We can't apply a posteriori to TVP but maybe, like so many of the famous scientists, if we test it, it may be true. Give the human race a fucking chance dude. You sit here trying to shit on everything without offering anything positive to help except cynicism towards finding a solution. We have enough to clothe and feed everyone, it will be people with your shortsightedness that will ensure this never happens.
Oh, and please tell me how the fuck building 7 fell? Thanks.
@TheLoneTroop """The system that Jacques Fresco postulated sounds logical from an a priori perspective.""Write out a logical construction that proves RBE's superiority.
@axe863 RBE's superiority to what...a system that's blindly raping resources more rapidly than they are replenished. The examples of civilisations without the foresight are numerous: Aztecs, Mayans, Babylonians, Egyptians...all ruined through poor resource management that either lead to war or famine. Building 7 was buffered by 5 & 6 and yet the buildings closer to the North Tower on the West Side highway were barely touched, without a buffer...come on, wake up.
@TheLoneTroop You think this constitutes a logical proof of RBEs superiority. Under a price system, higher expectations of future price spikes cause today's prices to skyrocket and agents substitute out of said goods. Its a self correcting process. The only argument against capitalism is that some negative externalities aren't priced into the market. Under a RBE, the effect of zero laws & zero prices make all negative externalizes unpriced.
@axe863 I don't speak econmoics "the effect of zero laws & zero prices make all negative externalizes unpriced." In English please, I have googled and still don't understand. Capitalism doesn't work becasue to get rich, someone else or the environment is destroyed in the process.
@fountainherz A lack of familiarity with technical semantics does not show a lack of understanding of the system. My argument here though isn't about economics...it's about a fundmanetal change in pysche.
@axe863 Socialism is the way forward but you lot are so fucked up about the propoganda and total stupidity of the Cold Bore that you fail to rationalise.
@TheLoneTroop ...".come on, wake up." > all the peer reviewed research papers published in engineering journals and all the computer models on this topic.
Basically....I love science but when it disagrees with my beliefs, Ill believe in the craziest shit possible. Stay out the bushes lol.
@axe863 I have may not have read the engineering journals but I have spoken to experienced high rise structural engineers who have said that, for many reasons, the whole thing stinks. I would like your sources please, engineering journals and that which states building 7 fell in 37 seconds...though I have an opinion of the subject I remain open minded. Peer reviewed research often fails as many on your videos have pointed out so poigniantly.
@axe863 It really is as simple as that. Pricing is bollocks, you sound bright enough to know how the federal reserve works so you realise that money is created out of thin air, oh and you probably know they snuck over 30 trillion dollars into the system, money conjured out of thin air that does nothing but support inflation and weaken the US dollar. We invaded Libya because Gaddafi was going to stop trading in dollars with gold instead. Saudi Arabia will go the same way.
@axe863 And war with them, overeither their oil or water reserves, is inevtibale. Our governments are puppet cunts supported by corporations with far too many resources for Public Affaris, or bribery as it's formally known.
@axe863 Plus, I have shown how bad resource management has led to failure, you still haven't demonstrated how our current system is in any way superior to TVP.
To me, the most amazing thing about the human brain is the ability to apply a priori knowledge to create logic. Of course this must be backed up by a posteriori knowledge to create sound logic. However, many of the fundamental laws of physics have come into existence with the former, shown true by the latter. My problem with you axe863 is this: the current system is failing: a posteriori knowledge. The system that Jacques Fresco postulated sounds logical from an a priori perspective.
Axe863 wait until my video is ready about this topic...then i will send it to you as a respond...this video doesnt fit to my video where we all see how retarded your comment was that you claim Peter`s claims where unjustified....But Axe863 tell me this..i really want to know...are you retarded, stupid? or mentally ill? i mean looking your responses to my videos and the talk it really shows that A) you must be insane or B) you are a troll
@thelion2430 Its funny that even though you marked my comments as spam on my own channel, blocked me on your channel for no reason , told me to suck dick 3 times, called me fucking retarded and everything else...that I have yet to block you but you think im going to start blocking people and deleting comments.
@axe863 i told you the BLOCK REASON WILL BE clear in my new video...:D sure delete and block dont care ...very short I blocked you because you are insane..arguing with you is pointles you are like a creationist you ignore simple facts and make idiotic conter arguments...and my new video will show that ..and your RBE is not scientific claim will also fall...you are insane...this hard core Capitalist economics cult ppl like you are nuts :D
@axe863 and again i will post here this comment that i made a long time ago...the RBE idea uses ALREADY EXISTING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, TECHNOLOGY, PRACTISES AND FACTS...how you ask about peer reviewed papers for ALREADY PROVEN KNOWLEDGE, TECHNOLOGY, PRACTISES AND FACTS?? do people have to bring this papers behind your door? ?? it is like you would ask prove me that bread is real i want peer reviewed papers :Dyou are a fucking retard.
Also, TVP relies on traditional science as much as any other person does. They do not say E=MC² = false, they do not say the law of thermodynamics is false, they do not say there is or there is no higgs boson. They just try to use the knowledge for the benefit of every human being rather than for corporate profit. New technology always gets monopolized, from huge inventions such as direct current (plain: electricity) to small ones like touch detection technology.
Economics = not science. Mathematics is. Magically creating money out of thin air with no colleteral = not science, nor is it humane or in any way helpful to the whole.
I see your point, man, I really do. I too wish that there was a working model and a database of TVP-knowledge showing off their inventions. Though bare in mind that most of those inventions are collected from various sources. Sources that DO choose to capitalize their inventions, such as the Regenedyne Wind Turbine.
@GoodFortuneOfficial If I put = in front of things, it makes it true? Mainstream economics: 100,00+ (falsifiable models) published papers published in peer reviewed journals. TVP : 0 (falsifiable models) published papers in peer review journals.
You are utterly failing to address the very real scientific studies that are frequently quoted about all the various facets of the Resource Based Economy. Not the least of which is that "Off Grid" living is already possible and being done. An RBE is "off grid" living on a grander scale.
@Leveer13 Id be amazed to see that when individuals generalize their production, they become more efficient than when they specialized towards their core competencies and tradeoff in processes that they're relatively inefficient in. Also, I would be amazed to see ..a group of the same individuals optimizing in isolation with zero self correcting mechanism and no specialization at solving sub-components of a global problem can out-compete the same individuals in a market system
@axe863 Actually, my bad. If you would, you'd see that 'now' we have the potential for more than we actually have at the moment. Correction: You think too much like.. say.. 1930.
@GoodFortuneOfficial this guy Axe863 ...he is a fanatic troll...there is basically no point hoping that this person will ever admit that he is wrong etc...he shows all the signs of a fanatic...you cant get a logical respond from that kind of people...by the way i made a video where i show how todays economics is not science...and i also show some other strange things about Axe863.
@thelion2430 I accept the possibility that I can be completely wrong about everything. How about you? Do you accept such a possibility? Do you accept the possibility that everything that TVP adheres to/believes in could be completely wrong?
@axe863 well i will use the atheist respond to that..like science is not perfect and makes mistakes and corrects it self...then sure you can have the possibility to be wrong..i would ask one thing we talk much about Fresco but not about Peter...what you say about this fact that Peter even in his new film has peaople who are scientists who talk about that in our society are somethings wrong..peter recommends books...in his lecture Social Pathology the talk is based on studies
@thelion2430 When I said atheistic with respect to things... I didnt mean it exactly because that makes no sense. I was being non-mechanistic. Peter got all his "solutions" from Fresco. Please don't use appeal to authority again. Why doesn't peter recommend peer reviewed research papers?
@axe863 i want to ask are you opsessed with peer reviewed research papers? what you think scinetific studies are ? ...nobody come out in the academic world with studies that have not passed the peer review. ...it seems i need to make another video...i will make a video where i show all the places where Peter talks about a claim and then he names a studie that supports it. Because it is funny how you respond...the fact that he uses real scientists equals to you " appeal to authority "
@thelion2430 I took 3 minutes out of my busy life and actually looked at the lecture social pathology. I obviously skipped around the lecture to get a random sample of his sources. One kept popping up, the book, Spirit Level. This darling of socialist/communists is founded on errors that a beginner level statistician would find appalling. Google ....Beware_False_Prophets_Jul_10.... for a complete refutation of the book (its a 100+ page long pdf file)
@axe863 the fact that he uses real scientists equals to you " appeal to authority "...it is not "appeal to authority" when Peter or what ever scientist talks about studies." appeal to authority " is when a claim only is based to some persons authority ( like in economics :D)..or are you claiming that not one thing that Peter claims is based on studies ? i hope you do that then i will again screen shot this and make a video and prove you wrong...peter mentions studies all the time
@axe863 Every single division of production WOULD be specialized in that what it has to do, you tard. I'm getting fed up with your ignorance. Spend at least 10-20 hours checking out video's about the venus project (Jacque's lectures would be a place to start), THEN talk about this stuff. Seriously man, you lack SO much knowledge of how TVP would handle with stuff. Now shut your ignorant mouth and try to LEARN something today, instead of trying to hold on to bullshit.
@GoodFortuneOfficial Specialization without a price system would lead to macro-level incoherence (low synchronicity and high diversity of agents==> incoherence)
@axe863 if you damand papers from Peter for deunking then pls show us your papers how you debunk something..get lost troll you are fucking moron nothiong more...you even dont repsond if someone refutes you..if some comment has an insult then you talk about that but you dont talk how people here own you
@axe863 WTF to you :D Lol...economics is not science Peter is right about it ...even scientists make fun how economics still struggles to be science :D ahahhah EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU
But it still is an experiment, It might take us hundreds of thousands of experiments and some work to figure out if this system is applicable... I dunno. I would be super excited to try thousands of controlled experiment to see if this RBE system could work. But still.. it will not be the same as the "Actual" real deal.
SOO MUCH RANTING, I'M DONE. BYE! :D If you see that all of my comments are contradicting ... uh.. please don't kill me .. (o_o')
@arshdeep125 Youre basically saying this "It might take us hundreds of thousands of experiments and some work to figure out if ....magical unicorns exist ...but ill believe it before any such "science" is performed. Ill believe things that have absolutely no evidence of working because I want it to be true. Ill put my faith in a group that claims superiority due to its strict adherence to the scientific method while they reach conclusions based on pure opinion.
It might not work NOW. But it might be able to work in the near future.. I dunno.. I'm just throwing my two cents in..
But I do like the idea of a RBE system. But my only hypothesis is that we might just have to make a mock "RBE Video Game" and use real life random events that cause flaws .. or something like that. I think a virtual experiment could work.... if anyone would want to try that experiment, Yes I know the results will NOT be 100% hell even 60% close to the real deal.
Oh and um.. I'm just saying that its impossible to even use the "Scientific method" for even a small scale attempt in building this new system simply because the old system just won't allow it.. Nor can we start a small experiment, because it would have no actual real life value or use because its not connected globally. This RBE system is FAR to complicated to even implement globally let alone locally... see my point? We know that RBE and TVP might not work.
Well what if the TVP is just giving their own opinion? I mean yes they might be at a fail moment right now because we simply cannot conduct an experiment by actually trying to construct a "RBE" city... I mean well its because our current monetary system simply will not allow it.. because it has to create scarcity" and with that... the "TVP" cities SIMPLY Cannot be implemented. PERIOD. Which is why it fails. Its because the "Money" system that we have now won't allow it. right?
@arshdeep125 "I mean well its because our current monetary system simply will not allow it" Do you even understand what youre saying because what youre saying makes no sense. If resources are recombined and altered in such a way that there's a net gain to the individual that consumes the final good, there's profit. In a barter system, the profit could be in excess corn etc. In a monetary system, the profit would be in anything including money.
@erasmusso They shouldn't be so anti-scientific whilst preaching the virtues of science. They should build localized "quasi"-RBEs to test the feasibility under lower complexity conditions. If they actually did this they would see that allocations under a RBE are not computable given the very existence of heterogeneous trade-offs even under ergodicity of the medium in which they interact==>its Turing incomputable. This isn't just a hard barrier, its an infinite barrier.
@erasmusso Under ergodicity, one can derive the statistical properties of a system (mean, variance,skewness, kurtosis) given a sufficiently long sample (the sampling size varies from insignificant for thinned tailed distributions to much longer for heavy tailed distributions). Non-ergodicity is a much uglier condition than even heavy tailed distributions for highly optimized (H.O.T) systems, systems that are hypersensitive to unstructured for fluctuations.
@axe863 Ok, I meant simpler, simpler, simpler words, and not just ergodicity but your whole reply except the first 2 sentences. You know, how would you present your ideas to your grandmother (if she's not a genious)?
I want to talk about this with ZM or VP members, that's why I'm asking.
@erasmusso I don't know how much simpler I can make advanced biology/engineering. Real world dynamics are actually far more advanced than what Ive said or can ever understand. Ill post a relatively simple rebuttal to TVP via the impossibility of RBE's mean efficiency
Thus, even under utterly unrealistic optimal conditions, TVPs RBE must be inherently suboptimal and increasingly suboptimal as specialization and diversification intensifies.. I just irrefutably disproved the mean superiority of a global RBE with 200 year old economics. Thanks Ricardo.
This obviously is not the case. Thus for all non-trivial finite values and conditions, TVPs RBE is suboptimal. The tendency towards the full mean efficiency would require the existence of an exchange medium, heterogeneous non-linearly interacting subsystems and a credit/financial system which by their own dynamics make the system globally unsolvable and besides its not a RBE.
. In fact, TVP's RBE can only be relatively efficient in the production of 1 good if full optimality is to be reached. Under finite values, triviality exists if all values were 0 or if all possible recombinations and sets were the RBE macro-system,itself.
The set from which will will choose is every possible system and portfolio of subsystems (including dynamic portfolios of subsystems). Let us also make the ridiculous assumption that TVP RBE is absolutely efficient in the production of all N goods/services and has the highest degree of substitutability under all known potential types of fluctuations (zero uncertainty). Is a singular optimizing system such as a global RBE the optimal system. Its a very strong no.
Lets talk about mean efficiency and the inherent sub-optimality of a singular optimizing macro-system over multi interacting optimizing subsystems. All dynamics will be induced merely by their interactions, they exist in a trivial medium. It should be obvious that abstracting away from complex dynamics is beneficial to globalized computation. We'll look at a problem of the production of N goods conditional on the past period having a known optimal structure randomly shocked by a known dist.
@erasmusso This is simpler irrefutable argument against TVPs RBE. It's an impossibility for a single optimizing macro-system to be relatively efficient in the production of all N goods/services. The only non-trivial condition for which this rebuttal wouldn't hold is if the values (mean efficiency & substitutability) were infinite...which is utter nonsense.
@erasmusso Actually, I talked about economics. The only thing at the core of this that actually matters is that an optimizing macro-system (it can contain many subsystems) cannot be relatively efficient in the production of all N goods and services. I assumed optimal conditions for the global RBE and it fails under these optimal conditions to be the most efficient system. To be fully rigorous, I must consider labor dynamics, utility maximization etc but even these don't destroy my conclusion.
@axe863 And btw you talked about "optimal conditions" and "the most efficient system", sounds to me like you're talking about a Utopia. TVP is no utopia and it's not "the most efficient system", it's just better than the system we live in.
Maybe you're thinking -omg, this guy is so stupid- well this is how I can express myself, I don't know all those jargon words.
@erasmusso In mainstream economics, efficiency means that the shadow price = marginal utility of A/Price A = marginal utility of B /Price B......= marginal utility of Z/ Price Z. This is an optimization problem (not utopia) which means that youve gained the highest subjective utility for a given budget constraint. I just said efficiency in general terms.... it can be subjective (mainstream), energy , labor.... it doesnt matter the same condition applies.
@axe863 You're talking about price, but in the VP there are no prices; you take a microwave, you use it as much as you need it, when you don't need it anymore you return it to the distribution center and someone else will take it and use it. When the microwave breaks down or a better model comes out, we recycle it.
@erasmusso Did you not read what I said? It doesnt even have to be based on subjective utility...it can be based on energy, labor etc. If resources are finite, there has to be price to optimize with. If agents with different competencies specialize , they will produce higher output than if both of them generalized their production.
@erasmusso "We don't need prices if we share things." Really how exactly will the optimizing hyper-computer trade-off if people have heterogeneous time preferences (individual x will defer current consumption for higher future consumption while individual have a higher preference for current consumption) or heterogeneous risk/ uncertainty aversion.... without interest rates and prices.....the only way this will not be a problem is if the computer is an all powerful all knowing god.
@axe863 If I understood well, what you talk about fits in our current system where resources are scarce, the VP wants to make resources abundant and available to anyone, and with our current technology this is possible, the problem is that the corporations don't want that; scarce resources are more valuable. You don't need an omniscient computer and you don't need to worry about time preferences if there are enough things for everybody.
@erasmusso Please explain how post scarcity, Marxian superadundance, can exist if there are tradeoffs? Please explain if there are no tradeoffs, how the level of abundance is finite? If the level of abundance is such that there are no tradeoffs then why do you even need the optimizing "hyper computer"? Checkmate now stop parroting what Jacques Fresco says and actually learn some real science
@axe863 What tradeoffs are you talking about? Can you make an example please?
I think that the cybernated system (which only manages resources) in the VP is not the same thing as this "optimizing hyper computer" you talk about, what does this computer do?
Look, I'm not interested in people, I don't care about Jacque Fresco or Peter Joseph, I'm interested in ideas. The VP is an interesting idea and I'm just trying to find out if it's a possible alternative to our current system.
@erasmusso Parroting means you're just repeating what hes saying...which you were and still are. Please explain how the cybernated system isn't an optimizing hyper-computer if all money prices and exchange are eliminated. I don't understand why TVP/TZMers don't understand this. Let me repeat myself and explain it a little better. Interest rates only don't matter if resources are infinite (there's no need to trade off between capital formation and current consumption), zero difference between
@axe863 We're all "parroting" someone, you didn't invent all the words and phrases you use, you heard them from someone else, this is not the issue here, I'm having a hard time understanding all the technical words and concepts you're using because I have a very limited amount of knowledge in the fields of mathematics and economics. If you used simple everyday words and metaphors to explain what you think people would understand you better.
@erasmusso I don't "parrot," anything. I'm a scientist. I thoroughly consider all constructions by testing them against data to derive their statistical validity. How will you stabilize the worlds population without force when the "externalities" of "excess children" are spread out to all people? Please google "Demographic-economic paradox" and see how the price mechanism functions to voluntarily remove excess by internalizing social costs.
@axe863 I googled "demographic-economic paradox", it's the inverse correlation between wealth and fertility within and between nations. And I also found out that fertility and intelligence tend to be inversely correlated, so the formula is:
more wealth (access to resources) + more intelligence (education) = less fertility
That's how we stabilize the population without force.
"Btw, I debunked Marxian superabundance based on a tradeoff between food and medical research" - where can I find this?
@erasmusso I dont understand why you still dont understand. Even 1 in billions of billions of trade-offs in even just research would violate post scarcity. For post-scarcity to exist, TVP must assume that everything that can be discovered is and that the supercomputer makes production of these and all goods/services infinity efficient. There is no other possible condition that would satisfy zero interest rates, zero risk premium & zero prices and still be efficient.
@erasmusso Lol. Why are you trying to use my reason for non-violent population stabilization as your own? Why do you think fertile women who want children delay pregnancy during their fertile years and birth less children? They remove themselves from motherly endeavors to ensure via costly prolonged advanced education, the betterment of their children. The advancement of their children is increasingly more costly in time and funds as an economy advances to higher states.
@erasmusso Please demonstrate the trade-off when the costly advanced education becomes free and when the benefit of costly advanced education over no education becomes zero. Exactly. Plus, dont use examples that I give as your examples.
@axe863 I can't demonstrate it, I'm not an economist or a mathematician, it just makes sense.
It's not important WHO makes the example if it's used properly and makes sense. If I made an error that's what you should point out.
I don't think we can achieve much from our discussion here since we're talking two different "languages". As a VP activist I can offer you to send me a comment/question about the VP and I will ask it directly to Jacque and Roxanne at our weekly seminar, if you want.
@erasmusso This is not like solving a stochastic partial diff equation. This is not limited to mathematicians or economists. All I need to invalidate your post-scarcity ideal is the potential for even a single trade-off. It is that simple. This was one of Marx's greatest failings. Marxian superabundance assumes utopia and its highly similar derivative,RBE "post-scarcity", assumes utopia.
@erasmusso Ill give you a simple one. There's three people X,Y,Z. X wants a pool. Y wants new flooring. Z wants news shoes. X,Y,Z have very different time preferences which cannot even be imperfectly derived because interest rates (inter-temporal prices) have been eliminated. How does a supercomputer know how to order the production and distribution of goods in order to maximize the utility of X,Y,Z.
@erasmusso the subjective value of current vs future consumption (individuals are indifferent between consuming x at yr 0 or yr 40) & zero risk/uncertainty aversion (individuals dont care about bursts of volatility). Its ridiculous that TVP claims to be purely scientific whilst being anti-scientific and that TVP claims current economics assumes infinite resources whilst its actually TVP that makes that assumption because its only under infinite values that these conditions arent violated.
@axe863 In capitalism the goal is endless economic growth on a world with finite resources, right? We produce more and more and then we dump everything somewhere. For how long can we go on like this? Instead, in the VP we'd produce just the things we really need and in the amounts that we need them while recycling everything and maintaining stable the worlds population, not like today where it's increasing exponentially and of course we have more "mouths to feed" every day.
@erasmusso This is one of the main reasons why people dismiss the TVP's RBE as pure lunacy, it has all the flaws of Marxian communism and then some. If you want a better understanding of the current economic/financial crisis, I suggest you research the work of real economists/econophysicists like Ricardo Caballero, Didier Sornette, Stephen Williamson, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, Mises, Milton Friedman,Bernanke etc etc.
@axe863 Moreover, many of the things we have today will become obsolete in the VP, like cars for example will be replaced by a good public transportation system and coupled with the circular city you'd think driving a car is a waste of time and energy. The majority of the jobs will become useless in the VP, everything that has to do with money and property will not be needed. You could say that unemployment will break all records in history, know what I mean?
erasmusso Lets talk about trade-offs that invalidate non-infinite Marxian superabundance. The mere existence of an optimizing hyper-computer disproves superabundance. If the hyper-computer is to be utility maximizing, it will have to trade-off between the production of all goods/services such that the shadow price = MU1/P1+MU2/P2...If the supercomputer and/or elite scientists had to determine whether to invest more or less in cancer or crop research, there is no such thing as post scarcity.
@axe863 In the VP resources are not infinite, they're just more available, especially the basic ones. Do you know what is Maslow's hierarchy of needs? In the VP we'd try to satisfy first the bottom - basic needs and then move upwards. There would still be scarcity in the way that I couldn't have as much diamonds as I wanted (I don't even know why I'd want a diamond or gold in the VP if not for something practical). It's not a utopian post scarcity, you see?
@erasmusso I don't understand why you don't understand what infinity means. I will not repeat myself 100 times. Reread my comments and try to work it out. Now lets get to "Maslow's hierarchy of needs". Lets assume that hes correct about the hierarchy. How do you know how much individuals marginally value goods/services within every section of the pyramid and each section of the pyramid both within the period and relative to future periods? TVP cannot be utility maximizing without prices.
@erasmusso None of the data or logic supports anything that TVP holds to be TRUTH. None!!!!! It couldn't be more wrong. Theyre wrong about human nature, environment -agent interactions, capitalistic crisis, computational feasibility of their allocation mechanism, interest-money induced collapse, extremely inefficient city structures (every densifying concurrent circles = horrific logistical problems) etc etc Everything is wrong !!!!!!
@erasmusso Btw, I debunked Marxian superabundance based on a tradeoff between food and medical research which are on the first and second section of Maslow's pyramid, respectively ...so why did you even bring up Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Your position has been thoroughly destroyed. Have a nice day.
@axe863 judgin from your videos i think you have not debunked anything in your life...you just think you have...this is called having delusions ...pls get help you are a danger to others with your crazy believes
@erasmusso This is actually the kind of logic that Marx used to try to disprove Adam Smith's model of capitalism. He examined his model (which included a labor theory of value) under optimal conditions and derived its macro sub-optimality under all possible states. I used the logic of strictly nested simpler optimization conditions & the absolute efficiency of RBE to demonstrate that even under unrealistically optimal conditions, a global RBE is sub-optimal.
@axe863 Sorry for my previous sarcastic comment, I just don't understand all that mumbo-jumbo.
So you're saying that a RBE wouldn't work because we would not be able to produce all the goods and services necessary for humans?
A RBE would not be implemented overnight, as Jacque said, there would be a transitional period of at least 10 years during which we'd change things. With new technologies it'd be easier to make all the things we need.
@erasmusso No. Let me simplify it even more by abstracting away from everything else. Agent I can produce bread and fishes at lets say some effeciencies A & B whilst Agent 2 can produce bread and fishes at lets say some effeciencies C & D. Even if Agent 1 is absolutely efficient in the production of bread and fishes, there will still be trade because Agent 1 cant be relatively efficient in the production of both goods. The optimal solution would require trade and specialization. Get it now?
@axe863 So... someone will always be more efficient in the production of a certain good than someone else. Ok, but there wouldn't be trade, since everything is supposed to be free for anyone, they'd just send the extra goods to others. If Agent 1 can produce a good better than Agent 2 we'd use the method Agent 1 uses.
About specialization, you mean the specialization of humans or machines? Every machine would be specialized but not humans.
@erasmusso "So... someone will always be more efficient in the production of a certain good than someone else" NO. I said relative, not absolute efficiency. I assumed TVPS RE was absolutely more efficient in the production of all goods/services. I disproved its optimality given the impossibility of it being .....relatively.... efficient in the production of all goods. Why the hell wouldnt people be specialized? I dont understand why you want to push us 200 + years back in economic thought.
I agree with you in some points...but I think you don´t do it very good in a psychological way...its not good to first blame the guys you want to talk to and THEN explain why^^ You are absolutely correct at describing the scientific method which universities teach and that tvp/tzm are not scientific in that way...you should have focused on that explaining it better to people instead then blaiming tvp/tzm by basically emotional bad comments to scenes. I hope that helps you!
@Garrettthief On which points to you disagree. Btw,I will be a little bit more well behaved in my next video. Lets see if my videos still get disliked into oblivion. ;)
promotes quality, efficacy, endurance, plentiful harvests, and clean and sustainable environments, political transparency and democracy, mass education. With or without money this is what we really fucking need if we are expected to survive another 200 years without losing everything we've worked for thus far. This life was never a guarantee, the planet gave us a fucking chance and now we are spitting in its face. Try to tame the masses if that's your agenda or wake the fuck up. your choice
millions to suffer and starve while millions of homes go wasted, while the quality of goods and services constantly diminishes, while corporate greed corruption and totalitarianism spread across the fucking globe. Your gonna argue about some arbitrary bullshit and try and convince people that there is not a real problem because there isn't one in your bank account? Nothing is inherently good or bad, even the monetary system could work, but its too easily manipulated. We need a system that
@timothydeherrera "Nothing is inherently good or bad, even the monetary system could work, but its too easily manipulated" First, moral relativism is sickening far left bullshit. Second, you don't even understand TVP hypothesis of capitalistic crisis, a bastardization of Marxian crisis. If there is ever increasing technological unemployment as capital intensification occurs, there will be ever declining income and the sectoral imbalance between consumption and production will cause crises.
there are much more resourceful ways of dealing with supply and demand when you alleviate the monetary system and allow incentive to derive from more objectively important concrete commodities such as food and water. You want scientific proof but you ignore the fact that the concept and principals of money have never been tested over long periods of time under a condition where the global population has become so drastic, what worked for a few does not necessarily work for the many
that depends on supply and demand, if your going to make an argument for money you have to stick within the grounds of money. Objectively the value of either depends on what the true supply/demand is. Supply and demand is an inevitable law of nature which money is used to manipulate. What I am saying is that money is several thousands year old idea of dealing with supply and demand. Simply calling my argument idiotic does not make it so.
that depends on supply and demand, if your going to make an argument for money you have to stick within the grounds of money. Objectively the value of either depends on what the true supply/demand is. Supply and demand is an inevitable law of nature which money is used to manipulate. What I am saying is that money is several thousands year old idea of dealing with supply and demand. Simply calling my argument idiotic does not make it so.
@timothydeherrera Your argument is idiotic. You derive value by illiquidity. Are the 75 million tons of potatoes objectively less valuable than a refrigerator because there is no potential for trading in that particular instance?
only constant, and those who do not adapt will die. Intelligence has nothing to do with survival at the end of the day if all your using it for is to justify false ideals is some kind of institutionalized and privatized sense of science. Only paying students can have peers, and therefore only those individuals can make valid scientific analysis. Yeah why don't you test that in the REAL world and take your head out of the books for a second.
@timothydeherrera "Yeah why don't you test that in the REAL world and take your head out of the books for a second" What do you think we do with that crazy thing called data.
only constant, and those who do not adapt will die. Intelligence has nothing to do with survival at the end of the day if all your using it for is to justify false ideals is some kind of institutionalized and privatized sense of science. Only paying students can have peers, and therefore only those individuals can make valid scientific analysis. Yeah why don't you test that in the REAL world and take your head out of the books for a second.
Anyway I hate old inefficient ideas that only cater to the few. I hate how technology constantly advances and strives to overcome itself while political theory is exactly the opposite doing everything it can to remain stagnant for as long as possible. We live in a constantly evolving world and it is SCIENCE that has taught us the scope of this miraculous planet and just how rare it is. If that means nothing to you, you might as well kill yourself as far as I am concerned because change is the
Anyway I hate old inefficient ideas that only cater to the few. I hate how technology constantly advances and strives to overcome itself while political theory is exactly the opposite doing everything it can to remain stagnant for as long as possible. We live in a constantly evolving world and it is SCIENCE that has taught us the scope of this miraculous planet and just how rare it is. If that means nothing to you, you might as well kill yourself as far as I am concerned because change is the
again there is a point that things become so obvious that they shouldn't have to be stated. But actually in a world so full of ignorance and special interest propaganda, I guess there will be no such thing as a truism until man finally becomes civilized.
@timothydeherrera "again there is a point that things become so obvious that they shouldn't have to be stated." yeah.. like the fact that the sun revolves around the earth LOL... Its pretty obvious to the naked eye that the sun rises and sets==> therefore, lets just assume that the sun revolves around the earth. ;)
if you'd like a simple scientific proof of the fact that resources are inherently more valuable than money proceed with the following: define value as a means with which to survive. Walk out into a secluded and uninhabited area. Have both supplies of money and supplies of food water and wood for shelter. For the first 20 days try to survive off of eating drinking and building money into a structure. For the second twenty days drink water eat food and build a house. Then you tell me which
@timothydeherrera "Walk out into a secluded and uninhabited area. Have both supplies of money and supplies of food water and wood for shelter." ? o_0. ok. Watch me destroy this argument by your own flawed logic. If i understand you correctly, I believe you think money is secondary if trade is nonviable. Ok lets start with this: Lets say you have either 75 million tons of potatoes or a refrigerators worth of diversified food & drinks.. get where Im going with this lol. ;)
defend his reasoning. I am using my own reasoning. The very problem here is not his idea or their idea, its the fact that we have a largely uneducated and apathetic public who think its enough to go along with someone else's idea without any sort of serious analysis on their part. Anyway the money system has boiled down to an age old game. Those who make the winning moves want nothing to do with change. They methods are time tested and proven. Why risk evening the playing field.
the concept of money is thousands of years old, it was built and operates under the context of scarcity and is very much outdated. The world is nothing like it was when money first came to be, and yet, unlike other ideas from the time, we hold on to it for dear life. Purely excusing reality in the process. Are you ignorant enough to be unaware of the atrociously uneven balance of power, and equally uneven distribution of the money supply. I don't agree with Peter Joseph nor am I trying to
@timothydeherrera "the concept of money is thousands of years old, it was built and operates under the context of scarcity and is very much outdated." The concept of love is much older...so what? I think you mean money prices, not money. Do you think we can live in a post scarcity utopia LOL? "unaware of the atrociously uneven balance of power, and equally uneven distribution of the money supply." For a radically novel movement, you sound awfully Marxian.
your also saying that its not scientifically sound to conclude that resources are more inherently valuable than a piece of paper or a number in a computer because nobody has ever published a peer reviewed article proving as much? It's called truism, when something is so obvious it doesn't need to be stated. Whatever you are for or against, I hope your not oblivious to the fact that there is a real problem with the outdated monitary system and that proposing solutions is of no damage to anyone
@timothydeherrera A truism? I think you should open a book titled Scientific Method 101. Why do you think money is magical and divorced from reality...is it because youre compleltely ignorant about monetary theory? Learning monetary theory from a former musician is not a valid subsitute to postgraduate study. I find it extraordinarily peculiar that monetary theorists werent able to see these obvious truisms that a musician with zero peer reviewed research has derived.
@timothydeherrera Ill propose a solution with the same amount of scientific rigor as TVP/TZM. There are magical unicorns under the crust of the earth. If everyone in the world eats 1 pound of skittles while rubbing their head, they will emerge and cry rich nutrients effectively ending world hunger. It wont work unless if its done globally, it trequires 100% participation !!!! If it doesnt work, its because there wasnt 100% participation!!!!
@timothydeherrera Ill propose a solution with the same amount of scientific rigor as TVP/TZM. There are magical unicorns under the crust of the earth. If everyone in the world eats 1 pound of skittles while rubbing their head, they will emerge and cry rich nutrients effectively ending world hunger. It wont work unless if its done globally, it trequires 100% participation !!!! If it doesnt work, its because there wasnt 100% participation!!!!
you probably think that chemotherapy is the best possible approach for cancer. The one thing you seem to be ignoring is the corruption of the economic agenda. You can't eat money. So to place this false ideal ( MONEY) above the things that actually have relevance and indeed are the things that truly give money value in the first place. You have insanity, corruption, war economies, poison as medicine, medicine as poison, social diversion etc. all as a direct mechanism for generating profit
@timothydeherrera "You can't eat money." Althought its physically possible, its not optimal. You, also, shouldnt eat a TV, car batteries,spoons etc. You do know that you can earn "profit" in non-monetary terms. If it costs you 80 units of corn to produce X and you obtain the equivalent of 100 units of corn in terms of bread, is that not "profit"? You dont just hate working and paying for things in money prices... you also hate capitalism in general.
wow you have the original idea of taking shit out of context and making it look bad. Your voice is so obviously full of conceit that its irritating. Your not arguing from a point of willingness to admit your wrong. Therefore your whole argument is downgraded to a quarrel.
@timothydeherrera lol I was copying Peter Joseph's style ;). Im arguing that thy are not applying to scientific method to the validation of their hypothesis. How is this out of context?
@JoshAlfred27 A scientific individual does not conclude the relative superior of X to Y when he/she only has a untested hypothesis of how X and Y function. I didnt compare RBE to creationism. I demostrated the similarities between TVP/TZM proponents and creation "scientists" methods of deriving "truth."
"Do you not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove (within bounds) the relative efficiency of a non-realized system to another WITHOUT A MODEL."
Let's say we begin with a flat empty land and no nearby bodies of water. How would you design your city's corridors for less construction and operating cost factoring in vehicular transportation? Circular. How do we know? Just calculate how long the typical route would be. Does this answer not involve some kind of critical reasoning? I say it DOES.
@kmarinas86 Why do people laugh at TVP/TZM? Originality fail part 2 will deal with how Fresco ripped off Technocracy "economics." Technocracy/TVP/TZM ===> static energy based optimization (Thus, the circular cities etc). Free market ==> risk adjusted utility maximization (in which the price of energy is included w/o currently accounting for negative externalities)
According to your logic, people would laugh at Disney because he ripped off Technocratic concepts. But no one is center head of Technocratic ideas, which is dissimilar to Capitalist ideas, the obvious forerunner of which is Adam Smith. Many technocratic ideas are abstract and thus not patentable as "intellectual property". The reality is that government does not grant property protection rights for some types of inventions. Such exclusion is often justifiable, but not universally so.
@kmarinas86 This comment is on the wrong video... This is scientific method fail not originality fail ...if you can hit the dislike button ...you should know which video you're commenting on.
This has been flagged as spam show
@machwon All I will say just now though is that the word 'conspiracy' is often an autonym!
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@TheLoneTroop It didnt fall in 7 seconds, it took 37 seconds to collapse.
axe863 3 weeks ago
We can't apply a posteriori to TVP but maybe, like so many of the famous scientists, if we test it, it may be true. Give the human race a fucking chance dude. You sit here trying to shit on everything without offering anything positive to help except cynicism towards finding a solution. We have enough to clothe and feed everyone, it will be people with your shortsightedness that will ensure this never happens.
Oh, and please tell me how the fuck building 7 fell? Thanks.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@TheLoneTroop """The system that Jacques Fresco postulated sounds logical from an a priori perspective.""Write out a logical construction that proves RBE's superiority.
axe863 3 weeks ago
@axe863 RBE's superiority to what...a system that's blindly raping resources more rapidly than they are replenished. The examples of civilisations without the foresight are numerous: Aztecs, Mayans, Babylonians, Egyptians...all ruined through poor resource management that either lead to war or famine. Building 7 was buffered by 5 & 6 and yet the buildings closer to the North Tower on the West Side highway were barely touched, without a buffer...come on, wake up.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@TheLoneTroop You think this constitutes a logical proof of RBEs superiority. Under a price system, higher expectations of future price spikes cause today's prices to skyrocket and agents substitute out of said goods. Its a self correcting process. The only argument against capitalism is that some negative externalities aren't priced into the market. Under a RBE, the effect of zero laws & zero prices make all negative externalizes unpriced.
axe863 3 weeks ago
@axe863 I don't speak econmoics "the effect of zero laws & zero prices make all negative externalizes unpriced." In English please, I have googled and still don't understand. Capitalism doesn't work becasue to get rich, someone else or the environment is destroyed in the process.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@TheLoneTroop
Flip:
>I don't speak econmoics [sic]
Flop:
>Socialism is the way forward
If you "don't speak [economics]" then you necessarily can't know what's the best system.
fountainherz 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheLoneTroop 2 weeks ago
@fountainherz A lack of familiarity with technical semantics does not show a lack of understanding of the system. My argument here though isn't about economics...it's about a fundmanetal change in pysche.
TheLoneTroop 2 weeks ago
@axe863 Socialism is the way forward but you lot are so fucked up about the propoganda and total stupidity of the Cold Bore that you fail to rationalise.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@TheLoneTroop ...".come on, wake up." > all the peer reviewed research papers published in engineering journals and all the computer models on this topic.
Basically....I love science but when it disagrees with my beliefs, Ill believe in the craziest shit possible. Stay out the bushes lol.
axe863 3 weeks ago
@axe863 I have may not have read the engineering journals but I have spoken to experienced high rise structural engineers who have said that, for many reasons, the whole thing stinks. I would like your sources please, engineering journals and that which states building 7 fell in 37 seconds...though I have an opinion of the subject I remain open minded. Peer reviewed research often fails as many on your videos have pointed out so poigniantly.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@TheLoneTroop Building 7: inferior structural support, fires and a sufficient amount of debris impacting the building.
axe863 3 weeks ago
@axe863 Source?
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@TheLoneTroop Rosie & Charlie Sheen.
axe863 3 weeks ago
@axe863 The man is a breath of fresh air, I don't really understand this reference.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@axe863 It really is as simple as that. Pricing is bollocks, you sound bright enough to know how the federal reserve works so you realise that money is created out of thin air, oh and you probably know they snuck over 30 trillion dollars into the system, money conjured out of thin air that does nothing but support inflation and weaken the US dollar. We invaded Libya because Gaddafi was going to stop trading in dollars with gold instead. Saudi Arabia will go the same way.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@axe863 And war with them, overeither their oil or water reserves, is inevtibale. Our governments are puppet cunts supported by corporations with far too many resources for Public Affaris, or bribery as it's formally known.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
@axe863 Plus, I have shown how bad resource management has led to failure, you still haven't demonstrated how our current system is in any way superior to TVP.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
To me, the most amazing thing about the human brain is the ability to apply a priori knowledge to create logic. Of course this must be backed up by a posteriori knowledge to create sound logic. However, many of the fundamental laws of physics have come into existence with the former, shown true by the latter. My problem with you axe863 is this: the current system is failing: a posteriori knowledge. The system that Jacques Fresco postulated sounds logical from an a priori perspective.
TheLoneTroop 3 weeks ago
Axe863 wait until my video is ready about this topic...then i will send it to you as a respond...this video doesnt fit to my video where we all see how retarded your comment was that you claim Peter`s claims where unjustified....But Axe863 tell me this..i really want to know...are you retarded, stupid? or mentally ill? i mean looking your responses to my videos and the talk it really shows that A) you must be insane or B) you are a troll
thelion2430 1 month ago
Hateful comments. And really why have you disable the ratings!?!?!?!?!?
boramo1305 1 month ago
Comment removed
thelion2430 2 months ago
note how he has disabled the " like and dislike" ...soon he starts to block and disable comments too :D or delete them
thelion2430 2 months ago
@thelion2430 Its funny that even though you marked my comments as spam on my own channel, blocked me on your channel for no reason , told me to suck dick 3 times, called me fucking retarded and everything else...that I have yet to block you but you think im going to start blocking people and deleting comments.
axe863 1 month ago
Comment removed
thelion2430 1 month ago
@axe863 i told you the BLOCK REASON WILL BE clear in my new video...:D sure delete and block dont care ...very short I blocked you because you are insane..arguing with you is pointles you are like a creationist you ignore simple facts and make idiotic conter arguments...and my new video will show that ..and your RBE is not scientific claim will also fall...you are insane...this hard core Capitalist economics cult ppl like you are nuts :D
thelion2430 1 month ago
@axe863 Lmao, those these sheep are as ignorant as it gets, at least they provide some entertainment.
clevelandtyler2 1 month ago in playlist More videos from axe863
@GoodFortuneOfficial TVP science: documentary > peer reviewed research paper.
axe863 2 months ago
@axe863 and again i will post here this comment that i made a long time ago...the RBE idea uses ALREADY EXISTING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, TECHNOLOGY, PRACTISES AND FACTS...how you ask about peer reviewed papers for ALREADY PROVEN KNOWLEDGE, TECHNOLOGY, PRACTISES AND FACTS?? do people have to bring this papers behind your door? ?? it is like you would ask prove me that bread is real i want peer reviewed papers :Dyou are a fucking retard.
thelion2430 2 months ago
Also, TVP relies on traditional science as much as any other person does. They do not say E=MC² = false, they do not say the law of thermodynamics is false, they do not say there is or there is no higgs boson. They just try to use the knowledge for the benefit of every human being rather than for corporate profit. New technology always gets monopolized, from huge inventions such as direct current (plain: electricity) to small ones like touch detection technology.
GoodFortuneOfficial 2 months ago
Economics = not science. Mathematics is. Magically creating money out of thin air with no colleteral = not science, nor is it humane or in any way helpful to the whole.
I see your point, man, I really do. I too wish that there was a working model and a database of TVP-knowledge showing off their inventions. Though bare in mind that most of those inventions are collected from various sources. Sources that DO choose to capitalize their inventions, such as the Regenedyne Wind Turbine.
GoodFortuneOfficial 2 months ago
@GoodFortuneOfficial If I put = in front of things, it makes it true? Mainstream economics: 100,00+ (falsifiable models) published papers published in peer reviewed journals. TVP : 0 (falsifiable models) published papers in peer review journals.
Now which one is applying the scientific method?
axe863 2 months ago
@axe863 Economists don't, that's for sure. They apply the 'Make Loads 'o Profits, No Matter What' method. :)
GoodFortuneOfficial 2 months ago
fail.
rhplusmovies 2 months ago
@rhplusmovies Win
axe863 2 months ago
@axe863 Nah, fail.
GoodFortuneOfficial 2 months ago
You are utterly failing to address the very real scientific studies that are frequently quoted about all the various facets of the Resource Based Economy. Not the least of which is that "Off Grid" living is already possible and being done. An RBE is "off grid" living on a grander scale.
Leveer13 2 months ago
@Leveer13 Id be amazed to see that when individuals generalize their production, they become more efficient than when they specialized towards their core competencies and tradeoff in processes that they're relatively inefficient in. Also, I would be amazed to see ..a group of the same individuals optimizing in isolation with zero self correcting mechanism and no specialization at solving sub-components of a global problem can out-compete the same individuals in a market system
axe863 2 months ago
@axe863 And again, what you said just comes off as gibberish. And none of it in any way disproves what I said.
Leveer13 2 months ago
@axe863 You think too much in terms of now. ;)
GoodFortuneOfficial 2 months ago
@axe863 Actually, my bad. If you would, you'd see that 'now' we have the potential for more than we actually have at the moment. Correction: You think too much like.. say.. 1930.
GoodFortuneOfficial 2 months ago
@GoodFortuneOfficial this guy Axe863 ...he is a fanatic troll...there is basically no point hoping that this person will ever admit that he is wrong etc...he shows all the signs of a fanatic...you cant get a logical respond from that kind of people...by the way i made a video where i show how todays economics is not science...and i also show some other strange things about Axe863.
thelion2430 2 months ago
@thelion2430 I accept the possibility that I can be completely wrong about everything. How about you? Do you accept such a possibility? Do you accept the possibility that everything that TVP adheres to/believes in could be completely wrong?
axe863 2 months ago
@axe863 well i will use the atheist respond to that..like science is not perfect and makes mistakes and corrects it self...then sure you can have the possibility to be wrong..i would ask one thing we talk much about Fresco but not about Peter...what you say about this fact that Peter even in his new film has peaople who are scientists who talk about that in our society are somethings wrong..peter recommends books...in his lecture Social Pathology the talk is based on studies
thelion2430 1 month ago
@thelion2430 When I said atheistic with respect to things... I didnt mean it exactly because that makes no sense. I was being non-mechanistic. Peter got all his "solutions" from Fresco. Please don't use appeal to authority again. Why doesn't peter recommend peer reviewed research papers?
axe863 1 month ago
@axe863 i want to ask are you opsessed with peer reviewed research papers? what you think scinetific studies are ? ...nobody come out in the academic world with studies that have not passed the peer review. ...it seems i need to make another video...i will make a video where i show all the places where Peter talks about a claim and then he names a studie that supports it. Because it is funny how you respond...the fact that he uses real scientists equals to you " appeal to authority "
thelion2430 1 month ago
@thelion2430 I took 3 minutes out of my busy life and actually looked at the lecture social pathology. I obviously skipped around the lecture to get a random sample of his sources. One kept popping up, the book, Spirit Level. This darling of socialist/communists is founded on errors that a beginner level statistician would find appalling. Google ....Beware_False_Prophets_Jul_10.... for a complete refutation of the book (its a 100+ page long pdf file)
axe863 1 month ago
@axe863 the fact that he uses real scientists equals to you " appeal to authority "...it is not "appeal to authority" when Peter or what ever scientist talks about studies." appeal to authority " is when a claim only is based to some persons authority ( like in economics :D)..or are you claiming that not one thing that Peter claims is based on studies ? i hope you do that then i will again screen shot this and make a video and prove you wrong...peter mentions studies all the time
thelion2430 1 month ago
@axe863 Every single division of production WOULD be specialized in that what it has to do, you tard. I'm getting fed up with your ignorance. Spend at least 10-20 hours checking out video's about the venus project (Jacque's lectures would be a place to start), THEN talk about this stuff. Seriously man, you lack SO much knowledge of how TVP would handle with stuff. Now shut your ignorant mouth and try to LEARN something today, instead of trying to hold on to bullshit.
GoodFortuneOfficial 2 months ago
@GoodFortuneOfficial Specialization without a price system would lead to macro-level incoherence (low synchronicity and high diversity of agents==> incoherence)
axe863 2 months ago
@axe863 if you damand papers from Peter for deunking then pls show us your papers how you debunk something..get lost troll you are fucking moron nothiong more...you even dont repsond if someone refutes you..if some comment has an insult then you talk about that but you dont talk how people here own you
thelion2430 2 months ago
@axe863 WTF to you :D Lol...economics is not science Peter is right about it ...even scientists make fun how economics still struggles to be science :D ahahhah EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU ...EPIC FAIL FOR YOU
thelion2430 2 months ago
The user of this video has delusions that HE tells who is scientific and who not...isnt that nice...dude get help you have mental problems :)
thelion2430 2 months ago
But it still is an experiment, It might take us hundreds of thousands of experiments and some work to figure out if this system is applicable... I dunno. I would be super excited to try thousands of controlled experiment to see if this RBE system could work. But still.. it will not be the same as the "Actual" real deal.
SOO MUCH RANTING, I'M DONE. BYE! :D If you see that all of my comments are contradicting ... uh.. please don't kill me .. (o_o')
arshdeep125 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arshdeep125 Youre basically saying this "It might take us hundreds of thousands of experiments and some work to figure out if ....magical unicorns exist ...but ill believe it before any such "science" is performed. Ill believe things that have absolutely no evidence of working because I want it to be true. Ill put my faith in a group that claims superiority due to its strict adherence to the scientific method while they reach conclusions based on pure opinion.
axe863 3 months ago
It might not work NOW. But it might be able to work in the near future.. I dunno.. I'm just throwing my two cents in..
But I do like the idea of a RBE system. But my only hypothesis is that we might just have to make a mock "RBE Video Game" and use real life random events that cause flaws .. or something like that. I think a virtual experiment could work.... if anyone would want to try that experiment, Yes I know the results will NOT be 100% hell even 60% close to the real deal.
arshdeep125 3 months ago
Hey Axe863 um ...
Oh and um.. I'm just saying that its impossible to even use the "Scientific method" for even a small scale attempt in building this new system simply because the old system just won't allow it.. Nor can we start a small experiment, because it would have no actual real life value or use because its not connected globally. This RBE system is FAR to complicated to even implement globally let alone locally... see my point? We know that RBE and TVP might not work.
arshdeep125 3 months ago
Hey Axe863 um ...
Well what if the TVP is just giving their own opinion? I mean yes they might be at a fail moment right now because we simply cannot conduct an experiment by actually trying to construct a "RBE" city... I mean well its because our current monetary system simply will not allow it.. because it has to create scarcity" and with that... the "TVP" cities SIMPLY Cannot be implemented. PERIOD. Which is why it fails. Its because the "Money" system that we have now won't allow it. right?
arshdeep125 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arshdeep125 "I mean well its because our current monetary system simply will not allow it" Do you even understand what youre saying because what youre saying makes no sense. If resources are recombined and altered in such a way that there's a net gain to the individual that consumes the final good, there's profit. In a barter system, the profit could be in excess corn etc. In a monetary system, the profit would be in anything including money.
axe863 3 months ago
Comment removed
erasmusso 3 months ago
I meant to say "while individual y has a higher preference for current consumption)"
axe863 4 months ago
So what do you propose? Should we throw the VP out of the window or should we improve it?
erasmusso 4 months ago
@erasmusso They shouldn't be so anti-scientific whilst preaching the virtues of science. They should build localized "quasi"-RBEs to test the feasibility under lower complexity conditions. If they actually did this they would see that allocations under a RBE are not computable given the very existence of heterogeneous trade-offs even under ergodicity of the medium in which they interact==>its Turing incomputable. This isn't just a hard barrier, its an infinite barrier.
axe863 4 months ago
@axe863 ergodicity? ehm... I'm not a mathematician, can you explain it in simpler words please? :S
erasmusso 4 months ago
@erasmusso Under ergodicity, one can derive the statistical properties of a system (mean, variance,skewness, kurtosis) given a sufficiently long sample (the sampling size varies from insignificant for thinned tailed distributions to much longer for heavy tailed distributions). Non-ergodicity is a much uglier condition than even heavy tailed distributions for highly optimized (H.O.T) systems, systems that are hypersensitive to unstructured for fluctuations.
axe863 4 months ago
@axe863 Ok, I meant simpler, simpler, simpler words, and not just ergodicity but your whole reply except the first 2 sentences. You know, how would you present your ideas to your grandmother (if she's not a genious)?
I want to talk about this with ZM or VP members, that's why I'm asking.
erasmusso 4 months ago
@erasmusso I don't know how much simpler I can make advanced biology/engineering. Real world dynamics are actually far more advanced than what Ive said or can ever understand. Ill post a relatively simple rebuttal to TVP via the impossibility of RBE's mean efficiency
axe863 4 months ago
Thus, even under utterly unrealistic optimal conditions, TVPs RBE must be inherently suboptimal and increasingly suboptimal as specialization and diversification intensifies.. I just irrefutably disproved the mean superiority of a global RBE with 200 year old economics. Thanks Ricardo.
axe863 4 months ago
This obviously is not the case. Thus for all non-trivial finite values and conditions, TVPs RBE is suboptimal. The tendency towards the full mean efficiency would require the existence of an exchange medium, heterogeneous non-linearly interacting subsystems and a credit/financial system which by their own dynamics make the system globally unsolvable and besides its not a RBE.
axe863 4 months ago
. In fact, TVP's RBE can only be relatively efficient in the production of 1 good if full optimality is to be reached. Under finite values, triviality exists if all values were 0 or if all possible recombinations and sets were the RBE macro-system,itself.
axe863 4 months ago
The set from which will will choose is every possible system and portfolio of subsystems (including dynamic portfolios of subsystems). Let us also make the ridiculous assumption that TVP RBE is absolutely efficient in the production of all N goods/services and has the highest degree of substitutability under all known potential types of fluctuations (zero uncertainty). Is a singular optimizing system such as a global RBE the optimal system. Its a very strong no.
axe863 4 months ago
Lets talk about mean efficiency and the inherent sub-optimality of a singular optimizing macro-system over multi interacting optimizing subsystems. All dynamics will be induced merely by their interactions, they exist in a trivial medium. It should be obvious that abstracting away from complex dynamics is beneficial to globalized computation. We'll look at a problem of the production of N goods conditional on the past period having a known optimal structure randomly shocked by a known dist.
axe863 4 months ago
@erasmusso This is simpler irrefutable argument against TVPs RBE. It's an impossibility for a single optimizing macro-system to be relatively efficient in the production of all N goods/services. The only non-trivial condition for which this rebuttal wouldn't hold is if the values (mean efficiency & substitutability) were infinite...which is utter nonsense.
axe863 4 months ago
@axe863 I'll be back as soon as I get a PhD in math...
erasmusso 4 months ago
@erasmusso Actually, I talked about economics. The only thing at the core of this that actually matters is that an optimizing macro-system (it can contain many subsystems) cannot be relatively efficient in the production of all N goods and services. I assumed optimal conditions for the global RBE and it fails under these optimal conditions to be the most efficient system. To be fully rigorous, I must consider labor dynamics, utility maximization etc but even these don't destroy my conclusion.
axe863 4 months ago
@axe863 And btw you talked about "optimal conditions" and "the most efficient system", sounds to me like you're talking about a Utopia. TVP is no utopia and it's not "the most efficient system", it's just better than the system we live in.
Maybe you're thinking -omg, this guy is so stupid- well this is how I can express myself, I don't know all those jargon words.
erasmusso 4 months ago
@erasmusso In mainstream economics, efficiency means that the shadow price = marginal utility of A/Price A = marginal utility of B /Price B......= marginal utility of Z/ Price Z. This is an optimization problem (not utopia) which means that youve gained the highest subjective utility for a given budget constraint. I just said efficiency in general terms.... it can be subjective (mainstream), energy , labor.... it doesnt matter the same condition applies.
axe863 4 months ago
@axe863 You're talking about price, but in the VP there are no prices; you take a microwave, you use it as much as you need it, when you don't need it anymore you return it to the distribution center and someone else will take it and use it. When the microwave breaks down or a better model comes out, we recycle it.
We don't need prices if we share things.
erasmusso 4 months ago
@erasmusso Did you not read what I said? It doesnt even have to be based on subjective utility...it can be based on energy, labor etc. If resources are finite, there has to be price to optimize with. If agents with different competencies specialize , they will produce higher output than if both of them generalized their production.
axe863 4 months ago
@erasmusso "We don't need prices if we share things." Really how exactly will the optimizing hyper-computer trade-off if people have heterogeneous time preferences (individual x will defer current consumption for higher future consumption while individual have a higher preference for current consumption) or heterogeneous risk/ uncertainty aversion.... without interest rates and prices.....the only way this will not be a problem is if the computer is an all powerful all knowing god.
axe863 4 months ago
@axe863 If I understood well, what you talk about fits in our current system where resources are scarce, the VP wants to make resources abundant and available to anyone, and with our current technology this is possible, the problem is that the corporations don't want that; scarce resources are more valuable. You don't need an omniscient computer and you don't need to worry about time preferences if there are enough things for everybody.
erasmusso 3 months ago
@erasmusso Please explain how post scarcity, Marxian superadundance, can exist if there are tradeoffs? Please explain if there are no tradeoffs, how the level of abundance is finite? If the level of abundance is such that there are no tradeoffs then why do you even need the optimizing "hyper computer"? Checkmate now stop parroting what Jacques Fresco says and actually learn some real science
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 What tradeoffs are you talking about? Can you make an example please?
I think that the cybernated system (which only manages resources) in the VP is not the same thing as this "optimizing hyper computer" you talk about, what does this computer do?
Look, I'm not interested in people, I don't care about Jacque Fresco or Peter Joseph, I'm interested in ideas. The VP is an interesting idea and I'm just trying to find out if it's a possible alternative to our current system.
erasmusso 3 months ago
@erasmusso Parroting means you're just repeating what hes saying...which you were and still are. Please explain how the cybernated system isn't an optimizing hyper-computer if all money prices and exchange are eliminated. I don't understand why TVP/TZMers don't understand this. Let me repeat myself and explain it a little better. Interest rates only don't matter if resources are infinite (there's no need to trade off between capital formation and current consumption), zero difference between
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 We're all "parroting" someone, you didn't invent all the words and phrases you use, you heard them from someone else, this is not the issue here, I'm having a hard time understanding all the technical words and concepts you're using because I have a very limited amount of knowledge in the fields of mathematics and economics. If you used simple everyday words and metaphors to explain what you think people would understand you better.
erasmusso 3 months ago
@erasmusso I don't "parrot," anything. I'm a scientist. I thoroughly consider all constructions by testing them against data to derive their statistical validity. How will you stabilize the worlds population without force when the "externalities" of "excess children" are spread out to all people? Please google "Demographic-economic paradox" and see how the price mechanism functions to voluntarily remove excess by internalizing social costs.
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 I googled "demographic-economic paradox", it's the inverse correlation between wealth and fertility within and between nations. And I also found out that fertility and intelligence tend to be inversely correlated, so the formula is:
more wealth (access to resources) + more intelligence (education) = less fertility
That's how we stabilize the population without force.
"Btw, I debunked Marxian superabundance based on a tradeoff between food and medical research" - where can I find this?
erasmusso 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erasmusso I dont understand why you still dont understand. Even 1 in billions of billions of trade-offs in even just research would violate post scarcity. For post-scarcity to exist, TVP must assume that everything that can be discovered is and that the supercomputer makes production of these and all goods/services infinity efficient. There is no other possible condition that would satisfy zero interest rates, zero risk premium & zero prices and still be efficient.
axe863 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erasmusso Lol. Why are you trying to use my reason for non-violent population stabilization as your own? Why do you think fertile women who want children delay pregnancy during their fertile years and birth less children? They remove themselves from motherly endeavors to ensure via costly prolonged advanced education, the betterment of their children. The advancement of their children is increasingly more costly in time and funds as an economy advances to higher states.
axe863 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erasmusso Please demonstrate the trade-off when the costly advanced education becomes free and when the benefit of costly advanced education over no education becomes zero. Exactly. Plus, dont use examples that I give as your examples.
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 I can't demonstrate it, I'm not an economist or a mathematician, it just makes sense.
It's not important WHO makes the example if it's used properly and makes sense. If I made an error that's what you should point out.
I don't think we can achieve much from our discussion here since we're talking two different "languages". As a VP activist I can offer you to send me a comment/question about the VP and I will ask it directly to Jacque and Roxanne at our weekly seminar, if you want.
erasmusso 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erasmusso This is not like solving a stochastic partial diff equation. This is not limited to mathematicians or economists. All I need to invalidate your post-scarcity ideal is the potential for even a single trade-off. It is that simple. This was one of Marx's greatest failings. Marxian superabundance assumes utopia and its highly similar derivative,RBE "post-scarcity", assumes utopia.
axe863 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erasmusso Ill give you a simple one. There's three people X,Y,Z. X wants a pool. Y wants new flooring. Z wants news shoes. X,Y,Z have very different time preferences which cannot even be imperfectly derived because interest rates (inter-temporal prices) have been eliminated. How does a supercomputer know how to order the production and distribution of goods in order to maximize the utility of X,Y,Z.
axe863 3 months ago
@erasmusso the subjective value of current vs future consumption (individuals are indifferent between consuming x at yr 0 or yr 40) & zero risk/uncertainty aversion (individuals dont care about bursts of volatility). Its ridiculous that TVP claims to be purely scientific whilst being anti-scientific and that TVP claims current economics assumes infinite resources whilst its actually TVP that makes that assumption because its only under infinite values that these conditions arent violated.
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 In capitalism the goal is endless economic growth on a world with finite resources, right? We produce more and more and then we dump everything somewhere. For how long can we go on like this? Instead, in the VP we'd produce just the things we really need and in the amounts that we need them while recycling everything and maintaining stable the worlds population, not like today where it's increasing exponentially and of course we have more "mouths to feed" every day.
erasmusso 3 months ago
@erasmusso This is one of the main reasons why people dismiss the TVP's RBE as pure lunacy, it has all the flaws of Marxian communism and then some. If you want a better understanding of the current economic/financial crisis, I suggest you research the work of real economists/econophysicists like Ricardo Caballero, Didier Sornette, Stephen Williamson, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, Mises, Milton Friedman,Bernanke etc etc.
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 Have you talked to someone of the VP/ZM who understands economics as well as you do?
erasmusso 3 months ago
@erasmusso What educated economist would believe in 200-400+ year old dead fallacies?
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 Moreover, many of the things we have today will become obsolete in the VP, like cars for example will be replaced by a good public transportation system and coupled with the circular city you'd think driving a car is a waste of time and energy. The majority of the jobs will become useless in the VP, everything that has to do with money and property will not be needed. You could say that unemployment will break all records in history, know what I mean?
erasmusso 3 months ago
erasmusso Lets talk about trade-offs that invalidate non-infinite Marxian superabundance. The mere existence of an optimizing hyper-computer disproves superabundance. If the hyper-computer is to be utility maximizing, it will have to trade-off between the production of all goods/services such that the shadow price = MU1/P1+MU2/P2...If the supercomputer and/or elite scientists had to determine whether to invest more or less in cancer or crop research, there is no such thing as post scarcity.
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 In the VP resources are not infinite, they're just more available, especially the basic ones. Do you know what is Maslow's hierarchy of needs? In the VP we'd try to satisfy first the bottom - basic needs and then move upwards. There would still be scarcity in the way that I couldn't have as much diamonds as I wanted (I don't even know why I'd want a diamond or gold in the VP if not for something practical). It's not a utopian post scarcity, you see?
erasmusso 3 months ago
@erasmusso I don't understand why you don't understand what infinity means. I will not repeat myself 100 times. Reread my comments and try to work it out. Now lets get to "Maslow's hierarchy of needs". Lets assume that hes correct about the hierarchy. How do you know how much individuals marginally value goods/services within every section of the pyramid and each section of the pyramid both within the period and relative to future periods? TVP cannot be utility maximizing without prices.
axe863 3 months ago
@erasmusso None of the data or logic supports anything that TVP holds to be TRUTH. None!!!!! It couldn't be more wrong. Theyre wrong about human nature, environment -agent interactions, capitalistic crisis, computational feasibility of their allocation mechanism, interest-money induced collapse, extremely inefficient city structures (every densifying concurrent circles = horrific logistical problems) etc etc Everything is wrong !!!!!!
axe863 3 months ago
@erasmusso Btw, I debunked Marxian superabundance based on a tradeoff between food and medical research which are on the first and second section of Maslow's pyramid, respectively ...so why did you even bring up Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Your position has been thoroughly destroyed. Have a nice day.
axe863 3 months ago
@axe863 judgin from your videos i think you have not debunked anything in your life...you just think you have...this is called having delusions ...pls get help you are a danger to others with your crazy believes
thelion2430 2 months ago
@erasmusso This is actually the kind of logic that Marx used to try to disprove Adam Smith's model of capitalism. He examined his model (which included a labor theory of value) under optimal conditions and derived its macro sub-optimality under all possible states. I used the logic of strictly nested simpler optimization conditions & the absolute efficiency of RBE to demonstrate that even under unrealistically optimal conditions, a global RBE is sub-optimal.
axe863 4 months ago
@axe863 Sorry for my previous sarcastic comment, I just don't understand all that mumbo-jumbo.
So you're saying that a RBE wouldn't work because we would not be able to produce all the goods and services necessary for humans?
A RBE would not be implemented overnight, as Jacque said, there would be a transitional period of at least 10 years during which we'd change things. With new technologies it'd be easier to make all the things we need.
erasmusso 4 months ago
@erasmusso No. Let me simplify it even more by abstracting away from everything else. Agent I can produce bread and fishes at lets say some effeciencies A & B whilst Agent 2 can produce bread and fishes at lets say some effeciencies C & D. Even if Agent 1 is absolutely efficient in the production of bread and fishes, there will still be trade because Agent 1 cant be relatively efficient in the production of both goods. The optimal solution would require trade and specialization. Get it now?
axe863 4 months ago
@axe863 So... someone will always be more efficient in the production of a certain good than someone else. Ok, but there wouldn't be trade, since everything is supposed to be free for anyone, they'd just send the extra goods to others. If Agent 1 can produce a good better than Agent 2 we'd use the method Agent 1 uses.
About specialization, you mean the specialization of humans or machines? Every machine would be specialized but not humans.
erasmusso 4 months ago
@erasmusso "So... someone will always be more efficient in the production of a certain good than someone else" NO. I said relative, not absolute efficiency. I assumed TVPS RE was absolutely more efficient in the production of all goods/services. I disproved its optimality given the impossibility of it being .....relatively.... efficient in the production of all goods. Why the hell wouldnt people be specialized? I dont understand why you want to push us 200 + years back in economic thought.
axe863 4 months ago
Hello @axe863
I agree with you in some points...but I think you don´t do it very good in a psychological way...its not good to first blame the guys you want to talk to and THEN explain why^^ You are absolutely correct at describing the scientific method which universities teach and that tvp/tzm are not scientific in that way...you should have focused on that explaining it better to people instead then blaiming tvp/tzm by basically emotional bad comments to scenes. I hope that helps you!
Garrettthief 4 months ago
@Garrettthief On which points to you disagree. Btw,I will be a little bit more well behaved in my next video. Lets see if my videos still get disliked into oblivion. ;)
axe863 4 months ago
lol if you think your a scientist. you've done nothing but ad hominem anyone who disagrees with you
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
promotes quality, efficacy, endurance, plentiful harvests, and clean and sustainable environments, political transparency and democracy, mass education. With or without money this is what we really fucking need if we are expected to survive another 200 years without losing everything we've worked for thus far. This life was never a guarantee, the planet gave us a fucking chance and now we are spitting in its face. Try to tame the masses if that's your agenda or wake the fuck up. your choice
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera lol if you think this is a valid rebuttal.
axe863 5 months ago
millions to suffer and starve while millions of homes go wasted, while the quality of goods and services constantly diminishes, while corporate greed corruption and totalitarianism spread across the fucking globe. Your gonna argue about some arbitrary bullshit and try and convince people that there is not a real problem because there isn't one in your bank account? Nothing is inherently good or bad, even the monetary system could work, but its too easily manipulated. We need a system that
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera "Nothing is inherently good or bad, even the monetary system could work, but its too easily manipulated" First, moral relativism is sickening far left bullshit. Second, you don't even understand TVP hypothesis of capitalistic crisis, a bastardization of Marxian crisis. If there is ever increasing technological unemployment as capital intensification occurs, there will be ever declining income and the sectoral imbalance between consumption and production will cause crises.
axe863 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera You don't even understand the pseudo-science that you support.
axe863 5 months ago
there are much more resourceful ways of dealing with supply and demand when you alleviate the monetary system and allow incentive to derive from more objectively important concrete commodities such as food and water. You want scientific proof but you ignore the fact that the concept and principals of money have never been tested over long periods of time under a condition where the global population has become so drastic, what worked for a few does not necessarily work for the many
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
that depends on supply and demand, if your going to make an argument for money you have to stick within the grounds of money. Objectively the value of either depends on what the true supply/demand is. Supply and demand is an inevitable law of nature which money is used to manipulate. What I am saying is that money is several thousands year old idea of dealing with supply and demand. Simply calling my argument idiotic does not make it so.
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
that depends on supply and demand, if your going to make an argument for money you have to stick within the grounds of money. Objectively the value of either depends on what the true supply/demand is. Supply and demand is an inevitable law of nature which money is used to manipulate. What I am saying is that money is several thousands year old idea of dealing with supply and demand. Simply calling my argument idiotic does not make it so.
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
so are you going to actually form an argument, or is this going to be a clever case of snob response
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera Your argument is idiotic. You derive value by illiquidity. Are the 75 million tons of potatoes objectively less valuable than a refrigerator because there is no potential for trading in that particular instance?
axe863 5 months ago
"refrigerators worth of food/drink"
axe863 5 months ago
only constant, and those who do not adapt will die. Intelligence has nothing to do with survival at the end of the day if all your using it for is to justify false ideals is some kind of institutionalized and privatized sense of science. Only paying students can have peers, and therefore only those individuals can make valid scientific analysis. Yeah why don't you test that in the REAL world and take your head out of the books for a second.
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera "Yeah why don't you test that in the REAL world and take your head out of the books for a second" What do you think we do with that crazy thing called data.
axe863 5 months ago
only constant, and those who do not adapt will die. Intelligence has nothing to do with survival at the end of the day if all your using it for is to justify false ideals is some kind of institutionalized and privatized sense of science. Only paying students can have peers, and therefore only those individuals can make valid scientific analysis. Yeah why don't you test that in the REAL world and take your head out of the books for a second.
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
Anyway I hate old inefficient ideas that only cater to the few. I hate how technology constantly advances and strives to overcome itself while political theory is exactly the opposite doing everything it can to remain stagnant for as long as possible. We live in a constantly evolving world and it is SCIENCE that has taught us the scope of this miraculous planet and just how rare it is. If that means nothing to you, you might as well kill yourself as far as I am concerned because change is the
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
Anyway I hate old inefficient ideas that only cater to the few. I hate how technology constantly advances and strives to overcome itself while political theory is exactly the opposite doing everything it can to remain stagnant for as long as possible. We live in a constantly evolving world and it is SCIENCE that has taught us the scope of this miraculous planet and just how rare it is. If that means nothing to you, you might as well kill yourself as far as I am concerned because change is the
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
again there is a point that things become so obvious that they shouldn't have to be stated. But actually in a world so full of ignorance and special interest propaganda, I guess there will be no such thing as a truism until man finally becomes civilized.
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera "again there is a point that things become so obvious that they shouldn't have to be stated." yeah.. like the fact that the sun revolves around the earth LOL... Its pretty obvious to the naked eye that the sun rises and sets==> therefore, lets just assume that the sun revolves around the earth. ;)
axe863 5 months ago
of these two concepts are necessarily irreplaceable
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
if you'd like a simple scientific proof of the fact that resources are inherently more valuable than money proceed with the following: define value as a means with which to survive. Walk out into a secluded and uninhabited area. Have both supplies of money and supplies of food water and wood for shelter. For the first 20 days try to survive off of eating drinking and building money into a structure. For the second twenty days drink water eat food and build a house. Then you tell me which
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera "Walk out into a secluded and uninhabited area. Have both supplies of money and supplies of food water and wood for shelter." ? o_0. ok. Watch me destroy this argument by your own flawed logic. If i understand you correctly, I believe you think money is secondary if trade is nonviable. Ok lets start with this: Lets say you have either 75 million tons of potatoes or a refrigerators worth of diversified food & drinks.. get where Im going with this lol. ;)
axe863 5 months ago
defend his reasoning. I am using my own reasoning. The very problem here is not his idea or their idea, its the fact that we have a largely uneducated and apathetic public who think its enough to go along with someone else's idea without any sort of serious analysis on their part. Anyway the money system has boiled down to an age old game. Those who make the winning moves want nothing to do with change. They methods are time tested and proven. Why risk evening the playing field.
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
the concept of money is thousands of years old, it was built and operates under the context of scarcity and is very much outdated. The world is nothing like it was when money first came to be, and yet, unlike other ideas from the time, we hold on to it for dear life. Purely excusing reality in the process. Are you ignorant enough to be unaware of the atrociously uneven balance of power, and equally uneven distribution of the money supply. I don't agree with Peter Joseph nor am I trying to
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera "the concept of money is thousands of years old, it was built and operates under the context of scarcity and is very much outdated." The concept of love is much older...so what? I think you mean money prices, not money. Do you think we can live in a post scarcity utopia LOL? "unaware of the atrociously uneven balance of power, and equally uneven distribution of the money supply." For a radically novel movement, you sound awfully Marxian.
axe863 5 months ago
your also saying that its not scientifically sound to conclude that resources are more inherently valuable than a piece of paper or a number in a computer because nobody has ever published a peer reviewed article proving as much? It's called truism, when something is so obvious it doesn't need to be stated. Whatever you are for or against, I hope your not oblivious to the fact that there is a real problem with the outdated monitary system and that proposing solutions is of no damage to anyone
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera A truism? I think you should open a book titled Scientific Method 101. Why do you think money is magical and divorced from reality...is it because youre compleltely ignorant about monetary theory? Learning monetary theory from a former musician is not a valid subsitute to postgraduate study. I find it extraordinarily peculiar that monetary theorists werent able to see these obvious truisms that a musician with zero peer reviewed research has derived.
axe863 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera Ill propose a solution with the same amount of scientific rigor as TVP/TZM. There are magical unicorns under the crust of the earth. If everyone in the world eats 1 pound of skittles while rubbing their head, they will emerge and cry rich nutrients effectively ending world hunger. It wont work unless if its done globally, it trequires 100% participation !!!! If it doesnt work, its because there wasnt 100% participation!!!!
axe863 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera Ill propose a solution with the same amount of scientific rigor as TVP/TZM. There are magical unicorns under the crust of the earth. If everyone in the world eats 1 pound of skittles while rubbing their head, they will emerge and cry rich nutrients effectively ending world hunger. It wont work unless if its done globally, it trequires 100% participation !!!! If it doesnt work, its because there wasnt 100% participation!!!!
axe863 5 months ago
you probably think that chemotherapy is the best possible approach for cancer. The one thing you seem to be ignoring is the corruption of the economic agenda. You can't eat money. So to place this false ideal ( MONEY) above the things that actually have relevance and indeed are the things that truly give money value in the first place. You have insanity, corruption, war economies, poison as medicine, medicine as poison, social diversion etc. all as a direct mechanism for generating profit
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera "You can't eat money." Althought its physically possible, its not optimal. You, also, shouldnt eat a TV, car batteries,spoons etc. You do know that you can earn "profit" in non-monetary terms. If it costs you 80 units of corn to produce X and you obtain the equivalent of 100 units of corn in terms of bread, is that not "profit"? You dont just hate working and paying for things in money prices... you also hate capitalism in general.
axe863 5 months ago
wow you have the original idea of taking shit out of context and making it look bad. Your voice is so obviously full of conceit that its irritating. Your not arguing from a point of willingness to admit your wrong. Therefore your whole argument is downgraded to a quarrel.
timothydeherrera 5 months ago
@timothydeherrera lol I was copying Peter Joseph's style ;). Im arguing that thy are not applying to scientific method to the validation of their hypothesis. How is this out of context?
axe863 5 months ago
Wow...you're BRILLIANT!
mdlittle5466 5 months ago
@mdlittle5466 Thanks. Given that this video has been disliked to near oblivion, Im surprised that you even found this video.
axe863 5 months ago
I just noticed you compared creationism to RBE. LMAO dude. The system is ready to be tested, just as capitalism is still being tested every day.
JoshAlfred27 5 months ago
You keep saying that vp hasn't used the scientific method, how might they? They can't perform testing without the money to do it.
JoshAlfred27 5 months ago
@JoshAlfred27 A scientific individual does not conclude the relative superior of X to Y when he/she only has a untested hypothesis of how X and Y function. I didnt compare RBE to creationism. I demostrated the similarities between TVP/TZM proponents and creation "scientists" methods of deriving "truth."
axe863 5 months ago
14 Zeitards hate the scientific method.
axe863 6 months ago
10 Zeitards hate the scientific method.
axe863 6 months ago
"Do you not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove (within bounds) the relative efficiency of a non-realized system to another WITHOUT A MODEL."
Let's say we begin with a flat empty land and no nearby bodies of water. How would you design your city's corridors for less construction and operating cost factoring in vehicular transportation? Circular. How do we know? Just calculate how long the typical route would be. Does this answer not involve some kind of critical reasoning? I say it DOES.
kmarinas86 6 months ago
@kmarinas86 I mean real efficiency not just static energy efficiency.
axe863 6 months ago
@axe863
"Do you not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove (within bounds) the relative efficiency of a non-realized system to another WITHOUT A MODEL."
"I mean real efficiency not just static energy efficiency."
What is the input (denominator) and what is the output (numerator) that goes into your calculation of "real efficiency"?
kmarinas86 6 months ago
@kmarinas86 Why do people laugh at TVP/TZM? Originality fail part 2 will deal with how Fresco ripped off Technocracy "economics." Technocracy/TVP/TZM ===> static energy based optimization (Thus, the circular cities etc). Free market ==> risk adjusted utility maximization (in which the price of energy is included w/o currently accounting for negative externalities)
axe863 6 months ago
@axe863
According to your logic, people would laugh at Disney because he ripped off Technocratic concepts. But no one is center head of Technocratic ideas, which is dissimilar to Capitalist ideas, the obvious forerunner of which is Adam Smith. Many technocratic ideas are abstract and thus not patentable as "intellectual property". The reality is that government does not grant property protection rights for some types of inventions. Such exclusion is often justifiable, but not universally so.
kmarinas86 6 months ago
@kmarinas86 This comment is on the wrong video... This is scientific method fail not originality fail ...if you can hit the dislike button ...you should know which video you're commenting on.
axe863 6 months ago