a market system NEVER increases compassion. a market system is a game, whose very few winners get to live well, while the many losers don't even get to eat or drink clean water.
as soon as people are in a system where one person benefits from taking things away from other people (legally = "market success", or illegally = "crime"), the system will automatically produce competition and corruption, and not empathy and compassion.
@brightgeistmovies A market system does not involve taking things away from other people. That is what the state does. A market system involves trading things with other people under mutually beneficial terms.
@JacobSpinney : you should actually know that that isn't true. one side of a trade will ALWAYS get more than they give, and the other side will obviously give more than they get. if you assume that both sides get something out of the trade, then that would mean that "value" is created out of thin air on both sides of the trade, which is clearly not the case. this also explains why one side of any trade will usually refuse to reverse the trade under the same original terms.
@brightgeistmovies Nonsense. Value is subjective. It is determined by the parties engaged in the trade. Not you. Not me. Let's say that I'm really good at producing apples. But I actually like oranges. Let's also say that you're really good at producing oranges, but you actually like apples. Thus, I'm willing to trade one of my apples for one of your oranges and you are too. We BOTH benefit. Indeed, it is a necessity that we both benefit, otherwise the trade would not have been initiated.
@JacobSpinney : too bad that your over-simplistic kindergarten examples never happen in our REAL economy. in reality, one side of a trade is usually forced by economic pressure to do the trade, because otherwise they wouldn't get anything at all. if you still don't understand that, just let me know, then i can give you as many REAL examples for that as you want (not apples for oranges), just name the number.
@brightgeistmovies Right, so the vast majority of the population in the US are so poor that they can't afford air conditioning, they can't afford a refrigerator, they have to live in communal homes with 5 people per bedroom, and all they can afford is the slop that is divvied out in a food kitchen somewhere. Is that what you're saying?
@brightgeistmovies Because I'm quite sure that that is empirically false. Most people in the US are not anywhere near that poor, and they have plenty of financial choices they're able to make with their lives. That in all of the historical examples we have of anything coming close to a free market, the standard of living has continually increased from where it was previously.
There's one bit of scarcity that can never be 'eliminated' in any sense of the word and it's one of the most significant factors in production: Time.
Especially so if you're advocating a system with 75% or higher unemployment rates, that means you have 75%+ less time to figure out what people demand and produce it. Also if you spend time designing and making an indestructible iPod that no one wants, that's less time to make something people actually want
@RenewableFuel Troll is TZM 'cult' lingo for people who don't agree with everything that comes out of Merola's mouth. This is why OWS has been calling you a cult. It's not because it is one, it's because you act like one. Why not address what I argued instead of this black and white knee jerk reaction of calling people who have valid arguments trolls.
@RenewableFuel No, its not trolling. I provided a valid objection, you reacted like a closed minded groupie.. tell me how my original objection is invalid without receding me to read more TVP dogma (that I've already read, mind you)
@machwon It's not a valid objection if it has been debunked countless amounts of times, over and over. You have no arguments, which is why you run a blog website that can only smear TVP and resource based economy from angles that require no logic, thinking or reasoning. How about you go back there with all your other troll buddies and jerk off to some of that child porn you got. That's why you're against a resource based economy, you don't want to lose your kiddie porn in the transition.
1.You know I'm not a troll because if I was you wouldn't be "feeding" me. So you're lying.
2. I don't jerk off to child porn, you do. This is just that racist pedo 18YEARSANDOLDER's sock puppet account. I see my blog post exposing you made you ditch your old account. Welcome back.
Yep. You understand pretty well. "Trial & Error" is simply one component of certain Scientific Methods of the Natural Sciences, which—depending on the field—could fall under the umbrella of the Empirico-Inductive Method.
The reason why you can't find a good definition of the "Empirico-Inductive Method" is because for some reason, most people call it a MODEL rather than a Method. It contrasts with the Empirico-DEductive Model & the Hypothetico-Deductive model.
When Brandy invokes "The Scientific Method", I wonder which one she is referring to. The so-called "Scientific Method" as exposited in some of the Z-movement literature is really just the "Trial & Error" Method. I assume she's smarter than this, and that when she uses the term, she's talking about the Empirico-Inductive Method. Right?
Does anybody remember if she covered this in one of her videos? At present, I don't have time to watch them all again.
@Holisticism1 Your WHY questions were nothing but trying to shift the burden on to people who point out flaws in the TZM/TVP/RBE. What does my intentions of WHY I choose to discuss flaws in your RBE matter? The scientific method does not involve determining the intentions of people raising objections to the proposed theory.
Either you can answer critics of a RBE or you can't, apparently you choose not to even try.
@Holisticism1 Please tell us how do you determine the scientific efficiency of video games?
What about automobiles and personal computers when they were invented, they considered nothing more than rich people's toys? Innovation, research and development are inherently NOT scientifically efficient. How do you account for those in a RBE?
@Holisticism1 Even after applying all the nurture that you can, to make the average person want as little as possible, without crossing unethical boundaries like lobotomizing babies at birth, there will still be scarcity at our current levels of technological advancement. And because there is not enough people will have to compete for resources. Anarcho-Caps want to reduce class-ism as much as possible while maximizing prosperity. But because there is not enough people will have to bid...
@MacabreManifesto ...everyday, for what little there is, through the price system. And even if we reached "post-scarcity" in like 500 years, Then we'd all simply have the purchasing power of millionaires, within the price system, and it would still be used as a tool for measuring economic efficiency.
@Holisticism1 I might add that Brandy does indeed acknowledge that there will not be infinite goods and resources under a RBE, and thus economic efficiency would still have to apply to best satisfy preferences.
@Holisticism1 Again, it would be nice to live in a world with unlimited goods to choose from. But this is an unachievable utopia. There will always be scarcity in the physical world and because of that we have to use economic efficiency to determine what's the best bang for every buck; something that cannot be done by tracking consumption as that does not look at marginal utility whatsoever, but rather just the preferences of consumers under the assumption of infinite goods and resources.
@JacobSpinney "it would be nice to live in a world with unlimited goods to choose from"
This is not what the RBE proposes; I addressed this in RBE 101. (The market doesn't provide this either, but the RBE comes a lot closer.) If you (personally) do not want to live in a system w/highly advanced and efficient goods & services that satisfy both needs & preferences (due to being highly customizable) then that's another story, but does not justify the argument that it's impossible for those who do.
@Holisticism1 No. Even if we assume that we have an unlimited supply of natural resources, we would still have to acknowledge that we do not have an unlimited supply of capital by which to convert those natural resources into consumable goods. Maybe this wouldn't be the case if TVP had a zero-point energy star trek replicator per person. But until then, we have to recognize the facts of physical limitations on the things we can produce.
@JacobSpinney Why would you need an 'unlimited' supply of capital if you're able to produce an *abundance* (virtually "unlimited" in terms of continuous/endless cycles of efficient production & recycling) of goods & services, with a "limited" supply of capital, used most efficiently to accomplish the above? That's like saying you need an "unlimited" number of water facilities in order to pump out an "unlimited" (continuous) supply of water... No, you would only need a certain number of them.
@Holisticism1 Perhaps if she proposed some kind of method for deriving marginal utility without market prices, I would not draw such a conclusion. But her only response seems to be that the RBE will address preferences as well as needs; a response that completely ignores the problem of marginal utility, rather than addresses it.
@JacobSpinney (1/2)"Perhaps if she proposed some kind of method for deriving marginal utility without market prices" - This is under the assumption that the RBE intends to derive MU at all, and that "marginal utility" is the only/optimal way to achieve economic efficiency, which I argue is untrue based on the capabilities approach. I've repeatedly explained the flaws of relying on the MUT for supposed efficiency & well-being, and you've yet to address this, and instead 'repeat' marginal utility.
(2/2) The problem lies with your belief that if we don't communicate production *costs* to the consumers, then the consumption choices they make will have no relevance/method of calculation, thereby failing to accurately tell us what to produce w/our limited resources. I argued that due to the *abundance* made possible by the scientific efficiency (watch?v=PvoJ2Js5294), we would be able to better satisfy individual preferences, and continue doing so even at "0" cost to the consumer.
@Holisticism1 I understand that Brandy said this. But from my talks with her, it seems that she just doesn't understand what economic efficiency is. Because it is reliant upon marginal utility which is reliant upon market prices; something she advocates for the abolition of.
@Holisticism1 Look at air, for example. Air is a consumable resource that is so abundant that its price is zero. Let's say though that air were indeed scarce. Would the method of making it more abundant be to force its price to be zero? Absolutely not. The only effect that would make is immediately deplete whatever little air might be left. Making something free is the RESULT of something being abundant. Not the cause of it.
@JacobSpinney (1/2) "Would the method of making it more abundant be to force its price to be zero?" No, of course not, and I'm not sure what's sillier - for us to think that (which we don't) - or for you to actually *think* that we think that (which you do). The PREMISE of the RBE has *nothing whatsoever* to do w/simply "removing money" from the equation, forcing costs to 0. We are simply claiming that that is the natural RESULT of the abundance produced by a more scientifically efficient model.
(2/2) "Making something free is the RESULT of something being abundant. Not the cause of it."
Precisely. And we are arguing that if we don't base our production solely on the limited scope of "marginal utility" and instead base it on something much more tangible, we can produce and SUSTAIN an abundance of goods & services that meet peoples' needs and preferences, W/OUT having to calculate "marginal utility" bc we're already doing all the calculating necessary to provide adequate capabilities.
@Holisticism1 If there is not resource scarcity, then consumer goods will continue to grow in evermore abundance so long as legitimate private property rights were respected. Would scarcity still exist? Of course, there is no way to eliminate scarcity entirely. There are only ways of minimizing it over time through society accumulating more capital.
@Holisticism1 You claim the root cause is scarcity. What then is the root cause of scarcity itself? It is a lack of respect for private property rights, as that is the only way for achieving societal abundance. Pointing at scarcity as a CAUSE rather than a RESULT of a particular economic model is like saying that I didn't shoot you, my gun shot you.
@Holisticism1 Of course scarcity is A cause, but it is not THE cause. Are there ways of reducing scarcity? Yes. And that is through allowing capital accumulation in the market so as to enable more capital to be mixed with labor so as to increase productivity which results in lower prices and higher wages. We do not have a scarcity of natural resources. Rather, we have a scarcity of consumable goods. Private property is the solution for this.
@Holisticism1 No. The root cause is a lack of respect for legitimate property rights. Saying the root cause is scarcity is like saying the root cause of serial killing is humanity. As I've already demonstrated, it is impossible to end scarcity. It is an unattainable goal. And so instead, we need to establish systems that deal with scarcity, rather than just imagine that there will be none.
@JacobSpinney " The root cause is a lack of respect for legitimate property rights." This is rather vague. 1st of all, what is considrered "legitimate," and by whom? 2nd, as I explained in my blog, how can we expect people to just "respect" other peoples' property when they don't have access to the things they want/need? It's funny the RBE is mocked as being too "scientifically efficient" (compared to a lobotomy in the comments) yet you would need to lobotomize people to meet your expectations.
"human needs are generally the same" What about differences in height, weight, metabolism, allergies, diabetes, daily activities, etc. All of these issues cause the needs of human beings to vary. I would not concede the point that human beings generally have the same needs. They don't. Many individuals are not even aware of their own needs until their hormones compel them to fill those needs. The needs of all human beings in a society cannot be determined by a central planning calculation.
I don't understand the venus project supporters. On the one hand they want to eliminate the impact of scarcity on people in their day to day life, by getting rid of money. And on the other they complain about how much our society abuses and uses scarce resources like its in abundance. The best solution to enviromentalism is to incorporate more into the price system, not to throw the price system away.
Observe how the Guilded Age - one of the most economically liberal eras in US history - brought about an unprecedented rise in philanthropy. Some of the wealthiest capitalists, such as Rockerfeller, donated enormous amounts of money to colleges, hospitals, museums, academies, schools, opera houses, public libraries, symphony orchestras, and charities. In a free market, it is in the interests of the wealthy class to voluntarily promote the general prosperity and welfare of the population.
@thinkchip (1/3) Just out of curiosity, did you read the blog he's responding to? I wouldn't describe this as "taking it on," bc it doesn't address anything I actually said.
I said: "We would combine economic efficiency w/scientific efficiency," and explained why we shouldn't rely on marginal utility. He says here "Brandy seems to argue that we should throw away economic efficiency," and just re-explains marginal utility, w/out actually refuting any of my points against it. Fail.
(2/3) He then says that my accusation of "safeguards" in the market is merely a play on words, bc the "safeguards" are what remove the incentive to abuse the market system. He then turns around and says "People will always find ways to cheat the system." If there is no incentive, why would people find ways? It's bc there IS still an incentive for abuse in the market system, regardless of the so-called "safeguards." Fail.
He then argues that TVP simply goes off of the notion that there >>
(3/3) >> "won't BE any [conflict]" (which is false) and that at least the market acknowledges there will be conflict and proposes realistic ways of dealing w/it. I don't see how expecting people/business who own too much property to just "forfeit it to be divided up amongst competing businesses" is realistic at all. Who's going to enforce that w/no State, and w/out force or aggression? TVP proposes realistic ways of dealing w/the ROOT causes of conflict, rather than surface conflict resolution.
@justintempler (1/2) (?) I watched that video already (and I'm pretty sure you pointed me to that clip already, but I might be having deja vu. Wouldn't surprise me since we're beating a dead horse. :P...) But anyway...
"It can't be done" - You better hope it CAN!? O.o lol wtf
JS even claims that the market model accomplishes both: economic efficiency via the market prices, and scientific efficiency is somehow "inherent" due to business/manufacterer wanting to increase quality & reduce costs.
(2/2) My argument is simply that if we use science up front to determine the best METHODS to meet the expressed (and educated, meaning everyone has access to the information) needs and desires of the people in the various cities (i.e. the best way for everyone to have access TO a house/car/water/etc. not the BEST house/car/water that everyone HAS TO have), then we can produce abundance, and satisfy peoples needs & desires even better than the market can, AND more ecologically.
@TVPchallenge Brandy, Resources are not available distributed equally around the globe. What's best for people in one city is different then people in another city and by allowing different cities to make their own choices to each choose what are the most efficient best choices for them and allowing co-operation between them to meet each others needs you have in effect a market system.
Your system is not better than the market system it IS the market system.
@justintempler (1/3) "Brandy, Resources are not available distributed equally around the globe."
Obviously. I know this, and I never argued this. In fact, we argue the opposite, that they should be distributed as needed based on, as I said, the most efficient WAY for everyone to have acces to[...] (you would know this if you watched "Where Are We Going" where Peter explains in plain English how different geographical areas may need different resources, and how they would be allocated.
(2/3) "and by allowing different cities to make their own choices" Who said in the RBE that different cities wouldn't be allowed to make their own choices? As I said: centralization WHERE APPLICABLE. If there is a way to make sure that the worlds WATER is conserved, clean, and provided to all the Earth's people efficiently, then sorry, no- "One city" does not get to "decide" that they want to use half of it for swimming, while other people die of thirst. Centralization WHERE APPLICABLE. Basic >>
(3/3) needs, and efficient methods to satisfy WANTS. Then you have SUBSETS of the "basics" that allow for individual choices and custmizations, so beyond the basics, cities may vary in many ways.
The RBE does not exlude "co-operation between them" either. What it DOES (intelligently) exclude is COMPETITION between them, because competition breeds corruption, and cannot possibly most efficient when not everyone has free & equal access to all information. So no, it's not the market system at all.
@TVPchallenge Distribution as needed? And whom gets to define the need? The resource czar?
When two or more cities want the same scarce resource, both cities will decide they "need" that resource, there WILL be competition. You are living in fantasy land.
@justintempler (1/2) I doubt you've watched either of the videos I pointed you to in that short amount of time, and so your question doesn't make any sense and is out of context from what I meant. "As needed" meaning what is required to accomplish the end goal, something we could easily agree on when basic needs are established and agreed upon. If you can't even agree on THAT (food, water, air, etc.) then this conversation is over. "When two or more cities want[...]there WILL be competition."
(2/2) Um... ok, God. You aren't even living in "fantasy land," you're living in your own land, where what you say, or assume, goes. No. Two or more cities don't simply "want" a resource, they want the thing(s) that that resource provides. So we find a way to strategically provide whatever it may be, using the resources we actually DO have, and resources we can share for mutual causes and benefits. Problem solved. Oh wait, disclaimer: Problem only solved if we're above the age of 5 and can share.
@TVPchallenge "disclaimer: Problem only solved if we're above the age of 5 and can share"
And when those 5 year olds grow up they realize that the wealth they were sharing, neither one of them produced.
Adults learn, that in order to share the wealth they also need to share in the WORK that produced that wealth. Let me know when TVP grows up starts producing ANYTHING and stops acting like the spoiled 5 year pointing at the candy and trying to guilt mommy into giving it to him to shut him up.
@justintempler (1/8) Hm, that was a strange combination of ad hom & a strawman. "Weelll... TVP doesn't produce anything!" Totally beside the point - what I wrote about HOW the problem would actually be solved. Looking back over our conversations, you've avoided just about every point in this same manner, unproven assertions, disguised as clever comebacks. Let's go through them:
1. You said efficiency and sustainability are opinions, not science.
(2/8) forever, and therefore its methods and rate of use cannot be sustained, which is scientific, not an "opinion." You respond by explaining how much more powerful oil is than other energy sources(?) My point[b] about whether or not OIL itself is SUSTAINABLE (long-lasting, and eco-friendly) averted. My original point[a] about whether efficiency/sustainability are SCIENTIFIC - averted. 2. You argued that combining scientific & economic efficiency can't be done. I said that this doesn't make >>
(3/8) any sense, since JS argues that the market does exactly THAT. Then I explained that it's about finding the best *methods* to satisfy a wide range of needs & wants in the various cities (and explicitly mentioned that they would NOT all be the same, as in the "one best" house/car/etc). Efficient methods would allow for abundance, meaning even more variety thus better individual satisfaction. You respond by saying that resources are not avail/distributed "equally" around the globe, that >>
(4/8) one city may differ from another, and that cities should make their own choices & allow cooperation, making it a "market," not an RBE. I never said the *resources* themselves would be distributed "equally" (bc I agree that some places might require more or less depending on the population/climate/etc.) But they need equal *capabilities* and equal *access* to opportunities and the necessities of life, through cooperation and not competition, so it's not a "market." My point[c] about >>
(5/8) whether or not combining scientific & economic efficiency is possible - averted. 3. You then asked who defines the "needs" in "as needed?" and argued that when 2+ cities want the same scarce resource, there will be competition. (Yes, in a market system there would be. Not in an RBE.) I pointed out that you'd ignored the videos I pointed you to that EXPLAIN how needs would be defined and how resources would be distributed "as needed," and the video that explains centralization where >>
(6/8) applicable (for efficiency - maximum productivity/minimum waste) with SUBSETS of decentralization (for increased utility). I explained that 2+ countries wanting/needing a resource does NOT mean that they HAVE TO fight over it; if we can learn to disarm and cooperate (unlike 5yr olds), there's more than enough for everyone. You completely ignored all of the above points and randomly switched gears to "well 5 yr olds don't produce anything, and neither does TVP!" Wtf? lol. My point[d] about>
(7/8) how the problem is solved -averted (and detoured to "people need to earn their fair share!") Ok. That's another topic. I'm talking about learning to share RESOURCES from the get-go, in order to optimize what they CAN produce, and finding strategic ways to provide access to goods & services, avoiding any further suffering and/or conflict between nations. No one "produced" the ocean so your argument doesn't apply, much less when you introduce automation into the equation. My point[e] about>>
(8/8) how this is not a "market" -averted. Now, based on how many points you've bitterly slapped aside w/ short & irrelevant quips, it's apparent that you've no interest in discussing TVP, but simply take pleasure in b*tching at TVPers. Judging by your random malicious Twitter mentions to only 40 followers, I doubt my observation is very far off. Attempting to discuss this w/someone so unpleasant is, and always has been, a complete waste of my time, so this will be my last comment to you. Bye.
@TVPchallenge Equal access to resources means the USA with 5% of world's population no longer can use 25% of the world's oil and when that oil is taken away manufacturing those goods that you want to allow equal access to disappear along with that oil. You haven't created abundance, you have destroyed it.
@justintempler (I was right, I think MCP2012 shared that video w/me - I noticed his comment is the only one on the vid...lol. He's one of the few RBE advocates who semi-agrees w/you free market advocates that [some aspects of] TZM tend to demonize valid aspects of the true free market, conflating it with corporatocracy. However, we both agree that the point is ultimately irrelevant, in that we have reached a point in time where the RBE can essentially render BOTH of the aforementioned obsolete.)
Stefbot hopes Ron Paul or Gary Johnson get no where near the white house because if a financial collapse happens under a libertarian president, then it will set back libertarian progress that we worked so hard for.
@CelticAlphabet I can't believe that the media wouldn't blame whatever financial destruction comes on the free market regardless. (Is there any precedent for them doing otherwise? Heck, I've seen people blaming Alan Greenspan's supposed objectivism for the crisis.) Idiots and the unenlightened will believe them; intelligent, (self-)educated people will see through the lies.
Heh, the "free market" is blamed whether we have a dem or rep in the house, why would a libertarian change that? Libdems like Maddow and Olberman are still harping on the old "Bush's laissez-faire policies of Reaganism caused the financial crises!". We can't win, period. lol
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND THE FREE MARKET WORK EXACTLY THE SAME.
Think of something new, test something new, keep and improve what works, throw out what doesn't. Evolution also uses this method with amazing results.
Eh. Rich people can also be rich by inheriting money from their rich family, and these people are notoriously bad at managing their money in our current society and so therefore would meet your stated need for stupid + rich to attempt a monopoly. I agree with your points, but you need to be more careful with your definitives like 'always' 'never' and 'only'. You've run into the same problem before in other videos that you had to correct.
@FishofMuu I'm just curious as to why you would object to his point on the basis that "Rich people can also be rich by inheriting money from their rich family[...]would meet your stated need for stupid + rich to attempt a monopoly," but then you still agree with his points? Did you mean that... this would only happen minimally, and so his overall point still stands against mine?
very well done. only thing I might add is that one could argue that preferences ARE needs and vice versa. It saddens me that the person you are responding to has such a dismal understanding of what science is.
@humanhiveanomaly Unfortunately, it does appear "well done" to those who haven't actually read the blog he's responding to, and are unfamiliar w/my ACTUAL arguments, and are therefore taking his misrepresentation of them at face value. If you actually read the blog, I specifically said that we would need to "combine scientific efficiency w/economic efficiency" and explained how via the capabilities approach. His response accuses me of the exact opposite. (See my comments above to thinkchip.)
One thing I think you over looked in regards to needs and preferences, is that a large part of the technilogical advances in our society have come not from providing for need but rather the market catering to peoples preferences.
@modelmark TVP doesn't claim to "eliminate scarcity." Scarcity is relative to demand, and is therefore not something you can just "eliminate" outright. Voluntarily changing those demands to what is possible and sustianable enables us to produce relative *abundance* which renders the relative scarcity obsolete.
The market system doesn't provide "endless amounts of beautiful women" either, so this argument fails TVPC rule #4. Neither system provides that, but TVP provides abundant goods & svcs.
@TVPchallenge I never claimed that freedom produced an endless stream of women, so your argument fails. From TVP is see a lot of remarks on the post 'scarcity time', so I went with that.
@modelmark (1/2) "I never claimed[...]so your argument fails."
No - I never accused you of claiming that the market provides "endless women," so how can an argument that I didn't make - fail? You, however, did accuse TVP of claiming "endless women", when we didn't, so YOUR argument fails. I simply pointed out that your "endless women" rebuttal is irrelevant, bc NEITHER system provides "endless women," nor did we claim to, so you've failed to address how this makes the market better than TVP.
(2/2) Re: post-scarcity - Have you looked at adciv*org - what is it about the open-source approach to abundance that you don't agree with, or find impossible?
@TVPchallenge "The market system doesn't provide "endless amounts of beautiful women" either, so this argument fails TVPC rule"
I read this as that I claimed that it would.
Post scarcity era, means post scarcity everything, including beautiful women. If not I'd like to know what scarcity it is going to get rid of specifically.
@modelmark (1/2) "I read this as that I claimed that it would." - I see. That is not what I meant. Jacob's video is a response to my TVP Challenge which explains in Rule #4 that in order to refute TVP, you would need to explain how it's WORSE than the proposed alternative ($ system). Since the alternative(s) don't provide "endless women" either, your sarcasm failed to make any relevant point(s).
Re: post-scaricty era - As I said, the term "scarcity" is RELATIVE to demand, so it doesn't even >>
(2/2) make sense to say "post-scarcity everything" unless people "demand" everything, which they don't. Second, PS era *does not* include "beautiful women," which is not subject to economic calculation. It is as irrelevant to the RBE as it is to the market system. A more relevant frame of reference would be things like "clean water, good quality food, medicine and suitable housing[...]vehicles, computers and mobile phones – all the way up to purely luxury items." (see adciv*org for more info)
The only reason to think not sufficient charity would exist in a free society, and a coercive elite would provide that, is if you yourself do not care about the poor. If you stand for democratically chosen elites, it is even weirder. They are supposed to implement the will of most people and impose it on the minority. If the will of most people is not to participate in charity, a democratically power projector, would make that policy and force it on the charitable minority.
They also don't even think about capital formation. Do they think "OK, we have certain resources and technology, so we can instantly make all the capital we need"!?!?!?!?!?!?
@SaviorOfLogic I don't think many of them understand what the capital in capitalism means, most of them think capital only means money. We are talking to the economically illiterate
As I said before there are alternatives for a price system. Like energy classification value carbon value resource value etc. The price system is not the perfect tool to communicate information (external cost, monopolies, corruption, interest rates resources speculation) all mixed in the price. Therefore it does not tell you much.
@jdocks777 If everyone were treated equal, we would have communism. Personally, I want my treatment to reflect Me and my actions, not the grand average of humanity to be rationed To me by a central planner.
@jdocks777 Not necessarily. Without classism there isn't the incentive to actually start a business and make a good or service. This is because starting a business if failed, would be a waste of both time and money. Without the rulers it would be a lot closer to being equal, that is, instead of 400 individuals in the US owning 50% of the wealth, 10% would own 50% of the wealth. And, in a saner society, people with money would be more likely to pick up the burden of voluntarily funding public...
@MacabreManifesto ...goods (like taxes, but implemented through a more efficient free market) when the poor cannot. And in the end, would you rather make $50,000, while everyone else makes $1,000,000, or would you rather everyone, including you, make $40,000? In capitalism the upside is that the average amount of prosperity per capita is high, but their are outliers (the ones who have incredible prosperity). The freer that capitalism is, the higher the prosperity per capita, and the less...
@MacabreManifesto ...extreme the outliers are (there are much fewer bloated fatcats, and a lot more modest businessmen, and the fatcats are more likely the Bill Gates type fatcats, who are philanthropists). But in a centrally planned society the prosperity per capita is very low, and, in the end, there is classism in centrally planned societies! In Russia, you could become a Chessmaster and you would practically get your dick sucked, even though the average citizen could care less for chess.
No need to go into all the details there Jacob. When people say words like "unacceptable" or "unfair", just respond with "Compared to what?" and don't let them dodge the question.
@lordthawkeye ? - If you actually read the blog that this is responding to, asking "compared to what" wouldn't make any sense, bc I already explained what I'm comparing it to. So there is a need to go into "all the details," yet this video still fails to address any of my actual points about marginal utility vs. the capabilities approach.
@TVPchallenge Reading the blog, same old nonsense about how it's TEH EVIL to make someone work for food as though forcing someone to give you food for free is somehow virtuous. I work hard to make my way and I've frankly had it up to here with free loading underachievers who think it's their right to leech off my efforts. Life does not owe you a living, grow up!
Leftists despise charity and see it as unworkable because they are most often uncharitable (and when one looks at who is more likely to donate amongst the politicval spectrum, it is always those on the right who donate more). Yes that includes those
crazy religious people". But we want to tell you what to do with your money, not ours!
@Rensune Just curious as to what sources/stats you're referring to, showing that "Leftists[...]are most often uncharitable" and "it is always those on the right who donate more," bc that's actually really interesting, and I'd like to review and consider the context in which this trend was/is observed.
One issue I have with your criticisms of TVP is that you attack certain points (such as property issues) that deal with the TVP after transition.
One issue I have with advocates for TVP is their (our) treatment of the transition issue - it is nowhere near as important as other topics during discourse. Leading to many misconceptions.
@TheAxlSnaks A major transition in society is always difficult (I am speaking of the industrial revolution, rather than the theoretical Type 0 - Type I revolution that we may see in our lifetime). But the more free your society is while transitioning, the easier it is economically to deal with the transition. The government enforced modernizations of Germany and Japan, at the end of the 19th century were much tougher on the population, and were only faster because the knowledge of how to...
@LibertyDownUnder The thing that makes me worried about it is it's established nature. Jacque says that his society is emergent but that is untrue and that is dangerous. To make a mistake on and individual scale (even as big as attempting to construct an expensive impossible structure, adjustments can be made and that structure can still come out okay) is fine because we can afford to learn from those mistakes. We CANNOT afford to learn from a failed planned society. A failed dome might cost...
@MacabreManifesto ...$2,000,000 and the lives of a few unfortunate souls standing under it. A failed economy can cost you millions of lives and lifestyles.
@LibertyDownUnder Ho9w unfortunate, life is slow at the moment, I could use the possible collapse of civilization to bring some excitement into my life :/
@MacabreManifesto "Jacque says that his society is emergent but that is untrue and that is dangerous."
What do you mean? It is untrue that TVP is emergent, meaning TVP is stagnant? (How so?) It is dangerous to be emergent, or dangerous to 'think that TVP is emergent' when it's actually not? Please clarify.
I don't understand your analogy of failed dome/failed economy. It's apples & oranges. We'd transition into RBE using what works, not wake up in TVP planned cities one day & oops it failed.
I WISH that there was enough prosperity to warrant experiments in both a resource based economy and an ultra (ultra is necessary when free market is a term still associated with those under state rule) free market based economy. I HOPE that a successful stateless society appears that is large and complex enough to warrant expansion, and that that larger and more complex society is also successful. And this society keeps expanding until the entire world is without state. And then 500 years...
@MacabreManifesto ...later technology will be so well advanced that Earth will be a large network of circular cities, in a glass and steel utopia, where all intensive labor can be done by robots and only a fraction of society needs to fulfill our intellectual and entertainment needs, and yet everyone participates and is able and happy to do so.
@DKshad0w I don't think that they will become that draconian, until maybe they try to build their society and fail miserably. I think that any human would have so much pride that they would go through with this if their system was failing. If TVP actually admitted their mistake when their city failed they would at least be the most altruistic people on earth as well as the most naive and misguided.
Youre a smart guy, also clearly NOT an ass hole, I dont agree with it all but I will probably make some videos addressing some points. All the best.
Neanderthalcouzin 2 months ago
a market system NEVER increases compassion. a market system is a game, whose very few winners get to live well, while the many losers don't even get to eat or drink clean water.
as soon as people are in a system where one person benefits from taking things away from other people (legally = "market success", or illegally = "crime"), the system will automatically produce competition and corruption, and not empathy and compassion.
brightgeistmovies 5 months ago 3
@brightgeistmovies A market system does not involve taking things away from other people. That is what the state does. A market system involves trading things with other people under mutually beneficial terms.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago 3
@JacobSpinney : you should actually know that that isn't true. one side of a trade will ALWAYS get more than they give, and the other side will obviously give more than they get. if you assume that both sides get something out of the trade, then that would mean that "value" is created out of thin air on both sides of the trade, which is clearly not the case. this also explains why one side of any trade will usually refuse to reverse the trade under the same original terms.
brightgeistmovies 5 months ago
@brightgeistmovies Nonsense. Value is subjective. It is determined by the parties engaged in the trade. Not you. Not me. Let's say that I'm really good at producing apples. But I actually like oranges. Let's also say that you're really good at producing oranges, but you actually like apples. Thus, I'm willing to trade one of my apples for one of your oranges and you are too. We BOTH benefit. Indeed, it is a necessity that we both benefit, otherwise the trade would not have been initiated.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney : too bad that your over-simplistic kindergarten examples never happen in our REAL economy. in reality, one side of a trade is usually forced by economic pressure to do the trade, because otherwise they wouldn't get anything at all. if you still don't understand that, just let me know, then i can give you as many REAL examples for that as you want (not apples for oranges), just name the number.
brightgeistmovies 5 months ago
@brightgeistmovies Right, so the vast majority of the population in the US are so poor that they can't afford air conditioning, they can't afford a refrigerator, they have to live in communal homes with 5 people per bedroom, and all they can afford is the slop that is divvied out in a food kitchen somewhere. Is that what you're saying?
JacobSpinney 5 months ago 3
@brightgeistmovies Because I'm quite sure that that is empirically false. Most people in the US are not anywhere near that poor, and they have plenty of financial choices they're able to make with their lives. That in all of the historical examples we have of anything coming close to a free market, the standard of living has continually increased from where it was previously.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago 3
@JacobSpinney : what are you talking about now? you seem to have completely changed the topic...
brightgeistmovies 5 months ago
Comment removed
stealthswimmer 2 months ago
venus project is a bad, bad joke
marketanarchist2011 6 months ago
There's one bit of scarcity that can never be 'eliminated' in any sense of the word and it's one of the most significant factors in production: Time.
Especially so if you're advocating a system with 75% or higher unemployment rates, that means you have 75%+ less time to figure out what people demand and produce it. Also if you spend time designing and making an indestructible iPod that no one wants, that's less time to make something people actually want
machwon 6 months ago
@machwon Be quiet you ill informed troll.
RenewableFuel 2 months ago
@RenewableFuel Troll is TZM 'cult' lingo for people who don't agree with everything that comes out of Merola's mouth. This is why OWS has been calling you a cult. It's not because it is one, it's because you act like one. Why not address what I argued instead of this black and white knee jerk reaction of calling people who have valid arguments trolls.
machwon 2 months ago
@machwon Again, you're trolling me for a reaction. See Venus Project website FAQ if you're serious.
RenewableFuel 2 months ago
@RenewableFuel No, its not trolling. I provided a valid objection, you reacted like a closed minded groupie.. tell me how my original objection is invalid without receding me to read more TVP dogma (that I've already read, mind you)
machwon 2 months ago
@machwon It's not a valid objection if it has been debunked countless amounts of times, over and over. You have no arguments, which is why you run a blog website that can only smear TVP and resource based economy from angles that require no logic, thinking or reasoning. How about you go back there with all your other troll buddies and jerk off to some of that child porn you got. That's why you're against a resource based economy, you don't want to lose your kiddie porn in the transition.
RenewableFuel 2 months ago
@RenewableFuel
1.You know I'm not a troll because if I was you wouldn't be "feeding" me. So you're lying.
2. I don't jerk off to child porn, you do. This is just that racist pedo 18YEARSANDOLDER's sock puppet account. I see my blog post exposing you made you ditch your old account. Welcome back.
machwon 1 month ago
@Holisticism1
Yep. You understand pretty well. "Trial & Error" is simply one component of certain Scientific Methods of the Natural Sciences, which—depending on the field—could fall under the umbrella of the Empirico-Inductive Method.
The reason why you can't find a good definition of the "Empirico-Inductive Method" is because for some reason, most people call it a MODEL rather than a Method. It contrasts with the Empirico-DEductive Model & the Hypothetico-Deductive model.
gunsandbullhorns 6 months ago
When Brandy invokes "The Scientific Method", I wonder which one she is referring to. The so-called "Scientific Method" as exposited in some of the Z-movement literature is really just the "Trial & Error" Method. I assume she's smarter than this, and that when she uses the term, she's talking about the Empirico-Inductive Method. Right?
Does anybody remember if she covered this in one of her videos? At present, I don't have time to watch them all again.
gunsandbullhorns 6 months ago
Can you explain to me how the money that's printed from the Federal Reserve gets in circulation? I don\t understand a thing about this!
rebelq1 7 months ago
@rebelq1 G edward griffin does a pretty good job of explaining it. Also check out Mises media.
weavermama 1 month ago
@weavermama
Can you give me the link to a video?
rebelq1 3 weeks ago
"If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." Fredric Bastiat
machwon 7 months ago
@JacobSpinney
Scarcity won't be a problem in the not so distant future when we can alter the atomic structure of chemical elements!
Look up 'muon catalised fusion'!
rebelq1 7 months ago
@JacobSpinney
You should also do a video about currencies backed up by resources/commodities!
rebelq1 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 Your WHY questions were nothing but trying to shift the burden on to people who point out flaws in the TZM/TVP/RBE. What does my intentions of WHY I choose to discuss flaws in your RBE matter? The scientific method does not involve determining the intentions of people raising objections to the proposed theory.
Either you can answer critics of a RBE or you can't, apparently you choose not to even try.
justintempler 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 Please tell us how do you determine the scientific efficiency of video games?
What about automobiles and personal computers when they were invented, they considered nothing more than rich people's toys? Innovation, research and development are inherently NOT scientifically efficient. How do you account for those in a RBE?
justintempler 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 Even after applying all the nurture that you can, to make the average person want as little as possible, without crossing unethical boundaries like lobotomizing babies at birth, there will still be scarcity at our current levels of technological advancement. And because there is not enough people will have to compete for resources. Anarcho-Caps want to reduce class-ism as much as possible while maximizing prosperity. But because there is not enough people will have to bid...
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...everyday, for what little there is, through the price system. And even if we reached "post-scarcity" in like 500 years, Then we'd all simply have the purchasing power of millionaires, within the price system, and it would still be used as a tool for measuring economic efficiency.
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 I might add that Brandy does indeed acknowledge that there will not be infinite goods and resources under a RBE, and thus economic efficiency would still have to apply to best satisfy preferences.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 Again, it would be nice to live in a world with unlimited goods to choose from. But this is an unachievable utopia. There will always be scarcity in the physical world and because of that we have to use economic efficiency to determine what's the best bang for every buck; something that cannot be done by tracking consumption as that does not look at marginal utility whatsoever, but rather just the preferences of consumers under the assumption of infinite goods and resources.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@JacobSpinney "it would be nice to live in a world with unlimited goods to choose from"
This is not what the RBE proposes; I addressed this in RBE 101. (The market doesn't provide this either, but the RBE comes a lot closer.) If you (personally) do not want to live in a system w/highly advanced and efficient goods & services that satisfy both needs & preferences (due to being highly customizable) then that's another story, but does not justify the argument that it's impossible for those who do.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 No. Even if we assume that we have an unlimited supply of natural resources, we would still have to acknowledge that we do not have an unlimited supply of capital by which to convert those natural resources into consumable goods. Maybe this wouldn't be the case if TVP had a zero-point energy star trek replicator per person. But until then, we have to recognize the facts of physical limitations on the things we can produce.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@JacobSpinney Why would you need an 'unlimited' supply of capital if you're able to produce an *abundance* (virtually "unlimited" in terms of continuous/endless cycles of efficient production & recycling) of goods & services, with a "limited" supply of capital, used most efficiently to accomplish the above? That's like saying you need an "unlimited" number of water facilities in order to pump out an "unlimited" (continuous) supply of water... No, you would only need a certain number of them.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 Perhaps if she proposed some kind of method for deriving marginal utility without market prices, I would not draw such a conclusion. But her only response seems to be that the RBE will address preferences as well as needs; a response that completely ignores the problem of marginal utility, rather than addresses it.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@JacobSpinney (1/2)"Perhaps if she proposed some kind of method for deriving marginal utility without market prices" - This is under the assumption that the RBE intends to derive MU at all, and that "marginal utility" is the only/optimal way to achieve economic efficiency, which I argue is untrue based on the capabilities approach. I've repeatedly explained the flaws of relying on the MUT for supposed efficiency & well-being, and you've yet to address this, and instead 'repeat' marginal utility.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
(2/2) The problem lies with your belief that if we don't communicate production *costs* to the consumers, then the consumption choices they make will have no relevance/method of calculation, thereby failing to accurately tell us what to produce w/our limited resources. I argued that due to the *abundance* made possible by the scientific efficiency (watch?v=PvoJ2Js5294), we would be able to better satisfy individual preferences, and continue doing so even at "0" cost to the consumer.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 I understand that Brandy said this. But from my talks with her, it seems that she just doesn't understand what economic efficiency is. Because it is reliant upon marginal utility which is reliant upon market prices; something she advocates for the abolition of.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 Look at air, for example. Air is a consumable resource that is so abundant that its price is zero. Let's say though that air were indeed scarce. Would the method of making it more abundant be to force its price to be zero? Absolutely not. The only effect that would make is immediately deplete whatever little air might be left. Making something free is the RESULT of something being abundant. Not the cause of it.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@JacobSpinney (1/2) "Would the method of making it more abundant be to force its price to be zero?" No, of course not, and I'm not sure what's sillier - for us to think that (which we don't) - or for you to actually *think* that we think that (which you do). The PREMISE of the RBE has *nothing whatsoever* to do w/simply "removing money" from the equation, forcing costs to 0. We are simply claiming that that is the natural RESULT of the abundance produced by a more scientifically efficient model.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
(2/2) "Making something free is the RESULT of something being abundant. Not the cause of it."
Precisely. And we are arguing that if we don't base our production solely on the limited scope of "marginal utility" and instead base it on something much more tangible, we can produce and SUSTAIN an abundance of goods & services that meet peoples' needs and preferences, W/OUT having to calculate "marginal utility" bc we're already doing all the calculating necessary to provide adequate capabilities.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 If there is not resource scarcity, then consumer goods will continue to grow in evermore abundance so long as legitimate private property rights were respected. Would scarcity still exist? Of course, there is no way to eliminate scarcity entirely. There are only ways of minimizing it over time through society accumulating more capital.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 You claim the root cause is scarcity. What then is the root cause of scarcity itself? It is a lack of respect for private property rights, as that is the only way for achieving societal abundance. Pointing at scarcity as a CAUSE rather than a RESULT of a particular economic model is like saying that I didn't shoot you, my gun shot you.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 Of course scarcity is A cause, but it is not THE cause. Are there ways of reducing scarcity? Yes. And that is through allowing capital accumulation in the market so as to enable more capital to be mixed with labor so as to increase productivity which results in lower prices and higher wages. We do not have a scarcity of natural resources. Rather, we have a scarcity of consumable goods. Private property is the solution for this.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@Holisticism1 No. The root cause is a lack of respect for legitimate property rights. Saying the root cause is scarcity is like saying the root cause of serial killing is humanity. As I've already demonstrated, it is impossible to end scarcity. It is an unattainable goal. And so instead, we need to establish systems that deal with scarcity, rather than just imagine that there will be none.
JacobSpinney 7 months ago
@JacobSpinney " The root cause is a lack of respect for legitimate property rights." This is rather vague. 1st of all, what is considrered "legitimate," and by whom? 2nd, as I explained in my blog, how can we expect people to just "respect" other peoples' property when they don't have access to the things they want/need? It's funny the RBE is mocked as being too "scientifically efficient" (compared to a lobotomy in the comments) yet you would need to lobotomize people to meet your expectations.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago 7
OMFG blink stalkers are so op plz nerf
poopster102 7 months ago
Totally thought starcraft....fml.
keymaker2112 7 months ago
starcraft terran versus protoss videos on the right :)
ShwangShwing 7 months ago
"human needs are generally the same" What about differences in height, weight, metabolism, allergies, diabetes, daily activities, etc. All of these issues cause the needs of human beings to vary. I would not concede the point that human beings generally have the same needs. They don't. Many individuals are not even aware of their own needs until their hormones compel them to fill those needs. The needs of all human beings in a society cannot be determined by a central planning calculation.
truthadvocate 7 months ago
I don't understand the venus project supporters. On the one hand they want to eliminate the impact of scarcity on people in their day to day life, by getting rid of money. And on the other they complain about how much our society abuses and uses scarce resources like its in abundance. The best solution to enviromentalism is to incorporate more into the price system, not to throw the price system away.
ghostbuddy 7 months ago
Observe how the Guilded Age - one of the most economically liberal eras in US history - brought about an unprecedented rise in philanthropy. Some of the wealthiest capitalists, such as Rockerfeller, donated enormous amounts of money to colleges, hospitals, museums, academies, schools, opera houses, public libraries, symphony orchestras, and charities. In a free market, it is in the interests of the wealthy class to voluntarily promote the general prosperity and welfare of the population.
jonathanaconway 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonathanaconway
"In a free market, it is in the interests of the wealthy class to voluntarily promote the general prosperity and welfare of the population"
Why?
billburns2 7 months ago
@RayWilliamJohnston XD
Laprisamata 7 months ago
Thank you for taking this on Jacob!
thinkchip 7 months ago
@thinkchip (1/3) Just out of curiosity, did you read the blog he's responding to? I wouldn't describe this as "taking it on," bc it doesn't address anything I actually said.
I said: "We would combine economic efficiency w/scientific efficiency," and explained why we shouldn't rely on marginal utility. He says here "Brandy seems to argue that we should throw away economic efficiency," and just re-explains marginal utility, w/out actually refuting any of my points against it. Fail.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
(2/3) He then says that my accusation of "safeguards" in the market is merely a play on words, bc the "safeguards" are what remove the incentive to abuse the market system. He then turns around and says "People will always find ways to cheat the system." If there is no incentive, why would people find ways? It's bc there IS still an incentive for abuse in the market system, regardless of the so-called "safeguards." Fail.
He then argues that TVP simply goes off of the notion that there >>
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
(3/3) >> "won't BE any [conflict]" (which is false) and that at least the market acknowledges there will be conflict and proposes realistic ways of dealing w/it. I don't see how expecting people/business who own too much property to just "forfeit it to be divided up amongst competing businesses" is realistic at all. Who's going to enforce that w/no State, and w/out force or aggression? TVP proposes realistic ways of dealing w/the ROOT causes of conflict, rather than surface conflict resolution.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@TVPchallenge "We would combine economic efficiency w/scientific efficiency,"
It can't be done, we don't live in a static society, and you can't predict the future and that's where marginal utility comes in.
watch?v=DFq05Z7_Dyk starting at 29:30
justintempler 7 months ago
@justintempler (1/2) (?) I watched that video already (and I'm pretty sure you pointed me to that clip already, but I might be having deja vu. Wouldn't surprise me since we're beating a dead horse. :P...) But anyway...
"It can't be done" - You better hope it CAN!? O.o lol wtf
JS even claims that the market model accomplishes both: economic efficiency via the market prices, and scientific efficiency is somehow "inherent" due to business/manufacterer wanting to increase quality & reduce costs.
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(2/2) My argument is simply that if we use science up front to determine the best METHODS to meet the expressed (and educated, meaning everyone has access to the information) needs and desires of the people in the various cities (i.e. the best way for everyone to have access TO a house/car/water/etc. not the BEST house/car/water that everyone HAS TO have), then we can produce abundance, and satisfy peoples needs & desires even better than the market can, AND more ecologically.
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
@TVPchallenge Brandy, Resources are not available distributed equally around the globe. What's best for people in one city is different then people in another city and by allowing different cities to make their own choices to each choose what are the most efficient best choices for them and allowing co-operation between them to meet each others needs you have in effect a market system.
Your system is not better than the market system it IS the market system.
justintempler 6 months ago
@justintempler (1/3) "Brandy, Resources are not available distributed equally around the globe."
Obviously. I know this, and I never argued this. In fact, we argue the opposite, that they should be distributed as needed based on, as I said, the most efficient WAY for everyone to have acces to[...] (you would know this if you watched "Where Are We Going" where Peter explains in plain English how different geographical areas may need different resources, and how they would be allocated.
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(2/3) "and by allowing different cities to make their own choices" Who said in the RBE that different cities wouldn't be allowed to make their own choices? As I said: centralization WHERE APPLICABLE. If there is a way to make sure that the worlds WATER is conserved, clean, and provided to all the Earth's people efficiently, then sorry, no- "One city" does not get to "decide" that they want to use half of it for swimming, while other people die of thirst. Centralization WHERE APPLICABLE. Basic >>
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(3/3) needs, and efficient methods to satisfy WANTS. Then you have SUBSETS of the "basics" that allow for individual choices and custmizations, so beyond the basics, cities may vary in many ways.
The RBE does not exlude "co-operation between them" either. What it DOES (intelligently) exclude is COMPETITION between them, because competition breeds corruption, and cannot possibly most efficient when not everyone has free & equal access to all information. So no, it's not the market system at all.
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
@TVPchallenge Distribution as needed? And whom gets to define the need? The resource czar?
When two or more cities want the same scarce resource, both cities will decide they "need" that resource, there WILL be competition. You are living in fantasy land.
justintempler 6 months ago
@justintempler (1/2) I doubt you've watched either of the videos I pointed you to in that short amount of time, and so your question doesn't make any sense and is out of context from what I meant. "As needed" meaning what is required to accomplish the end goal, something we could easily agree on when basic needs are established and agreed upon. If you can't even agree on THAT (food, water, air, etc.) then this conversation is over. "When two or more cities want[...]there WILL be competition."
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(2/2) Um... ok, God. You aren't even living in "fantasy land," you're living in your own land, where what you say, or assume, goes. No. Two or more cities don't simply "want" a resource, they want the thing(s) that that resource provides. So we find a way to strategically provide whatever it may be, using the resources we actually DO have, and resources we can share for mutual causes and benefits. Problem solved. Oh wait, disclaimer: Problem only solved if we're above the age of 5 and can share.
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
@TVPchallenge "disclaimer: Problem only solved if we're above the age of 5 and can share"
And when those 5 year olds grow up they realize that the wealth they were sharing, neither one of them produced.
Adults learn, that in order to share the wealth they also need to share in the WORK that produced that wealth. Let me know when TVP grows up starts producing ANYTHING and stops acting like the spoiled 5 year pointing at the candy and trying to guilt mommy into giving it to him to shut him up.
justintempler 6 months ago
@justintempler (1/8) Hm, that was a strange combination of ad hom & a strawman. "Weelll... TVP doesn't produce anything!" Totally beside the point - what I wrote about HOW the problem would actually be solved. Looking back over our conversations, you've avoided just about every point in this same manner, unproven assertions, disguised as clever comebacks. Let's go through them:
1. You said efficiency and sustainability are opinions, not science.
I argued that oil ITSELF cannot be sustained >>
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(2/8) forever, and therefore its methods and rate of use cannot be sustained, which is scientific, not an "opinion." You respond by explaining how much more powerful oil is than other energy sources(?) My point[b] about whether or not OIL itself is SUSTAINABLE (long-lasting, and eco-friendly) averted. My original point[a] about whether efficiency/sustainability are SCIENTIFIC - averted. 2. You argued that combining scientific & economic efficiency can't be done. I said that this doesn't make >>
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(3/8) any sense, since JS argues that the market does exactly THAT. Then I explained that it's about finding the best *methods* to satisfy a wide range of needs & wants in the various cities (and explicitly mentioned that they would NOT all be the same, as in the "one best" house/car/etc). Efficient methods would allow for abundance, meaning even more variety thus better individual satisfaction. You respond by saying that resources are not avail/distributed "equally" around the globe, that >>
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(4/8) one city may differ from another, and that cities should make their own choices & allow cooperation, making it a "market," not an RBE. I never said the *resources* themselves would be distributed "equally" (bc I agree that some places might require more or less depending on the population/climate/etc.) But they need equal *capabilities* and equal *access* to opportunities and the necessities of life, through cooperation and not competition, so it's not a "market." My point[c] about >>
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(5/8) whether or not combining scientific & economic efficiency is possible - averted. 3. You then asked who defines the "needs" in "as needed?" and argued that when 2+ cities want the same scarce resource, there will be competition. (Yes, in a market system there would be. Not in an RBE.) I pointed out that you'd ignored the videos I pointed you to that EXPLAIN how needs would be defined and how resources would be distributed "as needed," and the video that explains centralization where >>
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(6/8) applicable (for efficiency - maximum productivity/minimum waste) with SUBSETS of decentralization (for increased utility). I explained that 2+ countries wanting/needing a resource does NOT mean that they HAVE TO fight over it; if we can learn to disarm and cooperate (unlike 5yr olds), there's more than enough for everyone. You completely ignored all of the above points and randomly switched gears to "well 5 yr olds don't produce anything, and neither does TVP!" Wtf? lol. My point[d] about>
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(7/8) how the problem is solved -averted (and detoured to "people need to earn their fair share!") Ok. That's another topic. I'm talking about learning to share RESOURCES from the get-go, in order to optimize what they CAN produce, and finding strategic ways to provide access to goods & services, avoiding any further suffering and/or conflict between nations. No one "produced" the ocean so your argument doesn't apply, much less when you introduce automation into the equation. My point[e] about>>
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
(8/8) how this is not a "market" -averted. Now, based on how many points you've bitterly slapped aside w/ short & irrelevant quips, it's apparent that you've no interest in discussing TVP, but simply take pleasure in b*tching at TVPers. Judging by your random malicious Twitter mentions to only 40 followers, I doubt my observation is very far off. Attempting to discuss this w/someone so unpleasant is, and always has been, a complete waste of my time, so this will be my last comment to you. Bye.
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
@TVPchallenge Equal access to resources means the USA with 5% of world's population no longer can use 25% of the world's oil and when that oil is taken away manufacturing those goods that you want to allow equal access to disappear along with that oil. You haven't created abundance, you have destroyed it.
justintempler 6 months ago
Comment removed
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
@justintempler (I was right, I think MCP2012 shared that video w/me - I noticed his comment is the only one on the vid...lol. He's one of the few RBE advocates who semi-agrees w/you free market advocates that [some aspects of] TZM tend to demonize valid aspects of the true free market, conflating it with corporatocracy. However, we both agree that the point is ultimately irrelevant, in that we have reached a point in time where the RBE can essentially render BOTH of the aforementioned obsolete.)
TVPchallenge 6 months ago
Stefbot hopes Ron Paul or Gary Johnson get no where near the white house because if a financial collapse happens under a libertarian president, then it will set back libertarian progress that we worked so hard for.
Any thoughts on this?
CelticAlphabet 7 months ago
@CelticAlphabet They won't win. Most Americans are statists.
MrGreeneggsnham 7 months ago
@CelticAlphabet I can't believe that the media wouldn't blame whatever financial destruction comes on the free market regardless. (Is there any precedent for them doing otherwise? Heck, I've seen people blaming Alan Greenspan's supposed objectivism for the crisis.) Idiots and the unenlightened will believe them; intelligent, (self-)educated people will see through the lies.
asdfqwerty2000 7 months ago
@CelticAlphabet
Heh, the "free market" is blamed whether we have a dem or rep in the house, why would a libertarian change that? Libdems like Maddow and Olberman are still harping on the old "Bush's laissez-faire policies of Reaganism caused the financial crises!". We can't win, period. lol
fwanksajerk 7 months ago
@fwanksajerk I wish we actually had a free market to blame. We should clone Grover Clevland and Thomas Jefferson.
CelticAlphabet 7 months ago
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND THE FREE MARKET WORK EXACTLY THE SAME.
Think of something new, test something new, keep and improve what works, throw out what doesn't. Evolution also uses this method with amazing results.
CelticAlphabet 7 months ago
Eh. Rich people can also be rich by inheriting money from their rich family, and these people are notoriously bad at managing their money in our current society and so therefore would meet your stated need for stupid + rich to attempt a monopoly. I agree with your points, but you need to be more careful with your definitives like 'always' 'never' and 'only'. You've run into the same problem before in other videos that you had to correct.
FishofMuu 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FishofMuu I'm just curious as to why you would object to his point on the basis that "Rich people can also be rich by inheriting money from their rich family[...]would meet your stated need for stupid + rich to attempt a monopoly," but then you still agree with his points? Did you mean that... this would only happen minimally, and so his overall point still stands against mine?
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
very well done. only thing I might add is that one could argue that preferences ARE needs and vice versa. It saddens me that the person you are responding to has such a dismal understanding of what science is.
humanhiveanomaly 7 months ago
@humanhiveanomaly Unfortunately, it does appear "well done" to those who haven't actually read the blog he's responding to, and are unfamiliar w/my ACTUAL arguments, and are therefore taking his misrepresentation of them at face value. If you actually read the blog, I specifically said that we would need to "combine scientific efficiency w/economic efficiency" and explained how via the capabilities approach. His response accuses me of the exact opposite. (See my comments above to thinkchip.)
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
One thing I think you over looked in regards to needs and preferences, is that a large part of the technilogical advances in our society have come not from providing for need but rather the market catering to peoples preferences.
navyboym 7 months ago
I thought this was going to be about textured vegetable protein (which makes up a large part of my diet).
tapary 7 months ago
There is an epic rebuttal to an Resource based economy : The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek.
SuperMarcBot 7 months ago
Venus project eliminates scarcity: endless amounts of beautiful women that want to have sex with you manufactured by robots.
They are right: I think most conflicts will be gone.
modelmark 7 months ago
@modelmark Will they be anime woman!
Apptendo 7 months ago
@modelmark TVP doesn't claim to "eliminate scarcity." Scarcity is relative to demand, and is therefore not something you can just "eliminate" outright. Voluntarily changing those demands to what is possible and sustianable enables us to produce relative *abundance* which renders the relative scarcity obsolete.
The market system doesn't provide "endless amounts of beautiful women" either, so this argument fails TVPC rule #4. Neither system provides that, but TVP provides abundant goods & svcs.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@TVPchallenge I never claimed that freedom produced an endless stream of women, so your argument fails. From TVP is see a lot of remarks on the post 'scarcity time', so I went with that.
modelmark 7 months ago
@modelmark (1/2) "I never claimed[...]so your argument fails."
No - I never accused you of claiming that the market provides "endless women," so how can an argument that I didn't make - fail? You, however, did accuse TVP of claiming "endless women", when we didn't, so YOUR argument fails. I simply pointed out that your "endless women" rebuttal is irrelevant, bc NEITHER system provides "endless women," nor did we claim to, so you've failed to address how this makes the market better than TVP.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
(2/2) Re: post-scarcity - Have you looked at adciv*org - what is it about the open-source approach to abundance that you don't agree with, or find impossible?
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@TVPchallenge "The market system doesn't provide "endless amounts of beautiful women" either, so this argument fails TVPC rule"
I read this as that I claimed that it would.
Post scarcity era, means post scarcity everything, including beautiful women. If not I'd like to know what scarcity it is going to get rid of specifically.
modelmark 7 months ago
@modelmark (1/2) "I read this as that I claimed that it would." - I see. That is not what I meant. Jacob's video is a response to my TVP Challenge which explains in Rule #4 that in order to refute TVP, you would need to explain how it's WORSE than the proposed alternative ($ system). Since the alternative(s) don't provide "endless women" either, your sarcasm failed to make any relevant point(s).
Re: post-scaricty era - As I said, the term "scarcity" is RELATIVE to demand, so it doesn't even >>
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
(2/2) make sense to say "post-scarcity everything" unless people "demand" everything, which they don't. Second, PS era *does not* include "beautiful women," which is not subject to economic calculation. It is as irrelevant to the RBE as it is to the market system. A more relevant frame of reference would be things like "clean water, good quality food, medicine and suitable housing[...]vehicles, computers and mobile phones – all the way up to purely luxury items." (see adciv*org for more info)
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@ jacobspinney
Do you think that we'll achieve such a society within this century?
rebelq1 7 months ago
The only reason to think not sufficient charity would exist in a free society, and a coercive elite would provide that, is if you yourself do not care about the poor. If you stand for democratically chosen elites, it is even weirder. They are supposed to implement the will of most people and impose it on the minority. If the will of most people is not to participate in charity, a democratically power projector, would make that policy and force it on the charitable minority.
modelmark 7 months ago
They also don't even think about capital formation. Do they think "OK, we have certain resources and technology, so we can instantly make all the capital we need"!?!?!?!?!?!?
SaviorOfLogic 7 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic I don't think many of them understand what the capital in capitalism means, most of them think capital only means money. We are talking to the economically illiterate
justintempler 7 months ago
The Venus Project (as I understand it) is yet another example of how egalitarianism reinvents itself.
StateExempt 7 months ago
As I said before there are alternatives for a price system. Like energy classification value carbon value resource value etc. The price system is not the perfect tool to communicate information (external cost, monopolies, corruption, interest rates resources speculation) all mixed in the price. Therefore it does not tell you much.
happyswissman 7 months ago
if everyone were treated equal then we wouldnt have this problem. Take away the rulers and we have an effencient system for all.
jdocks777 7 months ago
@jdocks777 If everyone were treated equal, we would have communism. Personally, I want my treatment to reflect Me and my actions, not the grand average of humanity to be rationed To me by a central planner.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@jdocks777 Not necessarily. Without classism there isn't the incentive to actually start a business and make a good or service. This is because starting a business if failed, would be a waste of both time and money. Without the rulers it would be a lot closer to being equal, that is, instead of 400 individuals in the US owning 50% of the wealth, 10% would own 50% of the wealth. And, in a saner society, people with money would be more likely to pick up the burden of voluntarily funding public...
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...goods (like taxes, but implemented through a more efficient free market) when the poor cannot. And in the end, would you rather make $50,000, while everyone else makes $1,000,000, or would you rather everyone, including you, make $40,000? In capitalism the upside is that the average amount of prosperity per capita is high, but their are outliers (the ones who have incredible prosperity). The freer that capitalism is, the higher the prosperity per capita, and the less...
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...extreme the outliers are (there are much fewer bloated fatcats, and a lot more modest businessmen, and the fatcats are more likely the Bill Gates type fatcats, who are philanthropists). But in a centrally planned society the prosperity per capita is very low, and, in the end, there is classism in centrally planned societies! In Russia, you could become a Chessmaster and you would practically get your dick sucked, even though the average citizen could care less for chess.
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
No need to go into all the details there Jacob. When people say words like "unacceptable" or "unfair", just respond with "Compared to what?" and don't let them dodge the question.
lordthawkeye 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye ? - If you actually read the blog that this is responding to, asking "compared to what" wouldn't make any sense, bc I already explained what I'm comparing it to. So there is a need to go into "all the details," yet this video still fails to address any of my actual points about marginal utility vs. the capabilities approach.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
@TVPchallenge Reading the blog, same old nonsense about how it's TEH EVIL to make someone work for food as though forcing someone to give you food for free is somehow virtuous. I work hard to make my way and I've frankly had it up to here with free loading underachievers who think it's their right to leech off my efforts. Life does not owe you a living, grow up!
lordthawkeye 7 months ago
Leftists despise charity and see it as unworkable because they are most often uncharitable (and when one looks at who is more likely to donate amongst the politicval spectrum, it is always those on the right who donate more). Yes that includes those
crazy religious people". But we want to tell you what to do with your money, not ours!
Rensune 7 months ago
@Rensune Just curious as to what sources/stats you're referring to, showing that "Leftists[...]are most often uncharitable" and "it is always those on the right who donate more," bc that's actually really interesting, and I'd like to review and consider the context in which this trend was/is observed.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
One issue I have with your criticisms of TVP is that you attack certain points (such as property issues) that deal with the TVP after transition.
One issue I have with advocates for TVP is their (our) treatment of the transition issue - it is nowhere near as important as other topics during discourse. Leading to many misconceptions.
Good video, Jacob.
TheAxlSnaks 7 months ago
@TheAxlSnaks A major transition in society is always difficult (I am speaking of the industrial revolution, rather than the theoretical Type 0 - Type I revolution that we may see in our lifetime). But the more free your society is while transitioning, the easier it is economically to deal with the transition. The government enforced modernizations of Germany and Japan, at the end of the 19th century were much tougher on the population, and were only faster because the knowledge of how to...
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...modernize already existed in Britain and America.
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto I understand, believe me. But many people do not - thus leading to said misconceptions.
TheAxlSnaks 7 months ago
I agree. Terran versus Protoss definitely need to be challenged.
Dyscivist 7 months ago 21
@Dyscivist I know right? Let's knock off this 'Terran is so OP' bullshit.
LunaticFringe20 7 months ago
@LunaticFringe20 they say terran is op... but in TVT Terran always loses, EXPLAIN THAT.
siftyfour 7 months ago
@siftyfour Touche sir.
LunaticFringe20 7 months ago
@Dyscivist puma so imba!
MOONDOGGIESWTF 7 months ago
@Dyscivist lmao
1000g2g3g4g800999 7 months ago
People that are seriously considering the venus project make me cringe.
LibertyDownUnder 7 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder The thing that makes me worried about it is it's established nature. Jacque says that his society is emergent but that is untrue and that is dangerous. To make a mistake on and individual scale (even as big as attempting to construct an expensive impossible structure, adjustments can be made and that structure can still come out okay) is fine because we can afford to learn from those mistakes. We CANNOT afford to learn from a failed planned society. A failed dome might cost...
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...$2,000,000 and the lives of a few unfortunate souls standing under it. A failed economy can cost you millions of lives and lifestyles.
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto, I wouldn't pay too much attention to this. Only a bunch of 20 year olds and maybe some RT reporters will play along.
This will go nowhere, and isn't a threat to anyone.
LibertyDownUnder 7 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder Ho9w unfortunate, life is slow at the moment, I could use the possible collapse of civilization to bring some excitement into my life :/
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto "Jacque says that his society is emergent but that is untrue and that is dangerous."
What do you mean? It is untrue that TVP is emergent, meaning TVP is stagnant? (How so?) It is dangerous to be emergent, or dangerous to 'think that TVP is emergent' when it's actually not? Please clarify.
I don't understand your analogy of failed dome/failed economy. It's apples & oranges. We'd transition into RBE using what works, not wake up in TVP planned cities one day & oops it failed.
TVPchallenge 7 months ago
I WISH that there was enough prosperity to warrant experiments in both a resource based economy and an ultra (ultra is necessary when free market is a term still associated with those under state rule) free market based economy. I HOPE that a successful stateless society appears that is large and complex enough to warrant expansion, and that that larger and more complex society is also successful. And this society keeps expanding until the entire world is without state. And then 500 years...
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...later technology will be so well advanced that Earth will be a large network of circular cities, in a glass and steel utopia, where all intensive labor can be done by robots and only a fraction of society needs to fulfill our intellectual and entertainment needs, and yet everyone participates and is able and happy to do so.
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
I just figured out the most scientifically effective method for nurturing people to live within societies means: A Lobotomy
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago 13
@MacabreManifesto sssshhhhh! Don't give them any ideas...
DKshad0w 7 months ago
@DKshad0w I don't think that they will become that draconian, until maybe they try to build their society and fail miserably. I think that any human would have so much pride that they would go through with this if their system was failing. If TVP actually admitted their mistake when their city failed they would at least be the most altruistic people on earth as well as the most naive and misguided.
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto sometimes I consider gettin one as to better assimilate in our current society
fps0chris 7 months ago
first
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago