than that. The computers give answer to questions like "do we have sufficient resources?", "has this been done before?", and "can this be done without affecting the ecosystem/mother nature?" etc. Peter Joseph always uses generalizations in interviews, he can't go into detail because there is no real information yet, they're working on it still!
hksbloa93 3 weeks ago
@hksbloa93 what about hacking?people are not satisfied with there needs meet today,how to we know we can eradicate this.If even one person(who had a phycologicaly damaging experience(relationships(un requited love)envoirment(accident))etc wanted to take over.there is no police,eveyone trusts each other etc.whats stoping them from shuting down the computor system etc?
ripedreality 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
Hey SCG, just saw an email notifying me that you co-hosted the TZM global radio show on the first of this month. Haven't checked it out yet but it sounds promising. I'm subbed to both you and TZM channels and the critique you have brought is both constructive and welcomed. We need more level headed people to create actual decent dialogue instead of the e-drama TZM sometimes gets bogged down with. Thanks for your time!
MrEmpathicus 3 weeks ago
Some tribes of the Amazon already live in resource based economy.
TheTruthDK 1 month ago
Accepting for a moment that ANY plan for survival in a post-economic/monetary society will have flaws, (based on the fact they are of human design, and by that nature, susceptible to flaw), why is it that people are so willing to pull down and discredit these ideas?
While I can fully understand the need for critical dissection of such plans, would it not be a more constructive use of our time and energies to look for a solution to identified flaws, rather than challenging the designer?
Necromancer47 1 month ago
Also, don't forget AI is not even close to these ideas yet:)
Reido2828 1 month ago
well... if an AI computer was programed to do what's best for humanity. ea. distribute all resources evenly between all people, i couldn't see how this system could become corrupt, because the computer have no incentive to be. it only focuses on doing what is most effective and best for all.
TheTruthDK 1 month ago
@TheTruthDK
Sorry this serious? You can't be much older than 16, saying something like this. Do you study AI? Because the biggest gains in AI have been in the last twenty years, by modelling our brain in the realm of a computer. Treat the brain like a computer and you get your AI. But our AI have not gotten past the intellect of a mental insect. How in the hell do you expect an AI computer to evenly distribute resources for humanity? I'm baffled by the claim cuz your dreaming bub:)
Reido2828 1 month ago
@Reido2828 i have no doubt that we will within 20-50 years (that is if society does not collapse before that) have created an artificial intelligence that is a thousand if not a million times smarter than we are. you should read the book The Singularity Is Near by, Ray Kurzweil.
even tho Ray belives that we will eventually become like half machine half human, and we will live forever (witch i do not hope will happen, but he might be right) his knowledge on AI and robotics is waste beyond beliefs
TheTruthDK 1 month ago
@TheTruthDK
I won't read Ray because many have debunked his claims and the way society is moving is not for Machines to distribute wealth to us but to eventually become apart of our biological system. Look at how technology develops, its done through our brain and body. I don't believe Ray though and don't take everything he says seriously.
Reido2828 1 month ago
@Reido2828 your making a big mistake not to take what Ray Kurzweil says seriously! almost every technological predictions he has made have come true. and could you please point me to a site where some of his theories have been debunked?
and you dont belive that our society is slowly moving to replace human jobs with automation?
TheTruthDK 1 month ago
@TheTruthDK
You need to do your own research. Just google it and hear what the critics of Kurzweil have to say. He has made many predictions and has changed them around. Our society is slowly replacing human jobs but thats good. Humanity was not meant to do labour, were bad at it. Kurzweill's predictions come true because he says they do. Its good to get a different argument
Reido2828 1 month ago
@Reido2828 i wouldent call that research. you can practically Search (anything) debunked, and you will get hundreds of hits.
TheTruthDK 1 month ago
@TheTruthDK
Would you call other scientists calling Kurzweil's claims distorted wrong? Is Ray your prophet or is Peter Joseph?
Reido2828 1 month ago
@Reido2828 i dont have a prophet. but i guess if i where to have someone to ask for spiritual guidance it would be Terence Mckenna.
Now peace friend.
TheTruthDK 1 month ago
@TheTruthDK
Mckenna is a good man. Very odd but some of his 2012 theories are distorted by him and some of his followers.
Reido2828 1 month ago
It's natural to oppose change from what is commonly known whether it be good or bad however I am very sure that TZM is a good thing for all.
leanlifter1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gosh guys you are soo stupid you cant even detect sarcsm, the story of Tesla is just an example of the negative and critisism that the tecnology and reason than can change of lifes of all for the better, can face. And just like in the case of Tesla, ruin his pegacy which could had been far greater. btw don't botter to reply, yours already shown you are soo stupid you don't deserve to be taken seriously.
klaussone 1 month ago
Comment removed
klaussone 1 month ago
Right now we have to change the though process and the values that people actually born into. Thus meaning you can't change a system without changing the individuals values/ideals first, because no matter what economical system you put forth it would collapse if humans kept the same mind set.
ewrpoerwe 1 month ago
@ewrpoerwe thought*
ewrpoerwe 1 month ago
@ewrpoerwe
Capitalism is still boss. Maybe it ends in America but in China, Brazil, and India its gaining huge ground. Africa is next
Reido2828 1 month ago
Let me tell you a story about a man: Nikola Tesla, and his potentially dangerous and flawed idea of using a certain type or energy known as alternating current (AC). This mad man poroposed that we the regualar ppl could use this dangerous and deadly power suply IN OUR OWN HOUSES. wich could lead to thousands of deaths because of electric shocks or cause electric fires, simply under the premise of it being fairly cheaper and capable of travel long distances. allowing it to reach remote locations.
klaussone 1 month ago
@klaussone Your so stupid Nikola Tesla was the greatest scientist of all. He mad numerous breakthroughs in all types of electricity and radio transitions.
Stalkerthegame 1 month ago
@klaussone uhmm, we do use AC at home, genius. What planet do you live on?
cerebrassassin 1 month ago
Rable rable rable.
texme 1 month ago
You ignore the circumstances that led Hitler to be the way he was & how someone like him was able to get into a position of power in the first place in Germany. Also, I think the fact you brought up that the elite still act like psychopaths, despite their wealth, demonstrates that you don't quite get it. The reasoning behind their actions is because they still live in an economy based on scarcity & therefore have instincts for self preservation. These circumstances would be eliminated in an RBE
aiiiunluckykid 2 months ago
All computer control systems obviously will be opensource, many, literally thousands of people, like in Linux Operating system, will design, contribute and control the system execution.
You keep thinking that very difficult is equivalent to impossible. Is not a good way to think to make your dreams come true.
agustinbs 2 months ago
The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project are no longer associated, and the idea that a resource-based economy came from Peter Joseph is a fallacy. It would be appreciated if you could make this clear to people in your videos attempting to discredit them, for demonizing them as one in the same simply doesn't work anymore.
TheUjarak 2 months ago
So, StormClouds Gathering, what is your Solution?
EasternMerchant 2 months ago 6
@EasternMerchant
Do you need people to tell you what to do or believe?
Reido2828 1 month ago
@EasternMerchant he makes good points.we need to reconstruct.
ripedreality 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
Who controls the media that brainwashes people into thinking like you? Who controls the monetary mass? Who controls the resources you need to live? Who controls the access to the knowledge you need to understand how your own brain can be manipulated into believing things that only benefit others? Power/Control come from specialization and we needed it as a species, what corrupts it is differential advantage driven values, represented by money, and that fat psychopath you've shown is full of it.
ferreira2001x 2 months ago
lol, humanity needs a reset button. People will argue about a RBE when the type of economy we live in is clearly much worse. Other than people controlling a supercomputer, we have idiots controlling a bank; it's essentially the same idea. People have been adjusted to think about Money and money is the only thing that will make the world go around...not true. A RBE is about PRESERVATION. A monetary system is obviously NOT about that! Do you want to preserve, or diminish?
dopeboyhero 2 months ago
His sarcasm/mockery segment in Zeitgeist moving forward was only there to address mindlocked indoctrinated narrow views, people that make quick surface associations without any critical thought, and now after watching your video, i know these mentalities exist.
TheDarkFenix 3 months ago
@TheDarkFenix excellent point, was thinking the same thing. I actually like this guys videos but thought this video was in particular a bit of an epic fail....
aiiiunluckykid 2 months ago
@TheDarkFenix Hey you get around too. TZM FTW PEACE !
leanlifter1 1 month ago
i saw zietgiest, made me very uncomfortable
cavhoki 3 months ago
You're obviously a very intelligent person and you've done some EXCELLENT work!
BUT, ;D), the "Hitlers", "Lenins" and even "CHARLES MANSONS", these days are made not born; made by our Freemason owners that profit from "chaos".
Look at the patterns of India and Russia; you'll find them being used in AMERICA; the next step are FAMINES, after our next FAKE 'terrorist' attack triggers CIVIL WAR.
UnoRaza 3 months ago
Humanity will evolve through many phases, and as such, so will our societies. When the current system fails, we may find through necessity that in order to survive, parts of western culture will have to evolve - to remember values that other cultures still hold. The most sustainable human cultures recognized they are part of the land, not its owners. I see an RBE as requiring a paradigm shift in most cultures, possibly caused by massive global resource scarcity. New humans, new system.
DCLNick 3 months ago
You could take those who dont want thier land involved in this new type of economy out of the first step which is a survey of all natural resources in the world sooo they essentially have the choice to participate in this economy or their own flawed capitalistic one
Italianinfowarrior 4 months ago
@Italianinfowarrior you never own what your calling your land, You never stop paying taxes on it, and if you do guess who steps in and tells you to get off your so called land
jazzlace1 3 months ago
@jazzlace1
This is based on local taxes. I guess you have never owned land. Property taxes are based on the country and some counties have very low or no property tax. So yes you do own it.
zoulkyud 3 months ago
@zoulkyud please tell me where i can buy land and not pay taxes
jazzlace1 3 months ago
@jazzlace1
Google "Counties without property tax" or do a search of counties by property tax. It is based off how your county assesses taxes in the first place.
zoulkyud 3 months ago
RBEM = using science instead of ignoring it...
The scientific method applied to society.
Its not about the superficial attributes, its the underlying method. Science works.
MyOnlyFarph 4 months ago
@MyOnlyFarph
The argument makes no sense.
The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity. In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow. When applying it to living breathing human beings will you make determinations based on how many people must starve? or will you simply experiment to see what the minimum amount of food a person needs is?
zoulkyud 3 months ago
@zoulkyud Why would we do either of those things? Achieving an abundance of food would obviously negate the requirement for either of those conclusions...
MyOnlyFarph 3 months ago
@MyOnlyFarph
So in venus city they would fix winter, all plant diseases, and forms of blight? This is amazing how did the venus project do it? Is the city also powered by your hopes and dreams?
zoulkyud 3 months ago
@zoulkyud Do you know what a strawman is? Are you familiar with Reductio de Absurdum? Goodnight.
MyOnlyFarph 3 months ago
@MyOnlyFarph
My argument is not a straw man. Do you think food grows freely without problems? How do you intend to deal with these problems? I guess you can't, guess your city can't. Guess you will starve and you have resigned to the argument of a brainwashed coward.
zoulkyud 3 months ago
@zoulkyud Would you like to learn about the RBEM? I can help explain it to you so that you do not reach these erroneous conclusions. You can also check out the FAQ from the main site thezeitgeistmovement(dot)com. If you'd like to argue you should first understand what you are actually opposing. }:^D
MyOnlyFarph 3 months ago
@MyOnlyFarph
I asked questions... I didn't know questioning was opposition?
Still it does not answer the question as to what would you do if their was a short supply of food.
You can't just have magic abundance. That is the problem with the argument. it assumes this if this project succeeds you will have infinite supply for your needs.
Likewise who gets to have the beach view or lake view? Living arrangements are first come first serve?
zoulkyud 3 months ago
@zoulkyud No, see I'm not trying to draw you into an argument, I'm saying you should first familiarize yourself with the materials presented before trying to point out supposed flaws. If you had, you'd realize why these questions are unfound to begin with. I won't be able to give you enough information in a youtube comment. You can PM me if you'd like, but you should really show some initiative yourself if you want to be taken seriously.
MyOnlyFarph 3 months ago
@MyOnlyFarph
So you can't answer a question that isn't list in their FAQ? You know why. Because there is no answer. Its a wild unproven assumption. Its like me saying no one would "have cancer if the moon wasn't orbiting the earth". TVP RBEM etc, are all based on the assumption that if you build it, it is an automatic utopia. Which it is not.
zoulkyud 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zoulkyud No. The methodology of the RBEM is entirely based in science... the attributes you straw man are products of that methodology, and do not constitute the model itself. Zeitgeist members, nor the RBEM methodology would tolerate unproven assumptions. I'm simply telling you to go read the FAQ because you obviously haven't familiarized yourself with even the most basic content of the process. I'm not even sure what your protesting - that creating an abundance is impossible?
MyOnlyFarph 3 months ago
The Zeitguiest movement makes some interesting points and shows some helpfull insights as far as the nature of the federal reserve. I don't think the system they propose will work, I'd like it to but I doubt it would.
KasirRham 4 months ago
You talk like an uptight geek that doesn't have sex enough.. Relax. Smoke some weed and get out of your constipated mental foolishness. If you think it's in our dna to be cunts and we are doomed to destruction just admit to being a nihilist.. I;m a recovering one myself so i have sympathy but you seem to just wallow in nerdy discourse instead of tackling the issue.
petepamf 4 months ago
@petepamf You mad bro? Maybe it's you who should relax and smoke some weed lol
TZMareThieves4 4 months ago
@TZMareThieves4 I'm over your head you simpleton.
petepamf 4 months ago
Well done
joshfrmn 4 months ago
smart man good presentation all though you cant talk about every flaw in 5 to 10 mins you pointed out what i would consider the best analysis any one can ever make the reviewing of the content that shows its on hypocrisies you cant fix anything unless you acknowledge your own short comings
MrGamestop101 4 months ago
You're perception is so narrow.
willy2bag 5 months ago
one joke in a long film was taken out of context here to make some failed point
The system could not be "seized", if it did it would not BE the system, it uses the scientific method, alterations would be more obvious then in any other system
You wouldn't need to recruit people living in rainforests who are not causing any trouble on the world stage, they are already living within their means.
Land ownership is not inherent in culture, culture pre-dates contracts any cave wall can tell us this
psychotropicfan 5 months ago
@psychotropicfan Is not self ownership inherent in culture? Land ownership is an extension self ownership and who says the contracts have to be Writen People of Honour will hold to a verbal contract.
Zorn101 5 months ago
Man I did a video about the same part of Z and now I am watching your video! I just removed the joke part with the narrator because it was there only to make the audience forget the previous arguments that were raised
/watch?v=5JZ-jHEi0L4
globalzombietion 6 months ago
What would you suggest? How would YOU feed the billion starving people?
If you can offer a realistic third option, I'll consider that, too. And don't say a free-market, because that has the same inherit flaws as does our current "Free Market."
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 "And don't say a free-market, because that has the same inherit flaws as does our current "Free Market.""
...which is?
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon An infinite growth paradigm cannot sustain since resources are finite. Endless cyclical consumption and the discouraging of abundance are in no way economical in terms of planetary sustainability. I don't understand how any profit driven market system can curb corruption and exploitation. As long as competition is the name of the game, you'll always have people concerned with near-sighted self-preservation, nevermind who or what need suffer to enable individualistic consumer gain.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Who said anything about infinite growth. Look up the video "Are we running out of resources?" for a detailed refutation of your silly TZM dribble.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon Cool video. Really didn't "refute" the Zeitgeist Movement. Kinda reinforced some aspects of it. Anyway, we agree that we disagree and no amount of online bickering is going to change either your, or my, way of thinking. I answered your question the best that I can. There are lots of flaws in the monetary system, and I don't see how they can be avoided in ANY monetary system. Guess I'm just stupid.....
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 You're really bad at listening. When did I say it refuted TZM? TZM is asinine by its own right, but that's besides the point. Why don't you tell me when I said it refuted the Zeitgeist Movement?
"Guess I'm just stupid....."
One thing we can both agree on.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon "Look up the video "Are we running out of resources?" for a detailed refutation of your silly TZM dribble." I guess I thought that "refutation" and "refute" were of the same root.... My mistake :)
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 When does your TZM dribble necessarily mean all of TZM? "Your TZM dribble" means you saying " An infinite growth paradigm cannot sustain since resources are finite. Endless cyclical consumption and the discouraging of abundance..." and bla bla bla. I think youre extrapolating meanings, but as we saw previously, you clearly have trouble understanding and absorbing information. I am not surprised.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon drivel. the word that you want is drivel.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 ...if you have an infinite supply of copper? Oh, that's right! Because he didn't say that, nor did he mean that! Seriously, I feel like I'm explaining this to an eight year old, or at least one of those young earth creationists.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon Why is money necessary for us to find a substitution for a depleting resource? Without money, wouldn't we STILL be aware that we need an alternative to oil? Just disagree and move on, bro. I'm Obviously too stoopid to be able to wrap my tiny brain around these concepts that you're trying and failing to drill into my skull. Money does not allow for the efficient allocation of resources in regards to planetary sustainably. As is evident by the wasting of precious, finite resources....
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Because it provides incentive. What you people at the TZM don't understand is methodological individualism. You keep thinking that people behave as though they have some collective brain, when in fact, they are self interested, though rational beings, who use prices as an information tool. This isn't just my theory. FA Hayek wrote this decades ago.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Also, he says, right after "we aren't running out of resources", that "What we're doing is learning to use resources more efficiently, and FINDING SUBSTITUTES FOR RESOURCES AS THEY DO BEGIN TO DEPLETE."
Hmm, me wonders, depletion, doesn't that imply finite resources?
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon **sigh**
Didn't I already concede?
I don't even know what we are arguing about any more. Can you tell me? I'm really not that good at thinking for myself.......
Still haven't figured out how money is necessary, but I suppose I'm just dumb like that.....
Guess I'll just go take my meds now. Mommy says the pills will make me smart.....You're right: "Depletion" implies finite resources. Just as "We are NOT running out of resources" implies the opposite.
Just disagree and move on, bro.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 I guess youre not familiar with the term "context". Which is more likely-that this professor is crazy and somehow the organization couldn't find someone a little more coherent, or that you were mistaken but are unwilling to admit it?
Clearly, since you and TZM intends to change the way I live as well as the way you live, if you want to gain any credibility, you can't just say "let's agree to disagree". Otherwise, the rest of us recognize you have nothing supporting your side.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
So, you're saying that I could phrase it correctly, that you'd join the Zeitgeist Movement? What in particular do you disagree with?
And from where I'm sitting, you've nothing that supports your side. Studies done within the context of a monetary system that support the monetary system strike me as circular reasoning.... That's not unlike quoting the Bible to prove the Bible.....
Sorry that I can't change the way that you think. Sorry that I have no desire to try....
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Well, no. First you have to prove to me that the TZM works. After TVP broke off with your movement, your credibility is in the gutter. Show me there's something that works in the movement, beyond logical deduction and what we "ought" to do.
To turn your own Bible analogy on you, what youre doing is using the Quran to refute the Bible; this current monetary system is fiat based, meaning it is worthless except by government mandate. True mediums of exchange would be different
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon All that TZM does or tries to do is raise awareness and to educate people as to the failings of our current socio economic system. We live in a sick culture, all the movement wants to do is point that out. TVP was the most attractive solution. I guess I just like the idea of not having to labor 50+ hrs a week....
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 That would be a reverse naturalistic fallacy; Yes, it would be nice not having to work, just as it would be nice if we could just snap our fingers and our most desired food, which gives us no calorie gain in return, appears before us. Pretty nice, no?
Unfortunately, we have to deal with reality as is. Yes, today's world sucks, and we should change it, but not all change is equally good, or even better than the current paradigm.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon except that we could mechanize most of the jobs we do currently.... I don't know as that we have the technology to create your holographic food analogy. Would a Free Market with your "true mediums of exchange" feed and clothe the earth's population? Cause I'll advocate any system that encourages planetary sustainability and that meets the basic needs of the human population...
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Again, we don't need to feed and clothe people. Their not helpless creatures. Most people in the world who are poor reside in repressive societies. Remove those barriers, and you can have people build up their own lives. Those who can't would rely on charity-you being poor doesn't entitle you to someone else's production.
Again, you can advocate that, but how's that different from me advocating a world where you can wish for something and it'll appear?
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon It shouldn't be though of as "charity."
"you being poor doesn't entitle you to someone else's production."
Right you are. However, I mean "feed and clothe the population" not in charitable sense, but more that everyone can and should be able to eat without having to compete with one another and without having to toil in the fields. Technology could allow food to be available. That way everyone could live to their potential, as they're not toiling away just to live...
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Which begs the questions: Who will be doing the feeding and the clothing? Who will produce the food, and who will produce the clothes? Why should they do this? In exchange for what? This stuff doesn't just come up out of a vacuum. And you keep mentioning technology, and yet you never really have any examples to point to, so why don't you create a small society that proves this can work and that all the technology needed exists?
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon "why don't you create a small society that proves this can work and that all the technology needed exists?"
Seriously? Wow. Well, simply put: It'd cost a SHITLOAD of money, which I obviously don't have, otherwise I wouldn't be on the internet pissing at strangers about the evils of money.
Look, I know that the idea of mechanization and cybernation conjures up images of "I, Robot," "Terminator," and other science fiction stories, but to me, that's not a valid argument against PROGRESS
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Tell me where exactly I mentioned science fiction? You do tell me that's not a valid argument against progress, but where did I mention that it was? Unless youre talking about in general, which makes that a waste of my time.
What is, however, a valid argument against your society is that it has no realistic way of functioning, which is obvious by the fact that you failed to show the resources are available for all this, and who will do the work to build this.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon "Unless youre talking about in general, which makes that a waste of my time." Isn't it ALL a waste of your time. Honestly, you don't think of this a "time well spent," do you?
As far as the resources being available: If we have resources for military bases and fighter jets and football stadiums and Olympic stadiums, and so on, than we have the resources for some test cities. Also, part of the slow, arduous process would be the dismantling and recycling of some of our current cities...
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Yes, those resources are available. Go ahead and buy them. You and your movement that is.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon LOL!! You made a funny...
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
"True mediums of exchange would be different"
Why is that any less a pipe dream than a resource-based economy?
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Because rather than establishing a complex rude goldberg machine to run our lives for us, we want to remove, and only remove, government control, and let people run their own lives and set up their own mediums of exchange and societies. Basically, it's letting people decide for themselves what is best for them. Unlike the TZM, we don't consider individuals to be helpless creatures who won't even be able to get what they need if they weren't told what they needed.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon So, we still need a value shift, because what people currently WANT (iPod, iPod, RockBand, STUFF STUFF STUFF!!!!), and what we truly NEED (food, water, etc.).
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 And before you mention mechanization, why don't you prove that is possible by starting your own little mechanized society in Venus, Florida, so we can see if it really works.
Alright, and how do you propose a value shift?
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon I think that the factories full of machines that assemble cars and such pretty well prove that mechanization works. I really don't see Ford switching back to 100% human labor.
And a value shift will come only through awareness and education.
Technology needs to be better utilized in every facet of human existence.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Not all mechanization is the same. The technology behind replacing auto workers is not the same as the technology needed to replace farmers.
And who is going to do the education and awareness spreading? People like you who say "Let's agree to disagree because we won't convince each other of anything"? Give me a break. You'd have no chance of spreading anything.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon Not to you, I don't. You're already decided. You disagree with everything I say.
"The technology behind replacing auto workers is not the same as the technology needed to replace farmers."
So that technology doesn't exist? They have mechanical pickers and sorters, probes that monitor all environmental conditions, indoor hydroponic system eliminate the need for pesticides. The small percentage of the population required to keep systems operational would be volunteers.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 There's a difference between technology that theoretically may replace ALL (key word is all) farmers from a farm, but its another thing entirely to have the resources available to do that throughout the world. But again, you (used generally here to describe you and people who agree with you, so that you can't use that straw man again) can show this is possible by establishing a society of your own like this. You already got the land in Venus, and just ask for donations...
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon And for what its worth, I agree that there need be test city (cities, preferably). I'm not suggesting we switch it overnight.
And I think you suddenly using "you" to describe Zeitgeisters as opposed to "you" describing, well, ME, hardly constitutes a straw man on my part..... I never did make the debate team, though, so.....
This is fun though! Highlight of my day is coming home to find out that we STILL don't understand a word that the other is saying...Good old-fashioned nonsense=)
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 As for TZM's success rate: 50 million people saw the first Zeitgeist film, which Peter Joseph maintains is the main source of recruitment for the Zeitgeist movement. Last I checked, the movement has a little over half a million members. Not only is this roughly the same number I saw two years ago when I became aware of TZM, but that's a success rate of 1%, not counting viewers of the other movements. That's a failure, short and simple
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 ...and we'll see how the society holds up.
Wow, what a cheap straw man. No, I don't think mechanization has anything to do with I, Robot. I mean, seriously, how dumb are you? You never fail to impress me.
Anyway, why should scientists and technicians produce these things FOR YOU? Why should volunteers (who have to be at least somewhat intelligent) have any incentive to run these things FOR YOU if it would make no difference who runs it because everyone will get the same reward?
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon Its not "FOR ME" or "FOR YOU." Its FOR ALL. That's the basic premise. That we are one species that needs to behave as one organism. Common good. Not individualism. As one that WOULD be volunteering, that's would be the "why."
Most doctors are doctors because they want to help people. Teachers teach because they want to spread knowledge, not because of monetary incentive.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 And that's what TZM fails completely to understand-methodological individualism. All social composition is the result of individual action and interaction, and can only be explained as such. With your naive little "We're all one, that's why we'll volunteer" pipe dream is exactly why your movement has failed.
For the record, most teachers wouldn't teach and most doctors would treat patients full time if they had to do it for free.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon Well, I just plain disagree. I don't see how competition and prices are the only way that we can live. I guess I don't understand "methodological individualism," as I fail to see how that means that we are unable to work together toward common goals. And since the Zeitgeist Movement is not even three years since its inception, "has failed" seems maybe slightly premature....
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Well, its not the only way to live. You can form an armed gang, run around and steal everything you want and need. I GUESS that's another way to live. Or you can have the government do that on your behalf, but that's equally distasteful.
The point is that you need a little more than just "I disagree" in order for me to take you seriously.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon So: "Anyway, we agree that we disagree and no amount of online bickering is going to change either your, or my, way of thinking."
That's what I said. I didn't say "Let's agree to disagree because we won't convince each other of anything"
You're paraphrasing and taking thing out of context.
Awareness and education will be spread by everyone. By Peter Joseph, Jacob Spinney, Stefan Molyneux, by yourself. Maybe even by myself.....
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 On a side note, notice how all your statements are in the passive and not the active tense. For instance, if active tense looks like "Ms. Johnson gave Timmy a bad grade", passive tense looks like "Timmy got a bad grade." The distinction is clear-the latter does not identify the subject that is doing the action. In your case, you fail to identify who will be doing the educating, mechanizing, and producing.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon And I do apologize, I didn't realize that petty online Quasi-Debates required extensive sourcing. Who does the mechanization? I reckon it'd be the people that do it now: Scientists and technicians. Production would be handled by machines, managed by computer systems, assisted by humans when needed. I don't believe that this is the kind of thing that can happen over-night. I'm not THAT naive.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Methodological individualism is simple. It maintains that, since we think like individuals, we act like individuals, even when we are actually in groups (in which case we are individuals forming a coalition), and all social action and norm has to be explained as an extension of individual action. The reason why human sciences and praxeologies have failed was because they refused to follow this method.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon Well, I appreciate the back and forth. Its been fun!
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 What Hayek does is support the use of prices, not the monetary system, and certainly doesn't say why it would work ONLY in the confines of the "monetary system", but within the confines of reality.
What you have is a straw man. And the fact that you aren't willing to convince others of your movement, and since the only thing standing between you and an RBE is not having enough people, that's pretty telling in of itself.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
Where's my straw man?
If someone could show me how interest charges can be paid in a Free Market, maybe I'd stop conflating "TRUE" Free Market and current FIAT Free Market....
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 You keep suggesting that pro free market individuals think that all resources are infinite. That's a straw man.
In a free market, the medium of exchange is simply that, a medium. It doesn't need interest rates because its not BORROWED, which is why the FED has interest rates.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon I didn't mean to "keep suggesting that pro free market individuals think that all resources are infinite." I get that he doesn't literally mean that we've infinite resources. Like I said: Implication. Its dangerous to tell people that we'll always find more oil. It disregards environmental ramifications. (ie. BP Gulf disaster)
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 If reading a 500 page book is deterring you, look up the following video:
"The Price System, Part I: Information"
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 As for money, I have already told you, prices are used as a feedback mechanism; giving information to both producers and consumers as to the relative supply and demand of each resource and product. Read up Hayek's Prices and Production for more detail
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon Understood. Why is money the only mechanism that can accomplish that? A guess that's a better way to phrase my question.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Because only prices can bring together the decentralized information in a society. It's difficult to explain here, but basically, it informs the producers what the consumers want and how much they want it (ie demand), while at the same time informing them how many other resources must go into producing whatever they need to produce and the supply of those resources. Again, Hayek is able to state this in a much better fashion.
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 I'll give you one shot to show me you can actually think for yourself; why is that video wrong about resources? You do realize the implication is that we need money as an information mechanism to allocate resources (something you wouldn't know listening to Peter Joseph)
FreeEcon 6 months ago
The video seems to imply that resources are infinite, that we'll always find more oil, more copper, etc, but realistically, there can only be so much of any substance. Maybe I'm just not getting something. I'll watch it again. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Nothing will change until something tragic happens.... Maybe you're right, "Stateless system based on voluntary interaction of people" might be the end result...
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Wow, EXACTLY the opposite. The video states that it was the decrease in the supply of copper that made it more attractive to find new sources and new alternatives. It's one thing to be a little off, but you sir are 180 degrees off. Do you have comprehension issues? That's a serious question
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon so go to the video Are We Running Out of Resources. At about 21 seconds, he says : "however, this is largely a myth. In fact, we are NOT running out of resources."
So, you understand why I would say that the video is implying that we've infinite resources. At the end of the day, I don't see how "we need money as an information mechanism to allocate resources."
I don't think money has proven itself very good at allocating resources: its been given a chance, and its time for a change.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 So you think that one little out of context comment without any regard to what he actually meant is enough? In other words, youre telling a guy "No, that's not what you mean, this is what you meant. My word is better than yours." You never fail to impress me.
He even said "we began to run out of copper, so the raised price allowed it to become more attractive to look for other reserves, and eventually substitutes." So do tell, why would we switch to fiber optics if...
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@FreeEcon yes, you are superior than me in every way. Congratulations: You are the victor. I am currently running away, stupid tail between my stupid legs. You win, you're wisdom is astounding. You are without doubt one of the most incredible semantic arguers I've ever had the pleasure of barking at. That's really all we're doing, man. HE said, and I quote: "this is largely a myth. In fact, we are NOT running out of resources."
Imply: Strongly suggest the truth or existence of.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 The fact that, while TZM addresses Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman (incorrectly might I add), but not Hayek's work on using prices for information is very telling. Go ahead, read up on Prices and Production by Hayek.
Again, you haven't answered the question: IF HE THOUGHT RESOURCES ARE INFINITE WHY DID WE REPLACE COPPER WITH FIBER OPTICS?
Out of context: referring to one statement without regard to its meaning given the information presented before and after
FreeEcon 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Also, wasn't the point of copper that we found the use of sand in fiber optics?
FreeEcon 6 months ago
Also: You've dodged my request for option C. Were you gonna say Free Market? Equal Money? Should we return to a barter system?
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Excuse me, but you never requested anything from me. Nor have you answered my question.
FreeEcon 6 months ago