When a company goes bad, either you can get together and start up a competitor, or you can stop paying them for their goods. When a government goes bad, all you can do is try to escape, getting foreign citizenship might take you 5+ years though, if it works at all. With that being said, it should be apparent that companies are the lesser evil, and alot easier to punish when they're bad. Without a government at all, the companies cannot slowly take it over. This is why people consider anarchy.
The reason that capitalism is the best feasible system when resources are limited is because the only two ways to get money from people are by force (i.e. government taxation), or by offering something of value to a customer. The rich are not just hoarding cash, they are investing it in ways to earn more cash. How do you earn more cash? Production! How do you produce? With workers and natural resources! Government never has competition within a state, so it is never as efficient as a company.
Capitalism is the best feasible system when you have people who are greedy and when resources are limited. Communism is the best feasible system when resources are overly abundant. Until robots are doing everything for us though, we're either going to have to settle for capitalism, or endlessly mess around trying to reallocate capital like mad each time someone gets ahead. We have had thousands of years to get the regulations right and vote the right people in, yet we are still struggling. Why?
The fact of the matter is that it is more often than not, either government waste, or government regulations that have failed that hurt our economy. The more you regulate finance, the more loopholes the bankers find, the more they rip everyone off. Drop all the broken regulations, make it easy for competitors to pop up, and greed will begin to work for us instead of against us. The more money the government wastes, the more poor people we will have.
If one company puts another out of business, they do it by offering cheaper goods than the other. Those savings are passed onto the consumer/other businesses. If Chinese steel puts our steel industry out of business, our construction industry booms, creating construction jobs. The money does not disappear, money is value; the price of anything is the value we place on things we need or want. Monopolies rarely exist outside of government regulations or massive barriers that block new competitors.
Companies want profit, yes, but to say that they want monopoly is unfounded. Companies are organizations filled with people. If they are aggressive people, it is probably an aggressive company. If they are hard working people, it is probably a productive company. If they are extremely competitive, then yes, they probably like destroying competition, however, to say that the ultimate goal of all companies is to destroy all other companies sounds more like the plot of Highlander than reality.
wat are u tryin to pull, i wantched 2.00 minutunes of this and he touched half of ur statemsnets and hes saying wat ur saying so i dont under stand this video is dumb and this is why he denied u, i would to if ur gonna trash my vid but take my ideas, does't make sense,im guesing this is just for popularity
Here's the reality. Centralized planning always promises equality for all but the result is always the same. Those in charge of the system get filthy stinking rich and everyone else gets poorer. Venus project is no different. Those in charge will make a fortune and everyone else gets an equal share of the crumbs.
The Venus project is a great idea, yet it will have trouble getting off the ground. Why ? because the imperialists will never let it happen beyond conception. I say, give it a try. I'll be waiting for the city to be built. I have a good feeling that it will be another Dubai.
What does planned obsolescence have to do with anything? You get what you pay for. If people are free to make better longer-lasting cars, then go ahead and make them. They are likely to cost more, but perhaps not.
Is this guy going to make cars for us that are cheaper and longer lasting? That's great. That's how the market works. So what is he arguing against? That we haven't given him all of our resources so that he can accomplish his goal of a perfect car?
no - he is arguing that deliberately making cheap cars to satisfy the market is deliberately wasting a finite resource just to keep the cyclical consumption process going.
His criticism is that the market is the problem and it maintaining the status quo is inevitably going to destroy the planet - you can't have infinite growth with a finite planet.
@TheRyantherenegade Well, no one can make cars in the la-la land of Venus because no one has any property. No one can buy a car because no one has any money. How would you make a car there in the People's Paradise? Who will work on it? How many people do you need? How do you feed them? Where will you get the myriad parts from? You can answer none of these questions because there is no structure to this made-up society. There are no rules for how people interact with each other and the world.
all of these questions have been answered if you actually took the time to read the literature on the venus project instead of expecting me to write an essay on it in a youtube post.
@TheRyantherenegade I'm sorry, but the questions are not answered. There is an absolute denial of economics. It's extremely bizarre. Not one example can be given regarding production and distribution of anything. They just show pictures of shiny white cities. They say NO to: property, production, trade, money, economic calculation, rules, authority. How does this imagined society function? To whom or what is the world supposed to hand over its resources? There is no substance at all.
@MillionthUsername Either you are not mentally capable of processing the information given, or you didn't actually watch the film. Fresco says continuously that the primary component of a properly functioning society is functional educated people. The models of production and construction are nothing more than logical, functional ideas that would be in place now if the current system wasn't so blatantly wasteful.
@MillionthUsername This is the same question that I am having every time with TZM. I agree with SOME of the stuff that TZM and VP are saying, and I applaud the ideas that they are putting out there. But, not all ideas are created equal. It is hard enough to get four people to agree on where to eat, let alone 7BILLION autonomous, conscious, living organisms with their own concerns, fears, backgrounds etc. all coming together in one movement....I would need evidence on a small scale first.
@MillionthUsername They don't need to build a huge city as an example. Just show me a small scale community of 200-1000 people living and functioning in a VP environment over the span of at least 5-10 years, for studying and comparing to the system in place now. After 40 years of VP ideas, I think this should be a possibility by now. If there are enough TZM and VP supporters out there donate your time and money to get a small scale town up and running in the next few years...seems plausible.
@mezzanoche ...and if these "supporters" can't put in any time, money, or resources into something they are supposedly so passionate about, than I don't see any reason for anyone else new to these ideas to care one bit. Sorry, I need to see some evidence that this VP system would function in a real world setting on a small scale. It has to be done in order for the VP and TZM to move forward and get more people on board. This notion that, "it has to be all of humanity at once on board"
@mezzanoche seems a bit far fetched to me. It is time to get off Youtube and put this into action, if you are a heavy supporter of VP and TZM. Time to show, not tell. Lets go.
@mezzanoche It' can't really function on a small scale because it requires all the world's resources and people to "cooperate." On a small scale, it is just a commune - only as rich as the combined wealth of its members and needing to trade with outsiders. They can't do away with money and property that way. On a large scale, it can only come to be by force since people don't voluntarily give up their lives and property. If it succeeded by force, it would soon fail.
@MillionthUsername You sound like a confused robot. Can you not think of any answers to your own questions? Do you have the means to look up possible solutions yourself? Or do you just assume that all ideals are impossible? Do you have to read an instruction manual before taking a piss? Act like you have a shred of intellect. Machines have been building cars for quite a while now. No one hand-crafts car parts either.
@NewPeaceOrder Hey, jackass, your idiotic personal attacks on me are no substitute for argument. You morons have no argument, which is why all you can do is cackle and grunt when people explain economics to you. Pathetic teenagers on YouTube fascinated by re-hashed communist rhetoric. Give me a break!
@MillionthUsername You are not explaining anything. Just supporting the failures of the current system and proclaiming any alternatives to be non-sense. You pathetic teenagers have so much trouble with reading comprehension. You see sentences pick out what you don't like and then only address that. This does not excuse your utter lack of evidence against the solutions provided. Get mad kid, but at least answer the questions. Like you can read.
@MillionthUsername I would have to re-post almost every comment you've made on this thread. It's self evident that the current system is a failure, and the current system is the basis for your arguments against any and all alternatives that have been presented to you here.
@TheRyantherenegade How does PJ know what resources are being wasted? In his world, there are no prices, therefore no one knows the economic cost of anything and can't judge what is efficient and what isn't. There is no consumer to be frugal in spending since there is no savings and no money and no trade. Apparently there is no cost for manufacturers since there is no money, and no known economic laws are at work. How can he say anything about production there which is not entirely subjective?
efficiency is a scientific judgement, not a monetary one.
This is what PJ is talking about when he says phrases like "mind-lock indoctrination"
The cost of everything is measured in its real world value (i.e actual measurable quantity of resource), not an artificial monetary value.
consumer is a word that we need to get away from. The RBE is not a consumer driven society, it is a sustainable society, as long as you think in terms of consumption and growth, you wont getit
@TheRyantherenegade "efficiency is a scientific judgement, not a monetary one."
False dichotomy. The price system is the input by which we can judge economic efficiency. Those judgements are decentralized, made throughout the chain of production. Who makes these decisions in RBE, and by what authority?
"The cost of everything is measured in its real world value"
Economic value is subjective, and you have no "cost" structure by which to measure.
@MillionthUsername In RBE there is growth and consumption, but they are metered by the physical supply of the resources being used and not by profit margins. Resources would be used and replenished at a sustainable rate as opposed to the rabid over-consumption with little to no replenishment we see currently.
@NewPeaceOrder "but they are metered by the physical supply of the resources being used and not by profit margins"
Absolute nonsense. Metered by WHO? Who the hell is deciding to exploit resources or not? Who is the owner? How did they come to own it? Who are the other owners of the other resources? Who works and who doesn't? There's no money and no property in this idiotic scenario. You cannot have an economy because you don't even have property! It's all pure nonsense.
@MillionthUsername It's called open source. Something a primate like you wouldn't understand. No one has property kid. It's just an idea. You come into this world naked with no understanding of anything. Grabbing something and screaming "MINE" doesn't constitute ownership. No matter how many guns or laws you have to enforce it. Sounds like you're stuck in an understanding with no positive outcomes. What Alan Watts called a game that's not worth the candle. The current scenario is idiotic.
@NewPeaceOrder You can't even speak with spewing random and irrelevant insults, and you obviously don't know a damn thing about history and economics. I'm a "primate" and a "teenager" for explaining how communism fails? Crack open a book, jackass. You might learn something other than mindlessly repeating the morons on YT.
@MillionthUsername There is no example of real communism in the world and there has never been. Every self-proclaimed communist society is a dictatorship in a communist shell. Aside from that, TVP is not communism. It is a system that is radically different from anything that humanity has tried before. The problem is, primates like yourself believe that all humans are like you in that they have the natural tendency towards violence and subjugation.
@NewPeaceOrder Of course it's communism. There is no private property. The means of production are controlled by the collective, you dope.
Why do you think Fresco and "Peter Joseph" and their followers studiously avoid explaining how this polity works? It's because they don't want to expose how communism actually operates. The individual is at the mercy of the group. He is property-less and moneyless, and therefore has no say in what the technocrats do. They deceive you.
@MillionthUsername Where is an active example of communism in the world? If you look at any self-proclaimed communist country, the average person is basically a slave while the government rules with an iron fist. You are skirting reality. The ideal form of communism, much like democracy, has not been seen in practice on this planet. Every ism has been corrupted and in practice works more like a dictatorship.
@NewPeaceOrder I didn't say anything about active examples of communism in the world or self-proclaimed communist countries. I am referencing what this man is teaching, and he is teaching communism whether he uses that word or not. It doesn't matter if it's supposedly "voluntary" and people rush to hand over their wealth to him or some other cult leader. It can't work because it just flat out denies economics. It's a total fantasy world.
@MillionthUsername In a nutshell, your views do nothing to help the current mess the world is in. So why bother trying to discredit possible solutions when you don't understand premise? Projecting other failed constructs at this and calling it the same is disingenuous.
I have explained over and over again why this system can't work. No advocate of it can even explain how it works. I have talked to about 50 advocates, and they can't even explain anything about how people are supposed to act or what the rules are and who makes them. What job do they do? Who decides what gets made? How do you deal with people who don't work or who want other jobs? What enforcement is there? How can you have economy without exchange?
@MillionthUsername You haven't explained anything. You are making the assumption that the only solution is forcing a system on the world much like what is already in place. As we see with the current turmoil, that is not the answer. If you look at the majority of jobs today, almost all of them are in place for the sake of being a job, not out of any real necessity.
@NewPeaceOrder Explain the economic and social system you advocate then. Answer the questions I asked earlier. None of the advocates of this stuff can even answer basic questions.
@TheRyantherenegade Scrap cars are hunks of recyclable steel and plastic. Products have a life cycle. Because of mass production, it is cheaper at a certain point to build new machines than to fix old ones. Who bothers fixing old toasters, TVs, bikes, etc? Some do, but it's pointless in the big picture. The scrap steel can be recovered. There are better ways to do anything, but he makes no sense in condemning the economics of mass production. It's WHY we are wealthier than our ancestors.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Peter Joseph is the biggest liar i have ever heard. People please read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and Human Action and you will uncover all his lies. Read The Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx and you will see where Peter Joseph gets his ideas.
venus project is not peters idea, it's frescoes. as far as him being a liar, i don't know, he could be. i don't trust him anymore. i'm wondering what is he going to do with TVP when mister Fresco dies. not that i want him to die. Peter must have done some thinking about that.
@pjarosz hi there, seeing you are inherently aware of truth and untruth could you please outline the specificities in venus project you dont feel will work, and could u also please propose your solutions for eliminating our social and environmental problems. if you are happy with the status quo your silence will be acceptable. thank you.
@casperguylkn I might not have explained my sentence very well. What I meant was that it's funny how people are always quick to write something unknown off as evil communism. Well, I've found that arguing with these people is pointless. It's better to take them off guard. Like saying to them: 'You're absolutely right, TVP is communism!! However, the communism you have in mind should not be called communism. Instead, it should be called a centralised state dictatorship in disguise of communism.'
@nielss4 Oh, I get you now. I totally agree with you. It's not that they are didiots, they are maybe naieve or ignorant at worst. People are victims of culture. The challenge lies in explaining to people who are turned off to it for no good reason.
Believers in anarcho-capitalism are blind/ignorant. They simply don't want to let go of their faith in capitalism, so they don't want to see the obvious. Which is that the private/property nature of competition, coupled with the 'invisible hand' will inevitably lead to corruption/monopolies, no matter how you put it. The only anarcho system I can accept is anarcho-communism. But ofc TVP i'd much rather prefer.
@nielss4 How does competition lead to monopoly? Monopoly is only present in the absence of competition. Anyone who endorses monopoly probably does not want competition. The fact of the matter is that the Venus Project is competing to convince people to support the ideas presented.
@thisisbunk Unlock your right brain. Do you honestly believe that companies want competition? If you do, then you've only half woken up. A fully awakened person understands this: The leading player will always try to retain his first position. That is how it goes in a competitive environment. It doesn't matter how he does that, EVENTUALLY, monopolies will rise again. If a leading company feels threatened by another, he will offer a choice to the other company to join them.
@thisisbunk It doesn't matter in this particular case if the other company accepts it or not. EVENTUALLY, companies will accept the offer and so the cycle continues. Corporatism arises again. Also, when a leading don't necessarily need to go raise their prices in order to buy out the competition. That is an illusion Stefan Molyneux has created in order to justify his anarcho-capitalism position, and is only the case at the beginning of the cycle. Agreements happen behind the scenes, accept this
Fully agree, the sad thing is, I really really like a lot of what Stef does, and I'd like to hang out on the forums more but feel I'd be looked at as an idiot. Many of the comments here confirm that. If these people want to live in an anarcho capitalist system I'm not going to try to stop them. We're all human here folks, with the same essential needs - most of the nonsense we are squabbling over is social constructs. Economic 'laws' which we have created and have little basis in reality
For those out there that believe in free market capitalism,, please point to a time in history were capitalism or any monetary based economy has ever had the broad interests of every person on earth...
You cant... Because free market capitalism still perpetuates these two words.. Self Preservation..
@vdubs4life1964 - I thought the point of the Venus Project is to sustain the human race? Um... I'd call that self-preservation. The fact is, that throughout history people have always been poor and/or exploited en masse. The living standards of people have been rising because of trade and technology. Everyone stands to profit from that.
@thisisbunk "everyone stands to profit from trade and technology" i wonder what a hungry african or indian person drinking dirty water has to say on this topic. actually we probably wont get to hear from them as their access to technology such as the internet is far far lower than yours and mine, thanks to our money system. but i would love to get their views on capitalism, money and politics. isnt perspective a wonderful thing? but fuck all them as long as we're alright hey, no need for change.
@getclogged - and how do you expect food and drink to end up in the hands of those people? magic? i guess people don't need to trade or develop technology in the real world right? all that wealth we enjoy, yeah, it's not real, it's not helpful, poor people don't want that shit. we're just selfish, spoiled bastards who live life at their expense. yeah, u kno. nobody who produces shit actually helps people. making a living and profiting because they produce shit, what a bunch of greedy bastards.
-He also states that Stef's review of the film was an emotional reaction because he's been a software salesman, and that the message of the Zeitgeist Movement tells him that he's a dishonest criminal. To that I have to say this: you can't be a dishonest criminal if your primary method is through voluntary action. But again, that wouldn't occur to him, it's just too emperically logical.
Coming from an industry where long term sustainability is forced via government contract, experience tells me that while the move to get more sustainability is laudable, the claim that it is possible now but ignored is simply laughable. The fact that his videos are so well edited, that his debates are soft spoken and hypnotizing is actually dangerous. The failure to recognize this can be extremely dangerous, and history will prove it.
-He attacks the same point again by stating that violence is planned obsolescence, or the deliberate withholding of efficiency. He clearly does not understand Lean, Six Sigma, or the Theory of Constraints, and that these things are used in production to maximize profit and also to make a better product for the market. His magical world where there are methods of production that will make items last eternal is simply delusional.
If you don't like the way that you're being treated at one store or provider you change to another store or provider, unless of course the anti-trust laws were violated or corrupt government deals were made to ensure that this type of forced violence can take place - but again he fails to see this point.
-He states that the entire system is violent from top to bottom to a varying degree. How then is voluntary interaction achieved, you cult genius? Only a mentally distrubed individual would voluntarily walk up to a criminal to give the criminal his money. We can see this everywhere around us.
How about the fact that these profits are derived from the state's actions. Without the state's coercive use of violent murderous force these companies would be forced to compete with each other in other parts of the economy in a voluntary manner. But again this detail isn't even comprehensible to the pseudonym because he refuses to analyze reality and instead uses false analysis to refute his claims.
-The pseudonym attacks the statement that profit by violence (taxation, or robbery) is the same as profit by voluntary contract. His method? Attack the individual first, then use the mercantilist example in place of a real free market example: Haliburton's profits and other defense contractor profits by the Iraq war. This example is so stupid, where to start?
-He states that abustance is the enemy of profit, stating that 'they have to be', claiming that he's drilled this in many times. What must be drilled in? If it is emperical, if it is logical, if it sustains scrutiny, why must this be drilled in? Perhaps because the idea is flawed. Perhaps because without abundance there is no profit outside of private deals made with lawmakers? Oh, but that's simply silly to suggest, right?
He skips the cause of the problem and goes straight to the method of transfer, which is kind of like saying to open a door is wrong, the door must be open for you, thus the hinges and the door handle are the problem. It's simply ludicrous.
-He states that free energy is abundance and therefore works against the idea of the free market. Once again, wrong. Due to government interference (corruption) and deal making with private industry energy providers have less incentive to compete with each other and instead are encouraged to work together to create false scarcity.
His counter to this is that capitalism is the problem, which is also incorrect as it is really corporatism or mercantilism, i.e. corporate and government cooperation.
-The pseudonym constantly states that profit is based on scarcity. While true to a point, he completely denies that at some point, scarcity is no longer profitable. So, in the bigger picture (which he completely misses and again not too surprisingly) scarcity is not sustainable. Profit must be continual and the balance of the free market will make this so.
-In the example that he uses regarding a factory in a city being outsourced because it is more profitable to move elsewhere, what he seems to skip over, and not too surprisingly so given his logical fallacies, is that it is more often government policies that encourage this type of behavior. NAFTA is a perfect example, but of course he doesn't continue to this logical framework, probably because he doesn't understand it.
There are many things that auto manufacturers do to make the vehicle last longer, which then stretches out the warranty, Hyundai for example gives a 10 year warranty on their vehicle, which is astounding from a free market perspective. However, what is the industry to improve here? An unlimited mileage/time warranty? It isn't hard to imagine the leap of logic required to get to this point, and the fact that he has a cult following makes this type of thinking even more dangerous.
-The pseudonym claims that the free market's profits are at the expense of people. He uses several examples, such as the auto industry designing vehicles so that their warranty expires prior to the vehicle breaking down. While on the surface this seems to be true, when you analyze the data it is easy to realize that durable goods such as vehicles, while as stated durable, can only last so long in our enviornment.
The pseudonym's definition of a free market is skewed similarly like those who believe that guns are responsible for deaths, when in reality it is the individual using the gun as a tool to do wrong with. Just like this example, the pseudonym claims that the market is the problem and not the individual, he can't grasp that responsibility does not apply to inanimate or non-tangible items, and instead applies to the individual.
-The pseudonym's claim that a free market system is based on lying is absolute nonsense. A voluntary contract between two individuals (customer and store owner) is between the two individuals. If the store owner lies to the customer, the customer can always go somewhere else. It is not the job of the store owner to lie to the customer, because if he does he could lose his business.
For example: if the customer notices that there is a price difference (and what customer that isn't filthy rich doesn't?) then that customer is going to go to a competing store to get the lower price. Fundamentally this isn't lying either, it's competition. There is no reason to advertise another store's prices in your store, there is no immoral or non-virtuous quality to this claim. So, fundamentally this argument is null.
For example: if the customer notices that there is a price difference (and what customer that isn't filthy rich doesn't?) then that customer is going to go to a competing store to get the lower price. Fundamentally this isn't lying either, it's competition. There is no reason to advertise another store's prices in your store, there is no immoral or non-virtuous quality to this claim. So, fundamentally this argument is null.
-The pseudonym states a market system is based on lying by using Fresco's example of a store owner not telling you that the store next door has a cheaper price on a product. Stef's response to this was that lying won't get you far in a market based system. Even with the existance of a marketing department, lying still won't get you far.
At the beginning of the pseudonym's response to Stef's review he calls on 'his followers' to respond to other people's critiques because he doesn't have the time to do it. Very cultish. Very religious.
-Illogical to state corporations want competetion: without government the power of corporations cannot expand to
mercantilism.
-The pseudonym's response is in general an attack against Stef instead of against ideas.
i think the two of you are the "non-academic" forefront of the materialism vs. moralism debate that has been going on for centuries. whereas the ying stef is saying materialism all the way as long as you arent physically harming anyone and you are saying moralism all the way as long as you are increasing the scientific knowledge of the world practically and efficiently. i would love to stage you two in a conversation.
In a market system in which consumers make purchasing decisions a monopoly would be impossible without the implementation of violence. I think Stefbot made a mistake in that comment and that is all. But I think you make many more in your responces. I loved Zeitgeist Addendum but your idea of a non-incentive based resource based economy isnt logical. it is beautiful, but i dont think you are understanding the restraints put on money by beuracracy nor stef's foundation in the non-harm principle
@mistara31415 Okay, the very nature of capitalism results in a small market share becoming of less and less worth. As interest continues and prices of living rise, people are forced to obtain more income, and therefore businesses will always work to obtain as much market share as possible. In your example, this would result in these bakeries competing with one another for market share and thus eventually rendering one bankrupt. The evidence for this is in every town in the US.
@mistara31415 The basic progression of competition between companies is to a monopoly. If there are many companies producing CD's, as you state, then each company will compete for market share, when one gains more and more market share, the others lose profit and eventually closedown and one company has monopoly of the market.
It's very noticeable anywhere, see what happens to local general shopping stores when Wal-Mart shows up. Market share severely decreases.
@AngryHateMusic What exactly about the points are not sensible?
Peter addresses Stefan's points individually and makes no personal attack on Mr Molyneux whereas Molyneaux accuses the movement's ideas as being "Retarded, embarrassing, and an idea created by bong smoking hippies". How is that not bitching? Or did you mean that stefan was doing the bitching?
@a1d4a1m5 You just showed me that you don't know what you're talking about.
The free market has not caused the poverty we see, it's government intervention into the laws of supply and demand, like the baliouts of gambling banksters for example. There is no free market in the US right now
The freeest of markets is our best bet, as history always shows, but build a city and prove it invalid, Peter talks scientific method,then get empiracle and build a working sample, or STFU! kindly :)
@a1d4a1m5 btw, look up personal fabricators, Jaques is dreaming pre-digital age, that's the future of distribution. Coupled with sustainable/near limitless energy, which is inevitable -- the future looks bright.
@a1d4a1m5 Di Semantics perhaps, but the freeest market is the best one, history shows us this. So long as supply and demand decides production/sales, nd not government intervention, people become prosperous. We don't ahve this right now, so shut up about it being failed, that's getting old.
The Venus Project proposes building an incredibly complicated infrastructure of resource management for all people controlled/distributed by central computers. You guys need listen to your own sillyness
Sure companies act and say they want a monopolies, but economic theory is pure and simple, competition increases profit and assists innovation. Your argument is almost purely rhetoric. You use statements of assurance more than you use logic, rationality, and sense. You say things like "well, no logic is needed here, this is obvious". Well your a moron my friend. Instead of saying such broad things, than use the proven methods of logic, science, and research to demonstrate this. PEACE
The Venus Project cannot account for the needs and wants of every person like a true free market can. I'm not talking about the brainwashed wants we're manipulated into buying, thanks to subliminal-like ads. People could not be happy in a resourced based economy, because their needs can't ever be met.
We don't have a true free market right now, we have fascism, or corporatism, where our governments (west) and corporations work together, or are near one in the same.
WOW You cant even understand the simple principle of business competition? If you dont have competition in business you are failing. ALL SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES WILL HAVE COMPETITION. It certainly isnt the goal of every business to monopolize their industry, especially given the fact that natural monopoly has been proven to be unattainable in free market capitalism without the aid of government.
I'm scrutinous of the crticism of your point about competition Look at domestic gas supply. You buy it from the cheapest company, so there is a direct requirement for a competitive market to give the other companies a fair chance. Competition is absoultely vital and is governed in the US by 'Antitrust Law'. It keeps the prices low. Another angle is, it keeps the prices CONTROLLED.
...what the argument that stepahn was trying to put foward, and the argument is that Peter Joshep dosent diferentiates betewn violence and voluntarism, for him murdering an innocent civilian for the apropiation of his property is the same as trying to sell "x" to obtain "y", this is just because both the killer and the producer or seller where seeking the same thing, profit, it dosent hold up, this argument that joseph put foward is faulty because i dosent have consistency.
I have seen the zeitgeist movie, but the firts version of it, and didnt know that it was revisited, and i really liked(in the firts one) how the aproched and explained how exploitative is the current debt based money system, but when they get to the conspiracies theories, is when there argement become really convuluted, and thats when i agreed with stephan point of view, as for the review of the review of the movie by this individual, i think he is being not really forthcoming as what was the...
Horseshit, it isnt just similar to what Karl Marx envisioned Communism would be, it is exactly what Karl Marx envisioned Communism would be. Just because it turned out to be a murderous tyranical state doesnt negate their original intent
@TheLood It has quite a bit to do with communism and I mean that in a good way. Anarcho-Communism is basically the same thing as the Venus project. The fundamental difference is that the Venus project is not interested in democracy, anarchists are.
@TheLood Quite right. Just look up a definition of communism in a dictionary or on Wikipedia. People find it easier to dismiss something rather than research it. The media in general follows the same suit and feeds on that.
@lordthawkeye I was responding to your "magic robots" comment. Nevertheless...
Indeed corporations use government to their advantage, therefore if we were rid of government and had a free-market, corporations would use their influence to create re-create government (i.e. like bankers did to create support for creating the FED).
If you inspect the book "The Market for Liberty" you'll hear the argument for 'good monopolies' existing in a free-market. I believe Mary Ruwart makes a similar claim.
@lordthawkeye Have that interpretation if you'd like. Members of the ZM are rather diverse and some are in that 'club'. But the movement itself is not simply anti-corporate. It identifies that the motivations people have within a monetary system. Malicious corporate and government behavior are not simply the problem, they are symptoms, and if their cause is not averted they will recur. It's really quite simple: cooperation over competition, and a totally voluntary and prosperous society.
@lordthawkeye Communism, as defined by Wikipedia does not seem to match up with what TVP advocates, which is a Scientific method for social concern. Communism uses armies, money, social classes. There is none of that in a RBE advocated by TVP.
@casperguylkn Scientific? His whole solution for distribution of resources is that some super computer is going to do it. But ask him details like what kind of algorithm it's going to use to figure all that out and you get a blank stare. He might as well be telling us he's going to do it by magic.
@lordthawkeye I thought people realized a few centuries ago that things are never black or white. This kind of duality is a myth that has never existed. There are never just two sides of a coin - granted, the other sides might be elusive to us, depending on our knowledge and understanding, however it is downright irresponsible to blankly make a statement without researching the problem in depth.
@newisd Ah, the old trick of calling it grey without actually explaining what's inaccurate about my statement. Nice try.
Seriously, it's marxism to a tee. Read the communist manifesto. The elimination of currency, centrally planned resource distribution, it's all there clear as crystal.
@lordthawkeye Let me throw just a few differences: In communism you have people who make decisions and therefore leaders. That's gone in RBE. The scientific method eliminates the need for people to make decisions which are often not based on anything; just mere whims. And then there's the fact that communism did not take into account that we live in a planet with finite resources - there are no preservation strategies whatsoever. Also how can a country not have currency when all other do? Peace.
@newisd Actually there were preservation strategies. The problem was those in charge took bribes from special interest groups as all governments inevitably do. You think you've eliminated this problem with the super computer excuse but you haven't. Someone has to program it, maintain it and so on. So you get the same problem, how do you keep the sociapaths' hands off this computer? You know they will fight tooth and nail to get control of it.
@lordthawkeye based upon this statement i doubt you have read any of marx's writing yourself?? venus project proposes no government, no leadership, no social stratification, no military, a radical shift in education system to one based upon real science and co-operative social values. the other thing with communism was that it didnt have any technical designs as to how things would scientifically work better which the venus project is doing. pls be objective when considering things. thx
@getclogged My issue with Venus project is the same as my issue with statism, two questions both camps refuse to answer.
1. How do you keep the sociapaths out of power? If you have some super computer that's going to distribute resources, the sociapaths in society WILL seek to get control of it. How do you keep their hands off this computer? Someone has to maintain it after all.
2. How do you solve the inherrent calculation problem in central planning? That's why communism failed.
@lordthawkeye Any model for a better functioning society requires a vast majority of the world population to be educated and psychologically sound. Half-wits like yourself hinder more rapid progress in that direction. Looking for a boogey-man to ruin paradise at every turn is a sign of inner turmoil. Get yourself straight and worry less about critiquing people's work who actually have the ability to hope.
@NewPeaceOrder I'm not the one supporting centralized planning despite 6000 years of emperical evidence showing that it does not and will not ever work.
Centralized planning has caused more death and suffering than any political idea this century including naziism. To continue to support it regardless of these facts is ignorance so profound, it's indistinguishable from outright malicious intent.
@lordthawkeye What planet are you living on? Look at the world as it is now. How many people are starving to death while literally tons of food get thrown away? The idea here is to cut the scheming out of the equation so that the resources that we have are actually being used instead of the majority of it going to waste. To ignore the suffering cause by the current system is ignorance so profound, it's indistinguishable from outright malicious intent.
@NewPeaceOrder You cited people starving to death in some parts of the world to counter my argument and since you believe that centralized planning is the solution to it, is it not logical to conclude that you are somehow arguing that lack of centralized planning is the cause of poverty in Africa and other areas of the world?
Well empirically, you are wrong. The countries with the most centralized planning are always the poorest. How do you defend your position in light of this fact?
@lordthawkeye Fact? The fact is, almost all "poor" countries are poor because of defaulted WMF loans forced upon people who for the majority of their existence traded in actual goods and/or had no central government that represented all of the tribal lands. And the fact that corporations from developed nations have since moved into these countries and bought out these same people's ancestral farmlands for mono-crops to be exported.
@NewPeaceOrder Aaaaaand state involvement in these exploits gets a free pass as always...
Here's the reality. Centralized planning always promises equality for all but the result is always the same. Those in charge of the system get filthy stinking rich and everyone else gets poorer. Venus project is no different. Those in charge will make a fortune and everyone else gets an equal share of the crumbs.
@lordthawkeye - How can anyone get "rich" in a resource based economy? There is NO money! Have any of actually understood Zeitgeist, or do you just pick and choose random parts you don't like personally. You need to look at it as a whole. ANYBODY I have seen saying Zeitgeist is wrong/a cult....blah blah blah, simply display a complete lack of understanding of the concept. I've come to the conclusion that those that don't see will never see, but we see this behavior by minorities through history
@psymonism So? Money is only a medium of exchange, you can be rich without it. Maybe you guys need to actually look up what money is.
Just watch, put in the Venus project and those in charge of running your big magic computer will be getting a strangely disproportionate amount of resources with endless excuses to justify it while everyone else gets the leftovers.
Besides, a system where you have to go through a bureaucracy every single time you need something? No thanks.
"bong smoking hippies who dont want to work" yep a loser I used to know hated work, and coincidentally hated capitalism, never finished college/got a job at 30, and was obsessed with technocracy
The issue with Zeitgeist,its solution is Marxism.The issue is Statism, not Capitalism.Capitalism is the most successful economic model, out of all. Marxism, fails, and it still enables the cancer of Statism to exist,which is the issue.Stefan fights Statism, the tree, while Zeitgeist, attacks the branches of the tree.
Actually, TZM attempts to solve the root of our problems. For example, instead of policemen ticket speeders, and essentially "tax" the people further, why not create a "cap" on speeding limits, which is controlled wirelessly depending on the area you are in? Wouldn't that make sense? but how would the state gain money from that? how would you gain money from SOLVING problems? You can't..there is more incentive to stagnating them. SEE: BP Oil Spill
@BeyondDGrave, That would only happen if there was no state, because the state creates the situation, to where police forces do that. In a stateless society, each person would be able to live without taxes, they could pay for any service they desired, and there would be no mandatory services, such as having car insurance, or paying for welfare programs.Most of these corporations only have the power,because of the State, and without the state, they would fall apart in almost all cases (continue)
@BeyondDGrave because in a truly free market, companies are based on performance, and not how many politicians they can buy off, to created self-state created monopolies, that create barriers to entry to where prices are artificially increased,because of lack of competition, and a state ran mafia, that destroys any non-special interest group company, to enable only the elite in all important aspects of life. Socialism, and Free market Capitalism, can only run in anarchy societies.
Sounds great, but I still don't see where that addresses the root problems of society and life... this old system does not address or attempt to solve:
-Overpopulation
-Improving Quality of Life
-Poverty
-War
-Unity of all Humans
-Technological Stagnation
-The use of lowest quality materials available and hence,...
1.Waste and pollution (The government is the largest polluter and waste of resources)
2.Unity of all Humans, is not possible,because people share different views. You can create more opportunities to enable each person to have a better quality of life.Anarchy enables this.True Socialism is only available in Anarchy.
3.Technological advances, greatly increase in a Free market. (Look at all the electronic technological advances,which is one of the largest free market environments)
Incorrect. Technology is Stagnated by monetary-ism. One Word: Patent(s).
Unity of humans IS possible, but we need thinkers and problem solvers. Not killers or economists. Pollution is in large created by business.. see: BP Oil spill for one such example.
In a Free Market, technological progress would dramatically increase to enable the world to sustain the population, or people would decide not to have children,because there would be a economical disincentive to because, the cost of children. Also, without the massive cost of governments, people have more resources to support children, and not to rely on outside forces to provide for them, in most cases,via entitlement programs,which burden a lot.
Population: Look around you today. As long as there are poor, uneducated sectors of humanity, thought to "should I have a child" is not warranted, but instead "How will I feed myself tonight and tomorrow" is instead. Any form of relief that can be given, will be, along with the prices involved with protection and birth control, coupled with religious notions, the population is inclined to rise.
"If you have a kid and you raise him until he is 18 years old, only to find out today that he was accidentally switched at birth with another kid, and they found your real kid, would you want to switch them? Of course not.. for that child is you.. so when it comes down to it.. children are you who raise them to be.. they are you, and we are each-other. We are products of our environment. We are one.
War would dramatically decrease,because companies would have to finance there own wars, and they could not rely on the tax payers to fiance them,via the state. Its impossible to stop all wars, as they will always exist, but you can stop the major financier of war, the state.
There are only three reasons for war that I am aware of:
1) Low resources threatening survival.
2) Warped ideologies (religion).
3) Profit.
We seek to correct them all through education.
Money is not the answer to our problems.. it is only a submission of our pride and self-esteem. As long as there is a system which is designed to "chisel" away at our fellow man for survival, how do you expect decency? The answer: You can't.
In a Free Market, there are insensitive to find or create improved materials, because high quality would increase the chance of more profit, and with a state funded monopolies, you can use the state to ban competition, via laws, and military or police, to enable competition to either replace the companies that are inefficient or to cause them to improve in business quality.
for example: if you do not want car fatalities, why not automate the majority of destinations so that we eliminate our fellow primate species from manually steering combustible engines? This eliminates: drunk driving crashes, elderly driver crashed, young driver crashes, Speeding crashes.
So why isn't this being done when it is obviously better for all of us? Because there is no profit to be made from it. There is no slime to scrape from the bottom of this more efficient design.
@KevZen2000 WTF, that dosnt hold up to any reason whatsoever
If you see the history behind any monopoly in the world, it is totally the reverse, when goverments enact or protec an especific industry or corporation, then there is no incentive to improve your buissenes practices and because you ar th only one providing the service or product, you can sell it to wathever price you want with ever decresing quality, it hastnt worked, it dosent work now and it will could never work.
The guy says that read lots of books, but he cannot see anything beyond the problem and production! He's so full of answer and cristicsysm but he cannot take one, hes comments are blocked! I'm really sorry for the people that aproved that video, there you said it, the guy is very pursuasive. Good work with the answer Peter!
When a company goes bad, either you can get together and start up a competitor, or you can stop paying them for their goods. When a government goes bad, all you can do is try to escape, getting foreign citizenship might take you 5+ years though, if it works at all. With that being said, it should be apparent that companies are the lesser evil, and alot easier to punish when they're bad. Without a government at all, the companies cannot slowly take it over. This is why people consider anarchy.
theredscourge 4 months ago
The reason that capitalism is the best feasible system when resources are limited is because the only two ways to get money from people are by force (i.e. government taxation), or by offering something of value to a customer. The rich are not just hoarding cash, they are investing it in ways to earn more cash. How do you earn more cash? Production! How do you produce? With workers and natural resources! Government never has competition within a state, so it is never as efficient as a company.
theredscourge 4 months ago
Capitalism is the best feasible system when you have people who are greedy and when resources are limited. Communism is the best feasible system when resources are overly abundant. Until robots are doing everything for us though, we're either going to have to settle for capitalism, or endlessly mess around trying to reallocate capital like mad each time someone gets ahead. We have had thousands of years to get the regulations right and vote the right people in, yet we are still struggling. Why?
theredscourge 4 months ago
The fact of the matter is that it is more often than not, either government waste, or government regulations that have failed that hurt our economy. The more you regulate finance, the more loopholes the bankers find, the more they rip everyone off. Drop all the broken regulations, make it easy for competitors to pop up, and greed will begin to work for us instead of against us. The more money the government wastes, the more poor people we will have.
theredscourge 4 months ago
If one company puts another out of business, they do it by offering cheaper goods than the other. Those savings are passed onto the consumer/other businesses. If Chinese steel puts our steel industry out of business, our construction industry booms, creating construction jobs. The money does not disappear, money is value; the price of anything is the value we place on things we need or want. Monopolies rarely exist outside of government regulations or massive barriers that block new competitors.
theredscourge 4 months ago
Companies want profit, yes, but to say that they want monopoly is unfounded. Companies are organizations filled with people. If they are aggressive people, it is probably an aggressive company. If they are hard working people, it is probably a productive company. If they are extremely competitive, then yes, they probably like destroying competition, however, to say that the ultimate goal of all companies is to destroy all other companies sounds more like the plot of Highlander than reality.
theredscourge 4 months ago
wat are u tryin to pull, i wantched 2.00 minutunes of this and he touched half of ur statemsnets and hes saying wat ur saying so i dont under stand this video is dumb and this is why he denied u, i would to if ur gonna trash my vid but take my ideas, does't make sense,im guesing this is just for popularity
sassmaster8 5 months ago
Tired as well of being called "Marxist".
MGGoblin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's the reality. Centralized planning always promises equality for all but the result is always the same. Those in charge of the system get filthy stinking rich and everyone else gets poorer. Venus project is no different. Those in charge will make a fortune and everyone else gets an equal share of the crumbs.
Wake up already. Centralized planning is a scam.
theherdmentality 8 months ago
The Venus project is a great idea, yet it will have trouble getting off the ground. Why ? because the imperialists will never let it happen beyond conception. I say, give it a try. I'll be waiting for the city to be built. I have a good feeling that it will be another Dubai.
thomas43ification 10 months ago
What does planned obsolescence have to do with anything? You get what you pay for. If people are free to make better longer-lasting cars, then go ahead and make them. They are likely to cost more, but perhaps not.
Is this guy going to make cars for us that are cheaper and longer lasting? That's great. That's how the market works. So what is he arguing against? That we haven't given him all of our resources so that he can accomplish his goal of a perfect car?
MillionthUsername 11 months ago
@MillionthUsername
no - he is arguing that deliberately making cheap cars to satisfy the market is deliberately wasting a finite resource just to keep the cyclical consumption process going.
His criticism is that the market is the problem and it maintaining the status quo is inevitably going to destroy the planet - you can't have infinite growth with a finite planet.
TheRyantherenegade 11 months ago
@TheRyantherenegade Well, no one can make cars in the la-la land of Venus because no one has any property. No one can buy a car because no one has any money. How would you make a car there in the People's Paradise? Who will work on it? How many people do you need? How do you feed them? Where will you get the myriad parts from? You can answer none of these questions because there is no structure to this made-up society. There are no rules for how people interact with each other and the world.
MillionthUsername 11 months ago
@MillionthUsername
all of these questions have been answered if you actually took the time to read the literature on the venus project instead of expecting me to write an essay on it in a youtube post.
TheRyantherenegade 11 months ago
@TheRyantherenegade I'm sorry, but the questions are not answered. There is an absolute denial of economics. It's extremely bizarre. Not one example can be given regarding production and distribution of anything. They just show pictures of shiny white cities. They say NO to: property, production, trade, money, economic calculation, rules, authority. How does this imagined society function? To whom or what is the world supposed to hand over its resources? There is no substance at all.
MillionthUsername 11 months ago
@MillionthUsername Either you are not mentally capable of processing the information given, or you didn't actually watch the film. Fresco says continuously that the primary component of a properly functioning society is functional educated people. The models of production and construction are nothing more than logical, functional ideas that would be in place now if the current system wasn't so blatantly wasteful.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername This is the same question that I am having every time with TZM. I agree with SOME of the stuff that TZM and VP are saying, and I applaud the ideas that they are putting out there. But, not all ideas are created equal. It is hard enough to get four people to agree on where to eat, let alone 7BILLION autonomous, conscious, living organisms with their own concerns, fears, backgrounds etc. all coming together in one movement....I would need evidence on a small scale first.
mezzanoche 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername They don't need to build a huge city as an example. Just show me a small scale community of 200-1000 people living and functioning in a VP environment over the span of at least 5-10 years, for studying and comparing to the system in place now. After 40 years of VP ideas, I think this should be a possibility by now. If there are enough TZM and VP supporters out there donate your time and money to get a small scale town up and running in the next few years...seems plausible.
mezzanoche 9 months ago
@mezzanoche ...and if these "supporters" can't put in any time, money, or resources into something they are supposedly so passionate about, than I don't see any reason for anyone else new to these ideas to care one bit. Sorry, I need to see some evidence that this VP system would function in a real world setting on a small scale. It has to be done in order for the VP and TZM to move forward and get more people on board. This notion that, "it has to be all of humanity at once on board"
mezzanoche 9 months ago
@mezzanoche seems a bit far fetched to me. It is time to get off Youtube and put this into action, if you are a heavy supporter of VP and TZM. Time to show, not tell. Lets go.
mezzanoche 9 months ago
@mezzanoche It' can't really function on a small scale because it requires all the world's resources and people to "cooperate." On a small scale, it is just a commune - only as rich as the combined wealth of its members and needing to trade with outsiders. They can't do away with money and property that way. On a large scale, it can only come to be by force since people don't voluntarily give up their lives and property. If it succeeded by force, it would soon fail.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername You sound like a confused robot. Can you not think of any answers to your own questions? Do you have the means to look up possible solutions yourself? Or do you just assume that all ideals are impossible? Do you have to read an instruction manual before taking a piss? Act like you have a shred of intellect. Machines have been building cars for quite a while now. No one hand-crafts car parts either.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder Hey, jackass, your idiotic personal attacks on me are no substitute for argument. You morons have no argument, which is why all you can do is cackle and grunt when people explain economics to you. Pathetic teenagers on YouTube fascinated by re-hashed communist rhetoric. Give me a break!
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername You are not explaining anything. Just supporting the failures of the current system and proclaiming any alternatives to be non-sense. You pathetic teenagers have so much trouble with reading comprehension. You see sentences pick out what you don't like and then only address that. This does not excuse your utter lack of evidence against the solutions provided. Get mad kid, but at least answer the questions. Like you can read.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder "Just supporting the failures of the current system and proclaiming any alternatives to be non-sense."
Absolutely false. Give a citation, jackass.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername I would have to re-post almost every comment you've made on this thread. It's self evident that the current system is a failure, and the current system is the basis for your arguments against any and all alternatives that have been presented to you here.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder Cite me supporting the current corrupt system and cite me being "against any and all alternatives."
You can't because you're a liar.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@TheRyantherenegade How does PJ know what resources are being wasted? In his world, there are no prices, therefore no one knows the economic cost of anything and can't judge what is efficient and what isn't. There is no consumer to be frugal in spending since there is no savings and no money and no trade. Apparently there is no cost for manufacturers since there is no money, and no known economic laws are at work. How can he say anything about production there which is not entirely subjective?
MillionthUsername 11 months ago
@MillionthUsername
efficiency is a scientific judgement, not a monetary one.
This is what PJ is talking about when he says phrases like "mind-lock indoctrination"
The cost of everything is measured in its real world value (i.e actual measurable quantity of resource), not an artificial monetary value.
consumer is a word that we need to get away from. The RBE is not a consumer driven society, it is a sustainable society, as long as you think in terms of consumption and growth, you wont getit
TheRyantherenegade 11 months ago
@TheRyantherenegade "efficiency is a scientific judgement, not a monetary one."
False dichotomy. The price system is the input by which we can judge economic efficiency. Those judgements are decentralized, made throughout the chain of production. Who makes these decisions in RBE, and by what authority?
"The cost of everything is measured in its real world value"
Economic value is subjective, and you have no "cost" structure by which to measure.
In RBE, there is no growth or consumption?
MillionthUsername 11 months ago
@MillionthUsername In RBE there is growth and consumption, but they are metered by the physical supply of the resources being used and not by profit margins. Resources would be used and replenished at a sustainable rate as opposed to the rabid over-consumption with little to no replenishment we see currently.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder "but they are metered by the physical supply of the resources being used and not by profit margins"
Absolute nonsense. Metered by WHO? Who the hell is deciding to exploit resources or not? Who is the owner? How did they come to own it? Who are the other owners of the other resources? Who works and who doesn't? There's no money and no property in this idiotic scenario. You cannot have an economy because you don't even have property! It's all pure nonsense.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername It's called open source. Something a primate like you wouldn't understand. No one has property kid. It's just an idea. You come into this world naked with no understanding of anything. Grabbing something and screaming "MINE" doesn't constitute ownership. No matter how many guns or laws you have to enforce it. Sounds like you're stuck in an understanding with no positive outcomes. What Alan Watts called a game that's not worth the candle. The current scenario is idiotic.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder You can't even speak with spewing random and irrelevant insults, and you obviously don't know a damn thing about history and economics. I'm a "primate" and a "teenager" for explaining how communism fails? Crack open a book, jackass. You might learn something other than mindlessly repeating the morons on YT.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername There is no example of real communism in the world and there has never been. Every self-proclaimed communist society is a dictatorship in a communist shell. Aside from that, TVP is not communism. It is a system that is radically different from anything that humanity has tried before. The problem is, primates like yourself believe that all humans are like you in that they have the natural tendency towards violence and subjugation.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder Of course it's communism. There is no private property. The means of production are controlled by the collective, you dope.
Why do you think Fresco and "Peter Joseph" and their followers studiously avoid explaining how this polity works? It's because they don't want to expose how communism actually operates. The individual is at the mercy of the group. He is property-less and moneyless, and therefore has no say in what the technocrats do. They deceive you.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername Where is an active example of communism in the world? If you look at any self-proclaimed communist country, the average person is basically a slave while the government rules with an iron fist. You are skirting reality. The ideal form of communism, much like democracy, has not been seen in practice on this planet. Every ism has been corrupted and in practice works more like a dictatorship.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder I didn't say anything about active examples of communism in the world or self-proclaimed communist countries. I am referencing what this man is teaching, and he is teaching communism whether he uses that word or not. It doesn't matter if it's supposedly "voluntary" and people rush to hand over their wealth to him or some other cult leader. It can't work because it just flat out denies economics. It's a total fantasy world.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername In a nutshell, your views do nothing to help the current mess the world is in. So why bother trying to discredit possible solutions when you don't understand premise? Projecting other failed constructs at this and calling it the same is disingenuous.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder You lied about my views.
I have explained over and over again why this system can't work. No advocate of it can even explain how it works. I have talked to about 50 advocates, and they can't even explain anything about how people are supposed to act or what the rules are and who makes them. What job do they do? Who decides what gets made? How do you deal with people who don't work or who want other jobs? What enforcement is there? How can you have economy without exchange?
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername You haven't explained anything. You are making the assumption that the only solution is forcing a system on the world much like what is already in place. As we see with the current turmoil, that is not the answer. If you look at the majority of jobs today, almost all of them are in place for the sake of being a job, not out of any real necessity.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder Explain the economic and social system you advocate then. Answer the questions I asked earlier. None of the advocates of this stuff can even answer basic questions.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
@MillionthUsername
oh and as for the "how does PJ know what resources are being wasted?"
go to google.
Type "scrap cars"
click images.
view millions of tons of wasted finite resources.
TheRyantherenegade 11 months ago
@TheRyantherenegade Scrap cars are hunks of recyclable steel and plastic. Products have a life cycle. Because of mass production, it is cheaper at a certain point to build new machines than to fix old ones. Who bothers fixing old toasters, TVs, bikes, etc? Some do, but it's pointless in the big picture. The scrap steel can be recovered. There are better ways to do anything, but he makes no sense in condemning the economics of mass production. It's WHY we are wealthier than our ancestors.
MillionthUsername 11 months ago
I just watched Addendum after many years and wow .... it's an incredible film. He did such a good job. So well-done!
VenusAsABoyFilms 11 months ago
@libeybasher Did you know there are people who do not play by the rules? Or use the gapholes in the rules to financially bankrupt the competition?
nielss4 1 year ago
Molyneux and Joseph should debate head to head and not by proxy.
telecom79 1 year ago 17
@telecom79 That's something I would love to listen to, and as I'm familiar with Stefan, I'm certain he'd be more than happy to debate.
MrGarky 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Peter Joseph is the biggest liar i have ever heard. People please read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and Human Action and you will uncover all his lies. Read The Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx and you will see where Peter Joseph gets his ideas.
pjarosz 1 year ago
@pjarosz why dont you just state the ideas that parallel communism. please show me so i may be as enlightened as you.
brdatwork 1 year ago
@pjarosz
venus project is not peters idea, it's frescoes. as far as him being a liar, i don't know, he could be. i don't trust him anymore. i'm wondering what is he going to do with TVP when mister Fresco dies. not that i want him to die. Peter must have done some thinking about that.
TheLood 1 year ago
@TheLood You say you don't trust Peter Joseph anymore, Why? Or did I misinterpret?
Watchdawg 1 year ago
@pjarosz hi there, seeing you are inherently aware of truth and untruth could you please outline the specificities in venus project you dont feel will work, and could u also please propose your solutions for eliminating our social and environmental problems. if you are happy with the status quo your silence will be acceptable. thank you.
getclogged 11 months ago
Yes, TVP is communism. Communism however is not communism. Communism is centralised dictatorship. Idiots ...
nielss4 1 year ago
@nielss4 No dictators, or money, or armies in a RBE advocated by TVP. Try again.
casperguylkn 1 year ago
@casperguylkn I might not have explained my sentence very well. What I meant was that it's funny how people are always quick to write something unknown off as evil communism. Well, I've found that arguing with these people is pointless. It's better to take them off guard. Like saying to them: 'You're absolutely right, TVP is communism!! However, the communism you have in mind should not be called communism. Instead, it should be called a centralised state dictatorship in disguise of communism.'
nielss4 1 year ago
@nielss4 Oh, I get you now. I totally agree with you. It's not that they are didiots, they are maybe naieve or ignorant at worst. People are victims of culture. The challenge lies in explaining to people who are turned off to it for no good reason.
casperguylkn 1 year ago
Believers in anarcho-capitalism are blind/ignorant. They simply don't want to let go of their faith in capitalism, so they don't want to see the obvious. Which is that the private/property nature of competition, coupled with the 'invisible hand' will inevitably lead to corruption/monopolies, no matter how you put it. The only anarcho system I can accept is anarcho-communism. But ofc TVP i'd much rather prefer.
nielss4 1 year ago
@nielss4 How does competition lead to monopoly? Monopoly is only present in the absence of competition. Anyone who endorses monopoly probably does not want competition. The fact of the matter is that the Venus Project is competing to convince people to support the ideas presented.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
@thisisbunk Unlock your right brain. Do you honestly believe that companies want competition? If you do, then you've only half woken up. A fully awakened person understands this: The leading player will always try to retain his first position. That is how it goes in a competitive environment. It doesn't matter how he does that, EVENTUALLY, monopolies will rise again. If a leading company feels threatened by another, he will offer a choice to the other company to join them.
nielss4 1 year ago
@thisisbunk It doesn't matter in this particular case if the other company accepts it or not. EVENTUALLY, companies will accept the offer and so the cycle continues. Corporatism arises again. Also, when a leading don't necessarily need to go raise their prices in order to buy out the competition. That is an illusion Stefan Molyneux has created in order to justify his anarcho-capitalism position, and is only the case at the beginning of the cycle. Agreements happen behind the scenes, accept this
nielss4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nielss4 - You obviously didn't read my comment carefully.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
Actually, you are right guys. It has some similarities with communism. What i wanted to say is that the Venus project is NOT a communism
TheLood 1 year ago
Fully agree, the sad thing is, I really really like a lot of what Stef does, and I'd like to hang out on the forums more but feel I'd be looked at as an idiot. Many of the comments here confirm that. If these people want to live in an anarcho capitalist system I'm not going to try to stop them. We're all human here folks, with the same essential needs - most of the nonsense we are squabbling over is social constructs. Economic 'laws' which we have created and have little basis in reality
MarioSavioTZM 1 year ago
PETA!
MyOnlyFarph 1 year ago
For those out there that believe in free market capitalism,, please point to a time in history were capitalism or any monetary based economy has ever had the broad interests of every person on earth...
You cant... Because free market capitalism still perpetuates these two words.. Self Preservation..
Peace!
vdubs4life1964 1 year ago
@vdubs4life1964 - I thought the point of the Venus Project is to sustain the human race? Um... I'd call that self-preservation. The fact is, that throughout history people have always been poor and/or exploited en masse. The living standards of people have been rising because of trade and technology. Everyone stands to profit from that.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
@thisisbunk "everyone stands to profit from trade and technology" i wonder what a hungry african or indian person drinking dirty water has to say on this topic. actually we probably wont get to hear from them as their access to technology such as the internet is far far lower than yours and mine, thanks to our money system. but i would love to get their views on capitalism, money and politics. isnt perspective a wonderful thing? but fuck all them as long as we're alright hey, no need for change.
getclogged 11 months ago
@getclogged - and how do you expect food and drink to end up in the hands of those people? magic? i guess people don't need to trade or develop technology in the real world right? all that wealth we enjoy, yeah, it's not real, it's not helpful, poor people don't want that shit. we're just selfish, spoiled bastards who live life at their expense. yeah, u kno. nobody who produces shit actually helps people. making a living and profiting because they produce shit, what a bunch of greedy bastards.
thisisbunk 11 months ago
-He also states that Stef's review of the film was an emotional reaction because he's been a software salesman, and that the message of the Zeitgeist Movement tells him that he's a dishonest criminal. To that I have to say this: you can't be a dishonest criminal if your primary method is through voluntary action. But again, that wouldn't occur to him, it's just too emperically logical.
orionwolff 1 year ago
Coming from an industry where long term sustainability is forced via government contract, experience tells me that while the move to get more sustainability is laudable, the claim that it is possible now but ignored is simply laughable. The fact that his videos are so well edited, that his debates are soft spoken and hypnotizing is actually dangerous. The failure to recognize this can be extremely dangerous, and history will prove it.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-He attacks the same point again by stating that violence is planned obsolescence, or the deliberate withholding of efficiency. He clearly does not understand Lean, Six Sigma, or the Theory of Constraints, and that these things are used in production to maximize profit and also to make a better product for the market. His magical world where there are methods of production that will make items last eternal is simply delusional.
orionwolff 1 year ago
If you don't like the way that you're being treated at one store or provider you change to another store or provider, unless of course the anti-trust laws were violated or corrupt government deals were made to ensure that this type of forced violence can take place - but again he fails to see this point.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-He states that the entire system is violent from top to bottom to a varying degree. How then is voluntary interaction achieved, you cult genius? Only a mentally distrubed individual would voluntarily walk up to a criminal to give the criminal his money. We can see this everywhere around us.
orionwolff 1 year ago
How about the fact that these profits are derived from the state's actions. Without the state's coercive use of violent murderous force these companies would be forced to compete with each other in other parts of the economy in a voluntary manner. But again this detail isn't even comprehensible to the pseudonym because he refuses to analyze reality and instead uses false analysis to refute his claims.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-The pseudonym attacks the statement that profit by violence (taxation, or robbery) is the same as profit by voluntary contract. His method? Attack the individual first, then use the mercantilist example in place of a real free market example: Haliburton's profits and other defense contractor profits by the Iraq war. This example is so stupid, where to start?
orionwolff 1 year ago
-He states that abustance is the enemy of profit, stating that 'they have to be', claiming that he's drilled this in many times. What must be drilled in? If it is emperical, if it is logical, if it sustains scrutiny, why must this be drilled in? Perhaps because the idea is flawed. Perhaps because without abundance there is no profit outside of private deals made with lawmakers? Oh, but that's simply silly to suggest, right?
orionwolff 1 year ago
He skips the cause of the problem and goes straight to the method of transfer, which is kind of like saying to open a door is wrong, the door must be open for you, thus the hinges and the door handle are the problem. It's simply ludicrous.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-He states that free energy is abundance and therefore works against the idea of the free market. Once again, wrong. Due to government interference (corruption) and deal making with private industry energy providers have less incentive to compete with each other and instead are encouraged to work together to create false scarcity.
orionwolff 1 year ago
His counter to this is that capitalism is the problem, which is also incorrect as it is really corporatism or mercantilism, i.e. corporate and government cooperation.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-The pseudonym constantly states that profit is based on scarcity. While true to a point, he completely denies that at some point, scarcity is no longer profitable. So, in the bigger picture (which he completely misses and again not too surprisingly) scarcity is not sustainable. Profit must be continual and the balance of the free market will make this so.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-In the example that he uses regarding a factory in a city being outsourced because it is more profitable to move elsewhere, what he seems to skip over, and not too surprisingly so given his logical fallacies, is that it is more often government policies that encourage this type of behavior. NAFTA is a perfect example, but of course he doesn't continue to this logical framework, probably because he doesn't understand it.
orionwolff 1 year ago
There are many things that auto manufacturers do to make the vehicle last longer, which then stretches out the warranty, Hyundai for example gives a 10 year warranty on their vehicle, which is astounding from a free market perspective. However, what is the industry to improve here? An unlimited mileage/time warranty? It isn't hard to imagine the leap of logic required to get to this point, and the fact that he has a cult following makes this type of thinking even more dangerous.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-The pseudonym claims that the free market's profits are at the expense of people. He uses several examples, such as the auto industry designing vehicles so that their warranty expires prior to the vehicle breaking down. While on the surface this seems to be true, when you analyze the data it is easy to realize that durable goods such as vehicles, while as stated durable, can only last so long in our enviornment.
orionwolff 1 year ago
The pseudonym's definition of a free market is skewed similarly like those who believe that guns are responsible for deaths, when in reality it is the individual using the gun as a tool to do wrong with. Just like this example, the pseudonym claims that the market is the problem and not the individual, he can't grasp that responsibility does not apply to inanimate or non-tangible items, and instead applies to the individual.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-The pseudonym's claim that a free market system is based on lying is absolute nonsense. A voluntary contract between two individuals (customer and store owner) is between the two individuals. If the store owner lies to the customer, the customer can always go somewhere else. It is not the job of the store owner to lie to the customer, because if he does he could lose his business.
orionwolff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For example: if the customer notices that there is a price difference (and what customer that isn't filthy rich doesn't?) then that customer is going to go to a competing store to get the lower price. Fundamentally this isn't lying either, it's competition. There is no reason to advertise another store's prices in your store, there is no immoral or non-virtuous quality to this claim. So, fundamentally this argument is null.
orionwolff 1 year ago
For example: if the customer notices that there is a price difference (and what customer that isn't filthy rich doesn't?) then that customer is going to go to a competing store to get the lower price. Fundamentally this isn't lying either, it's competition. There is no reason to advertise another store's prices in your store, there is no immoral or non-virtuous quality to this claim. So, fundamentally this argument is null.
orionwolff 1 year ago
-The pseudonym states a market system is based on lying by using Fresco's example of a store owner not telling you that the store next door has a cheaper price on a product. Stef's response to this was that lying won't get you far in a market based system. Even with the existance of a marketing department, lying still won't get you far.
orionwolff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At the beginning of the pseudonym's response to Stef's review he calls on 'his followers' to respond to other people's critiques because he doesn't have the time to do it. Very cultish. Very religious.
-Illogical to state corporations want competetion: without government the power of corporations cannot expand to
mercantilism.
-The pseudonym's response is in general an attack against Stef instead of against ideas.
orionwolff 1 year ago
Comment removed
orionwolff 1 year ago
i think the two of you are the "non-academic" forefront of the materialism vs. moralism debate that has been going on for centuries. whereas the ying stef is saying materialism all the way as long as you arent physically harming anyone and you are saying moralism all the way as long as you are increasing the scientific knowledge of the world practically and efficiently. i would love to stage you two in a conversation.
kinglewisjtl24 1 year ago
In a market system in which consumers make purchasing decisions a monopoly would be impossible without the implementation of violence. I think Stefbot made a mistake in that comment and that is all. But I think you make many more in your responces. I loved Zeitgeist Addendum but your idea of a non-incentive based resource based economy isnt logical. it is beautiful, but i dont think you are understanding the restraints put on money by beuracracy nor stef's foundation in the non-harm principle
kinglewisjtl24 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Okay, the very nature of capitalism results in a small market share becoming of less and less worth. As interest continues and prices of living rise, people are forced to obtain more income, and therefore businesses will always work to obtain as much market share as possible. In your example, this would result in these bakeries competing with one another for market share and thus eventually rendering one bankrupt. The evidence for this is in every town in the US.
brucegalliver 1 year ago
@mistara31415 The basic progression of competition between companies is to a monopoly. If there are many companies producing CD's, as you state, then each company will compete for market share, when one gains more and more market share, the others lose profit and eventually closedown and one company has monopoly of the market.
It's very noticeable anywhere, see what happens to local general shopping stores when Wal-Mart shows up. Market share severely decreases.
brucegalliver 1 year ago
You bitched about Stefan for 10 minutes and did not make a single sensible point. No wonder he has you on such a defensive rant.
AngryHateMusic 1 year ago
@AngryHateMusic What exactly about the points are not sensible?
Peter addresses Stefan's points individually and makes no personal attack on Mr Molyneux whereas Molyneaux accuses the movement's ideas as being "Retarded, embarrassing, and an idea created by bong smoking hippies". How is that not bitching? Or did you mean that stefan was doing the bitching?
brucegalliver 1 year ago
@a1d4a1m5 You just showed me that you don't know what you're talking about.
The free market has not caused the poverty we see, it's government intervention into the laws of supply and demand, like the baliouts of gambling banksters for example. There is no free market in the US right now
The freeest of markets is our best bet, as history always shows, but build a city and prove it invalid, Peter talks scientific method,then get empiracle and build a working sample, or STFU! kindly :)
GtheMVP 1 year ago
@a1d4a1m5 btw, look up personal fabricators, Jaques is dreaming pre-digital age, that's the future of distribution. Coupled with sustainable/near limitless energy, which is inevitable -- the future looks bright.
GtheMVP 1 year ago
@a1d4a1m5 Di Semantics perhaps, but the freeest market is the best one, history shows us this. So long as supply and demand decides production/sales, nd not government intervention, people become prosperous. We don't ahve this right now, so shut up about it being failed, that's getting old.
The Venus Project proposes building an incredibly complicated infrastructure of resource management for all people controlled/distributed by central computers. You guys need listen to your own sillyness
GtheMVP 1 year ago 2
Peter Joseph brilliantly breaks apart the argument. Nice work.
Iaganatzi 1 year ago
Sure companies act and say they want a monopolies, but economic theory is pure and simple, competition increases profit and assists innovation. Your argument is almost purely rhetoric. You use statements of assurance more than you use logic, rationality, and sense. You say things like "well, no logic is needed here, this is obvious". Well your a moron my friend. Instead of saying such broad things, than use the proven methods of logic, science, and research to demonstrate this. PEACE
brodelspen 1 year ago
Wow, way to combat ideas with rhetoric. Good job.
omitsura 1 year ago
The Venus Project cannot account for the needs and wants of every person like a true free market can. I'm not talking about the brainwashed wants we're manipulated into buying, thanks to subliminal-like ads. People could not be happy in a resourced based economy, because their needs can't ever be met.
We don't have a true free market right now, we have fascism, or corporatism, where our governments (west) and corporations work together, or are near one in the same.
GtheMVP 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@GtheMVP "The Venus Project cannot account for the needs and wants of every person like a true free market can."
What planet do you live on? It sounds great.
Strike2k2 1 year ago
WOW You cant even understand the simple principle of business competition? If you dont have competition in business you are failing. ALL SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES WILL HAVE COMPETITION. It certainly isnt the goal of every business to monopolize their industry, especially given the fact that natural monopoly has been proven to be unattainable in free market capitalism without the aid of government.
jjrglobal 1 year ago 2
I'm scrutinous of the crticism of your point about competition Look at domestic gas supply. You buy it from the cheapest company, so there is a direct requirement for a competitive market to give the other companies a fair chance. Competition is absoultely vital and is governed in the US by 'Antitrust Law'. It keeps the prices low. Another angle is, it keeps the prices CONTROLLED.
MATMAN69 1 year ago
The issue is not wether companies themselves like competition, but wether the consumer (the market) likes competition.
alexandergosselin 1 year ago
...what the argument that stepahn was trying to put foward, and the argument is that Peter Joshep dosent diferentiates betewn violence and voluntarism, for him murdering an innocent civilian for the apropiation of his property is the same as trying to sell "x" to obtain "y", this is just because both the killer and the producer or seller where seeking the same thing, profit, it dosent hold up, this argument that joseph put foward is faulty because i dosent have consistency.
megatherium100 1 year ago
I have seen the zeitgeist movie, but the firts version of it, and didnt know that it was revisited, and i really liked(in the firts one) how the aproched and explained how exploitative is the current debt based money system, but when they get to the conspiracies theories, is when there argement become really convuluted, and thats when i agreed with stephan point of view, as for the review of the review of the movie by this individual, i think he is being not really forthcoming as what was the...
megatherium100 1 year ago
Venus project = communism with magic robots
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye
it has nothing to do with communism!
TheLood 1 year ago
@TheLood
Horseshit, it isnt just similar to what Karl Marx envisioned Communism would be, it is exactly what Karl Marx envisioned Communism would be. Just because it turned out to be a murderous tyranical state doesnt negate their original intent
jjrglobal 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLood
It has lots to do with communism.
BigDaddyBongos 1 year ago
@TheLood It has quite a bit to do with communism and I mean that in a good way. Anarcho-Communism is basically the same thing as the Venus project. The fundamental difference is that the Venus project is not interested in democracy, anarchists are.
ViolentMonopoly 1 year ago
@TheLood Quite right. Just look up a definition of communism in a dictionary or on Wikipedia. People find it easier to dismiss something rather than research it. The media in general follows the same suit and feeds on that.
casperguylkn 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye you're sooooo smart!
cassioam 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye Best description of venus project I've seen yet!
tarossi400 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye Wow, how's that for blatantly unsubstantiated?
tzmsd 1 year ago
@tzmsd As opposed to the side that makes claims like how capitalism is the cause of monopolies?
I mean seriously, name me ONE case of a monopoly that formed without government support.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago 2
@lordthawkeye I was responding to your "magic robots" comment. Nevertheless...
Indeed corporations use government to their advantage, therefore if we were rid of government and had a free-market, corporations would use their influence to create re-create government (i.e. like bankers did to create support for creating the FED).
If you inspect the book "The Market for Liberty" you'll hear the argument for 'good monopolies' existing in a free-market. I believe Mary Ruwart makes a similar claim.
tzmsd 1 year ago
@tzmsd Yes but that's not the claim Zeitgeist Addendum made. It was in the "teh EEEEVIL corporations will take over" club.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye Have that interpretation if you'd like. Members of the ZM are rather diverse and some are in that 'club'. But the movement itself is not simply anti-corporate. It identifies that the motivations people have within a monetary system. Malicious corporate and government behavior are not simply the problem, they are symptoms, and if their cause is not averted they will recur. It's really quite simple: cooperation over competition, and a totally voluntary and prosperous society.
tzmsd 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye Communism, as defined by Wikipedia does not seem to match up with what TVP advocates, which is a Scientific method for social concern. Communism uses armies, money, social classes. There is none of that in a RBE advocated by TVP.
casperguylkn 1 year ago
@casperguylkn Scientific? His whole solution for distribution of resources is that some super computer is going to do it. But ask him details like what kind of algorithm it's going to use to figure all that out and you get a blank stare. He might as well be telling us he's going to do it by magic.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye I thought people realized a few centuries ago that things are never black or white. This kind of duality is a myth that has never existed. There are never just two sides of a coin - granted, the other sides might be elusive to us, depending on our knowledge and understanding, however it is downright irresponsible to blankly make a statement without researching the problem in depth.
newisd 1 year ago
@newisd Ah, the old trick of calling it grey without actually explaining what's inaccurate about my statement. Nice try.
Seriously, it's marxism to a tee. Read the communist manifesto. The elimination of currency, centrally planned resource distribution, it's all there clear as crystal.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye Let me throw just a few differences: In communism you have people who make decisions and therefore leaders. That's gone in RBE. The scientific method eliminates the need for people to make decisions which are often not based on anything; just mere whims. And then there's the fact that communism did not take into account that we live in a planet with finite resources - there are no preservation strategies whatsoever. Also how can a country not have currency when all other do? Peace.
newisd 1 year ago
@newisd Actually there were preservation strategies. The problem was those in charge took bribes from special interest groups as all governments inevitably do. You think you've eliminated this problem with the super computer excuse but you haven't. Someone has to program it, maintain it and so on. So you get the same problem, how do you keep the sociapaths' hands off this computer? You know they will fight tooth and nail to get control of it.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye based upon this statement i doubt you have read any of marx's writing yourself?? venus project proposes no government, no leadership, no social stratification, no military, a radical shift in education system to one based upon real science and co-operative social values. the other thing with communism was that it didnt have any technical designs as to how things would scientifically work better which the venus project is doing. pls be objective when considering things. thx
getclogged 11 months ago
@getclogged My issue with Venus project is the same as my issue with statism, two questions both camps refuse to answer.
1. How do you keep the sociapaths out of power? If you have some super computer that's going to distribute resources, the sociapaths in society WILL seek to get control of it. How do you keep their hands off this computer? Someone has to maintain it after all.
2. How do you solve the inherrent calculation problem in central planning? That's why communism failed.
lordthawkeye 11 months ago
@lordthawkeye Any model for a better functioning society requires a vast majority of the world population to be educated and psychologically sound. Half-wits like yourself hinder more rapid progress in that direction. Looking for a boogey-man to ruin paradise at every turn is a sign of inner turmoil. Get yourself straight and worry less about critiquing people's work who actually have the ability to hope.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder I'm not the one supporting centralized planning despite 6000 years of emperical evidence showing that it does not and will not ever work.
Centralized planning has caused more death and suffering than any political idea this century including naziism. To continue to support it regardless of these facts is ignorance so profound, it's indistinguishable from outright malicious intent.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye What planet are you living on? Look at the world as it is now. How many people are starving to death while literally tons of food get thrown away? The idea here is to cut the scheming out of the equation so that the resources that we have are actually being used instead of the majority of it going to waste. To ignore the suffering cause by the current system is ignorance so profound, it's indistinguishable from outright malicious intent.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder Are you trying to argue that people in Africa are starving because their governments aren't powerful enough?
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye What?
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder You cited people starving to death in some parts of the world to counter my argument and since you believe that centralized planning is the solution to it, is it not logical to conclude that you are somehow arguing that lack of centralized planning is the cause of poverty in Africa and other areas of the world?
Well empirically, you are wrong. The countries with the most centralized planning are always the poorest. How do you defend your position in light of this fact?
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye Fact? The fact is, almost all "poor" countries are poor because of defaulted WMF loans forced upon people who for the majority of their existence traded in actual goods and/or had no central government that represented all of the tribal lands. And the fact that corporations from developed nations have since moved into these countries and bought out these same people's ancestral farmlands for mono-crops to be exported.
NewPeaceOrder 9 months ago
@NewPeaceOrder Aaaaaand state involvement in these exploits gets a free pass as always...
Here's the reality. Centralized planning always promises equality for all but the result is always the same. Those in charge of the system get filthy stinking rich and everyone else gets poorer. Venus project is no different. Those in charge will make a fortune and everyone else gets an equal share of the crumbs.
Wake up already. Centralized planning is a scam.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye - How can anyone get "rich" in a resource based economy? There is NO money! Have any of actually understood Zeitgeist, or do you just pick and choose random parts you don't like personally. You need to look at it as a whole. ANYBODY I have seen saying Zeitgeist is wrong/a cult....blah blah blah, simply display a complete lack of understanding of the concept. I've come to the conclusion that those that don't see will never see, but we see this behavior by minorities through history
psymonism 4 months ago
@psymonism So? Money is only a medium of exchange, you can be rich without it. Maybe you guys need to actually look up what money is.
Just watch, put in the Venus project and those in charge of running your big magic computer will be getting a strangely disproportionate amount of resources with endless excuses to justify it while everyone else gets the leftovers.
Besides, a system where you have to go through a bureaucracy every single time you need something? No thanks.
lordthawkeye 4 months ago
"bong smoking hippies who dont want to work" yep a loser I used to know hated work, and coincidentally hated capitalism, never finished college/got a job at 30, and was obsessed with technocracy
chorizo1337 1 year ago
The issue with Zeitgeist,its solution is Marxism.The issue is Statism, not Capitalism.Capitalism is the most successful economic model, out of all. Marxism, fails, and it still enables the cancer of Statism to exist,which is the issue.Stefan fights Statism, the tree, while Zeitgeist, attacks the branches of the tree.
KevZen2000 1 year ago
@KevZen2000
Actually, TZM attempts to solve the root of our problems. For example, instead of policemen ticket speeders, and essentially "tax" the people further, why not create a "cap" on speeding limits, which is controlled wirelessly depending on the area you are in? Wouldn't that make sense? but how would the state gain money from that? how would you gain money from SOLVING problems? You can't..there is more incentive to stagnating them. SEE: BP Oil Spill
BeyondDGrave 1 year ago
@BeyondDGrave, That would only happen if there was no state, because the state creates the situation, to where police forces do that. In a stateless society, each person would be able to live without taxes, they could pay for any service they desired, and there would be no mandatory services, such as having car insurance, or paying for welfare programs.Most of these corporations only have the power,because of the State, and without the state, they would fall apart in almost all cases (continue)
KevZen2000 1 year ago
@BeyondDGrave because in a truly free market, companies are based on performance, and not how many politicians they can buy off, to created self-state created monopolies, that create barriers to entry to where prices are artificially increased,because of lack of competition, and a state ran mafia, that destroys any non-special interest group company, to enable only the elite in all important aspects of life. Socialism, and Free market Capitalism, can only run in anarchy societies.
KevZen2000 1 year ago
@KevZen2000
Sounds great, but I still don't see where that addresses the root problems of society and life... this old system does not address or attempt to solve:
-Overpopulation
-Improving Quality of Life
-Poverty
-War
-Unity of all Humans
-Technological Stagnation
-The use of lowest quality materials available and hence,...
-Waste and pollution
BeyondDGrave 1 year ago
@BeyondDGrave.
1.Waste and pollution (The government is the largest polluter and waste of resources)
2.Unity of all Humans, is not possible,because people share different views. You can create more opportunities to enable each person to have a better quality of life.Anarchy enables this.True Socialism is only available in Anarchy.
3.Technological advances, greatly increase in a Free market. (Look at all the electronic technological advances,which is one of the largest free market environments)
KevZen2000 1 year ago
@KevZen2000
Incorrect. Technology is Stagnated by monetary-ism. One Word: Patent(s).
Unity of humans IS possible, but we need thinkers and problem solvers. Not killers or economists. Pollution is in large created by business.. see: BP Oil spill for one such example.
BeyondDGrave 1 year ago
@BeyondDGrave.
-Overpopulation
In a Free Market, technological progress would dramatically increase to enable the world to sustain the population, or people would decide not to have children,because there would be a economical disincentive to because, the cost of children. Also, without the massive cost of governments, people have more resources to support children, and not to rely on outside forces to provide for them, in most cases,via entitlement programs,which burden a lot.
KevZen2000 1 year ago
@KevZen2000
Population: Look around you today. As long as there are poor, uneducated sectors of humanity, thought to "should I have a child" is not warranted, but instead "How will I feed myself tonight and tomorrow" is instead. Any form of relief that can be given, will be, along with the prices involved with protection and birth control, coupled with religious notions, the population is inclined to rise.
BeyondDGrave 1 year ago
@KevZen2000
I liked what Fresco said:
"If you have a kid and you raise him until he is 18 years old, only to find out today that he was accidentally switched at birth with another kid, and they found your real kid, would you want to switch them? Of course not.. for that child is you.. so when it comes down to it.. children are you who raise them to be.. they are you, and we are each-other. We are products of our environment. We are one.
BeyondDGrave 1 year ago
@BeyondDGrave.
-War
War would dramatically decrease,because companies would have to finance there own wars, and they could not rely on the tax payers to fiance them,via the state. Its impossible to stop all wars, as they will always exist, but you can stop the major financier of war, the state.
KevZen2000 1 year ago
@KevZen2000
There are only three reasons for war that I am aware of:
1) Low resources threatening survival.
2) Warped ideologies (religion).
3) Profit.
We seek to correct them all through education.
Money is not the answer to our problems.. it is only a submission of our pride and self-esteem. As long as there is a system which is designed to "chisel" away at our fellow man for survival, how do you expect decency? The answer: You can't.
BeyondDGrave 1 year ago
@BeyondDGrave.
-lowest quality materials
In a Free Market, there are insensitive to find or create improved materials, because high quality would increase the chance of more profit, and with a state funded monopolies, you can use the state to ban competition, via laws, and military or police, to enable competition to either replace the companies that are inefficient or to cause them to improve in business quality.
KevZen2000 1 year ago
@KevZen2000
True, but those materials are still made at sub-par to ensure.. "profit".
To ask to "ban" or "outlaw" competition is not solving the problem. It is the equivalency of sweeping the problems under the rug.
BeyondDGrave 1 year ago
@KevZen2000
for example: if you do not want car fatalities, why not automate the majority of destinations so that we eliminate our fellow primate species from manually steering combustible engines? This eliminates: drunk driving crashes, elderly driver crashed, young driver crashes, Speeding crashes.
So why isn't this being done when it is obviously better for all of us? Because there is no profit to be made from it. There is no slime to scrape from the bottom of this more efficient design.
BeyondDGrave 1 year ago
@KevZen2000 WTF, that dosnt hold up to any reason whatsoever
If you see the history behind any monopoly in the world, it is totally the reverse, when goverments enact or protec an especific industry or corporation, then there is no incentive to improve your buissenes practices and because you ar th only one providing the service or product, you can sell it to wathever price you want with ever decresing quality, it hastnt worked, it dosent work now and it will could never work.
megatherium100 1 year ago
The guy says that read lots of books, but he cannot see anything beyond the problem and production! He's so full of answer and cristicsysm but he cannot take one, hes comments are blocked! I'm really sorry for the people that aproved that video, there you said it, the guy is very pursuasive. Good work with the answer Peter!
beetoo20 1 year ago