The problem with Zeitgeist's solution is that it would require huge populations of people to suddenly miraculously act in noble and altruistic ways, Molyneux's would only require them to act in their own RATIONAL SELF INTEREST.
At any rate, I don't see how it somehow a collective responsibility of society to ensure that people are happy. There's really no way to "ensure" this to begin with, the idea of collective responsibility is deeply questionable, and I'm not sure how you would enforce it without violence. Especially if the chief factor in happiness is material equality. Really, the only way to enforce that is with violence. Or am I wrong?
I wish I had the patience to type out all my thoughts in a coherent way; I just find myself aggravated by the characters limit on YouTube. The problem I have with the idea of businesses under any "market" being put at the top of social contribution is that, as a consequence, people are taught that monetary acquisition is the difference between a "winner" and a "loser". And how could one accept the debasement of "losing" when he could be a "winner", at least in appearance.
@Omgadnowai and once you put a communal-organization to do the wealth redistribution you involuntary create a institution that serves as a magnet to the most cut-trough ppl to claim the ladder to this power and you get the reverse of what you expected to get. Humans are fallible and any solution that try to stifle change (i.e. create overseer is doomed to failure) because no society or ecosystem is static.
@Omgadnowai => at least in market system you give a chance of competition to counter any successful business/person who decided to go against the community in a non-violent way and win. In creating a top-down structure to control cut-trough businesses you rely on Utopian view of super benevolent unfalible being or group of them that will solve the problem. I say the best solution to the problem is peer-competition not a super committee
My point about inequality generating unhappiness is not so much the "lack of stuff" as it is a matter of "status". In any given society, being treated or considered inferior to another human being generates in the concerned individual(s) aberrant behaviors as they try to counterpoint that pressure. Whether harmful to others or to the self, these behaviors aren't desirable for a healthy human being. For one to succeed, many have to fail, and that makes me uneasy.
@Omgadnowai you can't make everybody succeed we can only strive to make the percentage of wining bigger. Only market transaction is voluntary exchange where both sides win. Otherwise they wont enter that transaction.
If you want to put things in terms of winning and losing, I suppose I don't see how there could be an alternative. People are not omnipotent. We don't always do the right thing. We make mistakes. Many times, the consequences are significant. Concordantly, it's only reasonable that the person who suffers those consequences is the one who made the blunder. I don't see how to get around this.
I'm not sure why you keep putting "market" in quotes. A market is just people freely and voluntarily exchanging things; time, labor, production, ideas, etc. They are the zenith of freedom and morality.
A good solution to inequality of status is to educate people to understand that humans have intrinsic value. We are more than what we accomplish. I'm not quite sure what solution you're suggesting?
Yes, markets allow for the possibility that a business will fail. But that misses the point: *businesses (or whatever manages the means of production) are going to fail one way or another!* It's just a question of what happens next. Are they propped up, wasting resources in perpetuity? Does some third party bear the consequences of their failure? Neither of those are rational or moral.
Re: "For one to succeed, many have to fail" That's not strictly true, and it misses the point: people are going to fail anyway. People make mistakes, bad judgements. It's only natural. Yes, of course that's unfortunate. But what are you going to do about it? Look, I'm a huge proponent of charity–that is, *voluntary* charity. And that's where morality compels me to stop. I can't force anyone to be charitable, and I can't force a third party to bear the consequences of someone's failure. Period.
You already agreed that just about every resources other than oil is infinite, long as it's managed sustainably (a consequence of privatization). You also agreed that human ingenuity is our greatest resource. And what ingenuity does is it INVENTS new resources by discovering new ways to use what we have more efficiently. Oil didn't exist as a resource 300 years ago. Radioactive particles weren't resources until 70 years ago. If you say "resources are limited," you miss the forest for the trees.
Why? Because it can't happen. As soon as you jack prices up, new competition floods the market, as it does in any market where a profit is to be made. And if you were going into debt to undercut the competition, you now have no way to pay it off, and you go out of business. Problem solved.
Another thing: we hear a good deal in the video about monopolies "undercutting" the competition. And the consumer, who benefits from lower prices, should complain about this why? Undercutting the competition is the whole bloody point of business, and it is *by definition* progress.
What wasn't brought up is how monopolies supposedly then jack up the prices after the competition is gone. Trouble is, this has never ever happened, ever, as the great Murray Rothbard explains in his lectures.
Their idea is still voluntary, if their system works, great. If not, people are free to leave (unless that changes, I don't see a problem). So we can respect that very much. I would want them to try their idea...and other people can try theirs. As soon as agression enters the picture though...
Food, water, wood, and animals are infinite. Atomic fuels, metals, and other minerals are "finite" in the same sense that solar energy is "finite." The only resource that can even be remotely consider finite is oil, and there is (despite maddening claims to the contrary) some debate on that topic.
And the most important resource of all, human ingenuity (which endlessly allows us to use resources more efficiently), is infinite.
@ThingWhatKicks I agree with most of what you said. Water, food, wood and animals are infinite as long as we consume them in a sustainable way. But we're consuming them at a faster rate than they take to regenerate. And many scientists agree that the damage caused by extreme unsustainable consumption sometimes cant be repaired. I agree that our greatest resource is ingenuity, unfortunately in this system you need money to develop it, for example Tesla coil, unlimited free electric energy.
@ThingWhatKicks Of course not, if people see that if they consume them fast and make the resources scarce they will obtain a higher profit, sustainable consumption is never going to be achieved, the best example is oil, we're definetely consuming it a faster rate than it regenerates, and the more scarce it is, the most profit you're going to get. And money does not necessarily mean resources, but in this system, unfortunately, you need money to get access to resources.
It is wrong on so many levels to think any sort of algorithm in a top-down manner can calculate any sort of resource allocation.
if 6 billion ppl want to buy just a car and a house ... i don't think you can satisfy this need with the current Earth resources. Not to mention when the Earth population double or triple. I'm not talking anything else just those 2 things..
@TheMraptor What TVP proposes is a value change so that "6 billion people dont want to buy a car...". An efficient and technical solution to that problem would be designing cities that dont need cars as a mean of transportation. Allocation of resources doesn't forcefully need prices, it needs advanced mathematics calculating the resources available in certain area and the number of people who need them. I recommend the book "Looking Forward" by Jacque Fresco, its available online and it's short.
Unless you plan to do away with individuality (good luck on that), the *efficient* allocation of resources, by definition, requires that you take people's preferences into account. Prices are nothing more and nothing less than the most parsimonious way of accounting for personal preferences. The idea that prices are somehow bad is nonsensical.
@ThingWhatKicks I never said they were evil, I'm saying they're no longer efficient, they're obsolete. And what is individuality? You think that having a different house, a different car, different clothes is idividuality? If you believe so, then advertising has successfully blinded you. For me individuality is a state of mind, having your own ideas and being able to express them, not necessarilly material goods. Read "Looking Forward", it has an extended chapter about individuality in an RBE.
The idea that any and all desire for particular material goods is the product of evil advertising is insulting and historically nonsensical. Obviously, modern advertising has *exaggerated* this desire, but it has nevertheless always been very strong.
Anyway, am I allowed to prefer corn over carrots? Pork over chicken? Go over Chess? Skiing over boating? Football over hockey? Et cetera. The only way to express these preferences, in trade, is with prices. Explain to me otherwise.
@ThingWhatKicks Those preferences are completely fine, they're rational and they would be ok within an RBE. But on the other hand, trade combined with advertising make you have preferences that are purely based on mantaining conspicuous consumption, and hence mainting a social status and excesive profit for those who sell those kinds of luxurious goods. I recommend you watch the documentary "Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood" for further information on this matter.
If you agree that those preferences are fine, then you've just accepted the concept of prices. Prices are nothing more than quantified preferences.
If you're against prices, you're against quantifying preferences, which means you have no rational way to *fulfill* billions of competing preferences. That's the economic calculation problem in a nutshell. Unless TVP can demonstrate how to quantify preferences sans prices (which was not demonstrated in the vid), it cannot work.
What, pray tell, about prices is "no longer efficient"? You must mean they are no longer efficient under a socialized, totalitarian state. Well, obviously.
But prices in a voluntary society would be more efficient and necessary than ever.
I skimmed "Looking Forward," got bored, and stopped. If you have a specific page you desperately think I should read, please cite it.
@ThingWhatKicks Man, I also got bored reading John Locke, Bastiat, Smith and Ayn Rand and Mises but I have to know them and understand them in order to have arguements against them, I cannot just randomly refute what they say if I don't know what they're saying. Its a shame you cannot take 2 or 3 hours of your life to read a book, but If thats the case, the pages you should read is 55 and 85. Peace!
@giancarlo3000 I agree that in some narrow small community or some vertical market you may be able to approximate the 'price mechanism', but not on a big scale, there is too much variables (it is the same thing to say you can calc the exact weather everywhere). With an algorithm and/or state you have a top down system, you can't calculate bottom-up process with top-down process if we talk more abstractly.
@TheMraptor I think the concept can also be implemented in a large scale if there was real commitment, if people changed their values and realize what's really important, a happy and meaningful life doing what you actually want without worrying about your own survival, spending time with family, cultivating the arts and sciences, improve the technology for humanity's betterment etc. It's vital that we adjust our values to the earth's capacities if we want to survive in a long term as a species.
@giancarlo3000 Too many if's. And in no time of history and the future people in the majority will satisfied to live spartan life.
And what is good for the ecosystem is not always clearcut solution. That is why you need people working in cooperation and competition, The price is the unbiased feedback arbiter which no scientific-model can reproduce.
@giancarlo3000 you forget that ppl are unpredictable. F.e. I don't want to live in a city, I want to live in big house on the beach. No matter what clever engineering approach you take you always will hit limited resources, limited area, limited anything...
Only one person can have the original Mona Lisa in his house. Human desires are unlimited, human ingenuity is limited.
@TheMraptor I don't think the desires are unlimited, the desires are imprinted by culture. Unfortunately we live in a culture that makes you want many things you don't actually need, like a big house at the beach with the original Mona Lisa in it. That is why Jacque Fresco explains that a change of values is essential in order to make this system a success. I recommend you read the book "Looking Forward" by Jacque Fresco, it has a list of values that are vital for humanity's happy survival.
@giancarlo3000 There is only 2 ways to resolve conflicts over limited-anything one is force (we exclude that as option), the other is negotiation. Negotiation means exchange based on pros/cons... you give up something to get something. This something has to have a 'label'/price. You can hide it in computer-model but it is still there. You have to have a way to quantify the worth of everybody private property and wealth. Otherwise you are calling for equal redistribution..!
@TheMraptor Well instead of prices and property the TZM proposes a new concept called "strategic access" which means that nobody needs to own anything because all goods are available at request. Have you ever thought why you need property? I believe it's because you want to have instant access to something, and in this system the only way to get is by owning it. F.e. If you need a car, you use it and then you return it for other people to use it, if you need it again it is given to you, etc.
The great thing about anarcho-capitalism, unlike TVP, is that no change in values is necessary.
"Strategic access" suffers greatly from the tragedy of the commons. What, other than spartan ideology, is to prevent people from "abusing" the system.
We need not adjust our capacities to the earth; through ingenuity we adjust the earth to fit us. That's why it's maddening to hear about "finite" resources. TVP solves a problem that doesn't exist.
@ThingWhatKicks Ok, you believe that earth's resources are unlimited, I certainly cannot tell you wether that's true or not, I don't have the technical knowledge to determine that, and neither do you, I believe. If you want to know if resources on earth are really unlimited, don't ask an economist, ask a geologist, an agronomist, an engineer, a cartographyst, etc. I can recommend 2 documentaries which consult experts (actual scientists) "Pyramids of waste" and "There's no tomorrow".
Price and property are mere extensions of preference and natural law. I own my time and labor, obviously. Therefore, what I produce with my time and labor is my property. Price is nothing more than my preferences, quantified. A system without property is a system in which I do not own my time and labor, and a system without price is a system in which my preferences cannot be fulfilled. Address that, will you?
@ThingWhatKicks Property's not a natural law, its an abstraction created to obtain exclusivity of use over goods under the idea that there is not enough on this earth for everybody. In a system without property you don't "own" yourself, that is a modern economic concept, "owning yourself". Instead of owning yourself you ARE yourserlf, you are free. Preferences are quantified according to the individual interests, if you want to be a painter, painter parapharnalia would be supplied to you.
I didn't say property is a natural law. I said it's an EXTENSION of natural law. I am axiomatically free, therefore I (not some third party) control what I do with my time/labor. Concordantly, I (not some third party) control what my time/labor produces. If I don't control the produce of my time and labor, then I'm not really free, am I?
"Quantify" means to "attach a number to something." Saying, "preferences are quantified according to individual interests" is technobabble; i.e., a meaningless statement designed to obfuscate rather than clarify. To quantify individual interests (which are the same thing as preferences), you must convert them into a number, which is WHAT price IS. (I.e., "I am willing to give you $0.021 gold for that side of pork.") If you're against prices, you're against quantification by definition.
I see your point, but I'm kind of bummed at the way the "market" operates right now. It doesn't "ask" people what they want, it merely uses advertising to promote desires. And it works, as should be expected. However, the orientation of said advertising and market economy is, at the moment, a cutthroat wasteful one. That which is produced is produced with no regards for environmental limitations. Human desires should be satisfied to the extent the environment allows it.
@ThingWhatKicks Prices are sadly not fixed by mere demand at the moment. The notion of monetary acquisition is based on differential advantage (man I hate saying that), and in a culture where rampant consumerism is the norm, that means any strategy is good in order to acquire money, even if it implies generating scarcity for the purpose of creating low supply for a given demand, thus higher prices. Value is now purely monetary, with no regard for "environmental value".
With a bit of thought, perhaps a static "currency pool" could work, with prices of given goods and resources would increase or decrease based on the current system's production capacity, and people would be allocated a static amount of "currency" to spend on things they need through a computerized system, with perhaps a "public currency pool" where citizens get to distribute their "public currency" on projects. As more efficiency is achieved, the prices of "projects" decrease.=>
=> I have no idea what I'm saying, since I'm no math wiz, but I definitely can't see how you can hope to satisfy infinite amounts of manufactured desires. Ask people what they want, don't suggest to them "You want this or that" in ways so subtle they're literally engineered to consume under their own. Educate them so they can see the sense in increasing a society's efficiency, and they will "allocate" their "currency" on public projects that aim to do that.
Environmental limitations can only be determined if the environment is privately owned; meaning that there is someone who directly bears the cost of poor environmental management. If the environment is owned communally, it is subject to the tragedy of the commons and we should not be surprised that people make decisions w/o regard to environmental costs. The only way they'll care is if they have to bear the costs individually.
You can't just "create" scarcity. The only way to do it is with a cartel (this has been the dream of uber-businessmen forever), but there has literally _never_ been a case where a cartel was sustained for more than a few months *in a voluntary market*. Even the early American railroads couldn't manage to hold a cartel together, even when there were only two or three (!!) competitors in the market. It wasn't until the railroad barons got the Federal government involved that the cartels stuck.
Thus it is impossible to create artificial scarcity without violence, particularly statist violence.
No one believes that the "market" (you are correct to put it in quotes) is currently free in any sense. So we would naturally expect to find lots of problems cropping up.
Differential advantage is just business-speak for "peaceful market progress."
Environmental value should be expressed monetarily (what else could it be expressed in?) and it would be, in a system of privatization.
The total quantity of precious metals is relatively static (unlike fiat currency, of course) and so as productivity increases, prices decline. That's how money (i.e., precious metals) works.
Natural desire is infinite; forget about manufactured desire. How to satisfy it? With endless improvements to productivity. A first-world standard of living is a x1000 what it was 500 years ago. Who's to say that productivity can't continue to increase indefinitely? Of course it can. And it will, if we can keep the state off our backs.
I don't know what you mean by "public projects." I don't like public anything, because individuals do not bear the costs for abusing public things. Privatize!
I assume the only distinction between you and I regarding the perception of human societies is I really can't find a good reason why someone who's unable to participate VERY successfully in the market should be subject to biosocial pressures emanating from the inequality in social status. We are, along with "consuming beings", social beings, and a huge chunk of our identity and behavior is shaped by social pressures. Factual inequality leads to stress, as far as I've seen.
"Weeding out the failures", as Stephan said at a point in the discussion, is a social disposition I find to be on the cutthroat side of "market economies". Human beings are happier (isn't that the purpose of finding a proper socio-economic system ?) when regarded as equals by their peers. I sincerely cannot see how you can extrapolate more happiness comes out of mundane subservience to the owners of ideas/capital than from equality.
No, we agree. I see no reason why someone who isn't a star businessman/employee (and thus not rich) should be treated negatively. Why do you think they will be? Most people are not exceptional. Fortunately, most people also understand that material inequality is a very childish reason to mistreat someone. And I don't know anyone who's stressed out because they don't have as much stuff as someone else. That's a very childish reason to be stressed, don't you think?
Re: "Weeding out the failures." It is a feature of voluntary markets that capital goods flow towards the people who can manage them most efficiently. If your business is making losses, it is harming everyone by wasting resources. Are you saying that failing businesses should be propped up, in the name of social justice? I've never heard that one before, but that leads to the question--who pays? I'm sure not going to fund someone to keep wasting resources, just so they'll feel socially adequate.
Of course I'd like people to be happy, but I think that relevance of material equality is very minor. And may I counter by suggesting that people are happiest when they are functioning at their full potential, and are surrounded by friends/family who they mutually love and care for? Material equality means, by necessity, that some people are not being rewarded commensurately for functioning at their full potential.
I don't know what you mean by "mundane subservience to the owners of ideas/capital." Are you denigrating people who voluntarily choose to be employed…? The vast majority of people haven't the ability to run a profitable business, but--thanks to employment--they can still live like kings.
Nevertheless, work is of course merely a means to happiness, not an end in and of itself. And voluntary markets create the most productive workers.
In such a system, I suppose you would determine prices not based on demand but rather on the environmental limitations. People's demands would revolve around those limitations, and prices would adapt based on the efficiency of the whole, decreasing as more efficiency is attained and vice versa. Basically, ask people what they want among the available goods/projects, and let them allocate their currency share. But their currency pool is static and their participation is direct.
And, although potential resources are effectively unlimited, products are limited (there is only so much pork, only so much corn, only so many hockey skates, etc.) and capital goods (factories, etc.) are limited. So the only way to ensure that everyone's preferences are fulfilled in the fairest way possible (i.e., the most economically efficient manner) is to QUANTIFY those preferences (i.e., put a price on them).
@ThingWhatKicks I don't know what to say, you seem to have pretty solid arguements and its obvious that the answers I have won't satisfy you. It seems to me that I lack the necessary knowledge to refute many of your theoretical arguements. The best I can do to inform you about our ideas is recommend you literature, articles, documentaries. Peace.
@ThingWhatKicks I was thinking along the same lines.. What is the most basic thing in Science even more fundamental than the Scientific method itself ? It is Quantifying ..w/o "quantity" you can't have Science, you can't have computers, you can't have measurement... what distinguish our and giancarlo opinions is, IS this Quantity personal property OR communal property. And BTW I'm computer programmer and have some knowledge on AI in general.
And you haven't explained how limited products will be allocated if preferences and individual interests can't be quantified. (Because quantifying them, by definition, means putting a price on them.) If you answer is "to change people's values," fine. Trouble is, there's nothing morally wrong with wanting "more." Whereas the only condition for anarcho-capitalism is non-aggression, and aggression is obviously amoral. So that's an easier pill to swallow.
Stefan explained how profit works. A profitable industry attracts more producers, who bid down the cost and neutralize profits. And if you own a resource, you have every incentive to utilize it sustainably, because you suffer the consequences if it is depleted. It's only when resources are put in common (i.e., "strategic access," statism, etc.) that the tragedy occurs.
Money by definition means resources. You are confusing money with fiat currency, which is NOT money. And saying "you need money to get access to resources," is simply saying, "you need to offer something of value in return." Why is that unfortunate?
@giancarlo3000 There is only 2 ways to resolve conflicts over limited-anything one is force (we exclude that as option), the other is negotiation. Negotiation means exchange based on pros/cons... you give up something to get something. This something has to have a 'label'/price. You can hide it in computer-model but it is still there. You have to have a way to quantify the worth of everybody private property and wealth. Otherwise you are calling for equal redistribution!
@stefbot you touched the subject of the impossibility of infinite economic growth. I believe the thinking behind that is based on the view that since economy is measured by GDP, it is true that it is not a value in itself, even though that is how it is often portrayed. These "degrowth" people have a valid point, but they seem to often mix up these concepts such as consumerism and production with GDP etc...
@glasnikov i was trying to say that the "cult" of GDP growth is indeed something that must be argued against. It is a real problem, that economic growth is associated with this brute measure called the GDP. Unfortunately people often think this means that economic growth is bad or impossible or unsustainable, when they are actually talking about this perverted measure of economic growth.
My gut instinct before I listened was that the hiway to hell is paved with good intentions, why improve upon nature, sovereign humans do not recognize all these governments and debt slave jobs, and corporatons and on and on. Enlightened disengagement is the only response to the parasitical Rothschild false debt slave system.
Its not money its USURY, its false debt, its false debt slavery, its immoral extorted theft called tax, its false debt called war. Thats the problem when a group of humans use a control stratigy the above to enslave humanity into false debt forcing immoral submission to liars thieves and mass murders. Enlightened disengangement, individual freedom, sovereign human, thats the answer, nature is no liar, nature will provide, it gives you air food and water. Be human reject the debt money.
One problem I've noticed with people who object to a Resource Based Economy is they seem to think the change is going to happen overnight. Almost all the arguments against it I've heard imply this. Yeah. If you try to implement the system overnight, there would be a lot of problems because people are conditioned to the monetary system. People think money is the only incentive because they live in a monetary system. Unbeknownst to them, the structure of the money system creates that mindset.
All Stefan says about prices is understandable but does he not understand that almost half the worlds population is living under poverty? Money gives you this self-preserving ideology, it's a little hard to explain. Money controls earth, fact. From birth, you are taught to take care of yourself, then money is introduced as if it were a natural causation. Working for ones' self... it forces you to have a self-oriented mindset.
There is so much I can say, just not enough space.
@CntthnkO15 the point was that money creates selfishness and selfishness leads to non-care for others, or you consider yourself more important over another when you make decisions. Money people aren't socially responsible, because they don't know what it is and it comes back to their point about childhood being a time where you are conditioned to act in a certain way by schools or ignorant parents/guardians.
That's not money, though. That's scarcity itself. Reality itself imposes limitations on which satisfactions can be pursued simultaneously.
Suppose a caveman has some extra meat at the end of the day, and the choice to either feed a starving stranger, gorge himself on more than he needs or to trade the meat for something else that he might need later.
What difference does it make to this situation whether or not there is a commonly accepted currency? How would that -
@PanzerDivisionBOM If we organize our production and upgrade to full technology, we would be able to feed, cloth, and house all humans. In this system, it isn't possible because there aren't that many jobs available and in the near future, many will be disappearing.
So you're saying producers purposefully restrict their output, forsaking a competitive advantage and the prospect of enormous profits until their competitors catch up?
Furthermore, it's not just one industry for a brief time or the jurisdiction of one (potentially competition-inhibiting) state, but ALL producers everywhere and forevermore?
Or, is it just that the technology, under present conditions of scarcity and of its own maturity, is itself wasteful and -
You know, if you people actually believed in this fantastic technology you keep spouting as the solution to all problems, you wouldn't be making videos on YouTube and asking for donations. You would find some part of the last remnants of the market economy where you're still allowed by the state to use it, and you'd make enough money to build a dozen cities.
So anytime someone consumes more than they "should", you consider this proof that it is appropriate to-
categorize them as non-human? In practical terms, what does that mean for the purposes of your political policy, exactly? You'll forgive me my hyperbole if I'm a little bit leery about statements like that. -
You just admitted that money has nothing to do with the programming. It exists in the absence of money. In fact, since it applies both to modern men and to pre-historic cavemen, might we make the leap that it applies to all observable and theoretically observable men throughout human history?
Would you also say it applies to animals? I'm thinking you almost have to, since you characterize the behaviour as non-human. Right?
That's not money, though. That's scarcity itself. Reality itself imposes limitations on which satisfactions can be pursued simultaneously.
Suppose a caveman has some extra meat at the end of the day, and the choice to either feed a starving stranger, gorge himself on more than he needs or to trade the meat for something else that he might need later.
What difference does it make to this situation whether or not there is a commonly accepted currency? How would that -
- affect the basic nature of the situation in any way? At most, it might give him a better idea of what he would give up if he were to either gorge himself or feed the stranger.
@PanzerDivisionBOM The idea of gorging is false, it shouldn't happen, if it does, that person is not civilized nor is he considered human by definition. So, not saying people don't gorge, just saying in a cooperative society, we wouldn't have stupid problems like that. People are programmed to act this way, life is a business to the owners of this world, and we are all puppets.
The reason people are so manipulated by manipulative advertising and state propaganda, is because of the abysmal education the vast majority of people were given in public schools, and were never taught how to think critically.
Once we, as a species, start Unschooling (google it) our kids en masse, the false advertisements and propaganda will no longer be an issue, because it simply won't work anymore.
The idea that there is no way to indicate demand for a good or service outside of monetary abstraction is really quite bizarre. We communicate demand for many things on a daily basis without money. Money is not the only vessel for communicating information. Within an infrastructure that is optimized to sustainably provide goods/services free of charge, is it that hard to conceptualize a computer network in which demand for a given good/service can be input by an individual on a localized basis?
@InvertedFox Yes. How is such a system going to allocate resources that aren't plentiful enough for everyone? IS everyone going to get a yacht? Or no one? Who decides?
@InvertedFox What about things that you want now, but take months to make? The fact is that money allows for almost 7 billion people to communicate with each other without even speaking. Markets are natural systems, created from spontaneous order, that allow us to measure the success of a producer. Capitalism is the ultimate form of democracy.
@metzger90 "What about things that you want now, but take months to make?" What has that got to do the argument that money isn't the only way to express information..? How is production time at all relevant to this mechanism? The fact is that people are able to express what they want/need without money, and technological networks just make things easier. Its pretty simple really, either we destroy the planet&ourselves in pursuit of profit, or we evolve the fuck up and deal with shit rationally.
Avoiding sweatshop products only make the workers in the sweatshops poorer. Without the sweatshops they'd be even poorer, and might have to resort to stuff like prostitution or selling their kidney to survive.
@jsem94 If there are only sweatshops then probably it's not even a free market. Otherwise if people didn't buy sweatshops products then it wouldn't be profitable for them to even exist, on the other hand the sweatshop workers skills would be very valuable, since they have very high productivity.
I love this video and I think that the ideas presented by both sides of the argument are wonderful, however, I would like to comment upon the use of the term "American Indian", as a descendant from indigenous people, I would like to state that we were not "Indians", we did not reside in India. Also, natives were more than "stone age tribes" who were "technologically retarded", we had the most accurate calendar we know about, diverse agriculture, medicine, and wonderful architecture.
I know of no religious group that "threw" or "burned to death" anyone for claiming that the Earth was flat. That is a fiction promulgated by bad public schools
I think you are referring to how the Church treated Galileo. They placed him on House Arrest for libel against the person of the Pope, but putting the pope's words into the mouth of foolish character Simplicius is his book.They also attacked him for making assertions of how the universe works without any actual experiments or real proof.
@magister343 There are only a couple of Christian writings that ever supported a flat Earth, al by ignorant laymen. Church officials claimed it was not relevant to salvation and so had no official position, but tended to mock such ideas. By the late middle ages the Church heavily supported an Aristotelian cosmology, which involved concentric spheres that were the natural homes to the classical elements.They viewed science as a tool for practical prediction; Galileo, as a key to objective truth.
Nice and clarifying discussion. Although i would liked to have heard more on the incentive part of the discussion for free market, because if money would be the only incentive to bring forth new business, then i think that would be selling yourself short. If people will benefit from your passion then it is good for everybody ?
Which in turn boost your energy and give you some sort of status. People will always want to compete to each other, and i think this could be one way of doing that. Only take out money and put reward in the form of opportunity in place ? of actual money.
I don't see how the 100% free market can save the planet from further pollution -- if anything it will make it worse (if that is even possible). The 100% free market will demand exponential consumption -- the planet can only take so many hits.
This is not a simple algorithm. You first need to inventory all available resources, minerals, water, land, etc (the supply). Then, you can either estimate or use historical figures to determine the cost of that resource in embodied energy. Then determine the needs (demand) on that resource. An algorithm would then allocate the supply according to needs, keeping in mind the energy required to produce that resource only. The algorithm is not concerned with Price or the ability to make a profit.
I don't represent the Venus Project but I would like to offer one possible answer to Stefan's Price problem. I too am a software developer specializing in Accounting and Economics.
To begin with you need to throw out all of your built in notions of out capitalist economics works. There is no cost of production beyond the allocation of available energy to do work. There is no labor cost, no rent, no cost of materials, no maintenance, no taxes, fees or anything else.
@wbalthrop Do you know how many people and resources there are in this world? What computing power exists to allocate this? What automated labor technology exists to replace all labor?
@H1TMANactual It's not hard to make a computer that does complex math. That's what computers do. Also, no one said anything about eliminating all labor; just the labor that automated machines can do which is a significant amount. Manufacturing jobs can very well be a thing of the past. Honestly, those are some very stupid questions.
@Nathan173AB Umm NO. What's retarded is saying computers do math. Yeah no shit computers do math, they still have to programmed. The global workforce is 3 billion, employers don't hire labor if they can automate it cheaper. Try again.
@H1TMANactual It's a statement of fact. I only told it to you because you seemed to not be aware of the obvious. "What computing power exists to allocate [resources]?" you asked. And plenty of businesses automate their labor. I suppose you expect it to be this miraculous overnight transformation. I hope for Stefan's sake you and a few others I've seen here are not the model fans of his. That is, people who disregard for facts and the reasoning a toddler could pull off.
@Nathan173AB Nope, it's not a statement of fact either. Look up how much computing power even the fastest computer in the world has. And I explained to you computers still have to be designed and programmed by people. And I am not his "fan". Keep your stupid presumptions to yourself. And you didn't answer the question. Tell us if it's an anarchy who will program your computers and how a high standard of living will be provided for everyone without anyone having to work.
@H1TMANactual Those are interesting statements considering how incredibly ignorant you'd have to be of several things to make them. For one thing, you make it seem as if inventorying resources is some intensive task that can't be done, which is crap. All it is is glorified counting. Businesses do this all the time with merchandise. The only difference on a global scale is that the numbers are bigger. I would not be surprised if the computer I'm using now could get the job done.
@Nathan173AB "I would not be surprised if the computer I'm using ow could get the job done". LOL what an idiot! Your computer can itemize and allocate all the world's resources and service 7 billion people. Sure.
Umm NO. YOUR organization (TVP) claims all if not most labor can be automated. And the 3 billion people that will have to work, have NO incentive to go to work and be productive in this lawless society. We have tried communism many times. Try reading a history book.
@H1TMANactual "LOL what an idiot! Your computer can itemize and allocate all the world's resources and service 7 billion people. Sure." Good you can be an insulting prick. Now all you need to do is make your case, but of course you have no case otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to petty bullshit.
@H1TMANactual "3 billion people that will have to work, have NO incentive to go to work and be productive ... We have tried communism many times. Try reading a history book."
Again, your ignorance is staggering. Communism failed due to lousy government and infrastructure. Incentive is always there if there is need and reward. You don't particularly like to take a shit I'm sure, but you do it anyways because it needs to be done. Incentive.
@H1TMANactual You're really quite stupid. You make arguments against things you know nothing about and talk about human nature without having a knowledge of human nature. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm only stating a fact that you are being a very stupid, willfully ignorant, waste of breath.
@Nathan173AB Umm NO. I don't need to make my case, the burden is proof is on YOU.
Communism, Soviet Union for example failed due to it's economic system, and incentive played a huge role /watch?v=urAZ03xtC8E
Must take one hell of a retard to compare working to taking a shit. If I am guaranteed an income irrespective of my performance, then I have no incentive to work. People pursue their own self-interest, people don't go to work b/c they love their neighbor.
@H1TMANactual Second of all, the goal of a resource-based economy is to eliminate as much labor as possible. It would be nice to eliminate all labor, but any idiot understands that that's not going to happen. You are essentially passing off this obvious fact as an argument as if no one else is aware of it, which makes you come off as a patronizing asshole rather than as an intellectual. It seems to me that you're just someone who likes to hear their own rambling. Sorry. :-]
The logic is flawed by giving an example if how $500,000 should be invested by a business by pitching to a board. The venus projects premise is.pribiding neccessities such as food to those who need it but cannot afford it. Stefan says you can do lots with a piece of steel. Well you can do lots with a piece of chicken but the need for the hungry to metabolise it. Projecting a business model of investment for return to a planet where thousands die daily from hungers, disease and so on doesnt wash
Two radio hosts should NEVER INTERVIEW EACH OTHER! This interview could be 15 minutes long and we'd all be better off. Stefan has a rock solid, proven system. The Venus project won't be possible (or advantageous for any segment of society; compared to Stefan's society,) for 100 years.
@gatersaw Stefan does not have a proven system. There has never been a genuine free market except during the hunter-gatherer days. Saying that TVP won't be possible or advantageous for X amount of time is just a declarative statement of which I'm sure you didn't base on any sort of facts.
@Nathan173AB Hunter/gatherer is not capitalism. This country experienced capitalism in a libertarian society after the revo war. We had a hard currency temporarily. In 50 years USofA eclipsed everyone's production. TVP is communism which has been tried and has always resulted in significant death: Mao killed over 100million with his failed attempt. Stalin killed 20mill. (Declarative statement? Haha.)
How sickening to see the clever smile rising to the surface of this clever mans face as he sets out to rip apart the naive rather than using his passion to broaden the feasibility of forward movement; while he flatters his cleverness with the illusion of success there is so much to do
No country is free today, as if they ever were...a strong case could be made that america was once free, but if they were truly free, they would have never been able to descend into tyranny as they are now. One free country standing alone is doomed to fail, we need to set the world free.
We will always have time to achieve freedom...but will we always have the oppertunity?.......
Is the calculation problem really so heavyweight, or have the Zeitguys really just waved the magic wand? I just watched another video with the Venus Project guy, and for him the first step is to take a survey of the world's entire stock of resources. He needs to read some Hayek.
One thing Stefan neglected to point out about the calculation debate. That, along with the experience in the early Soviet Union made socialists give up on the idea of doing without money. Various flavors of market socialism were devised to try to overcome the calculation problem, but they all included the idea of having money as the medium of exchange.
The problem with Zeitgeist's solution is that it would require huge populations of people to suddenly miraculously act in noble and altruistic ways, Molyneux's would only require them to act in their own RATIONAL SELF INTEREST.
BlameItOnTheMedia 45 minutes ago
At any rate, I don't see how it somehow a collective responsibility of society to ensure that people are happy. There's really no way to "ensure" this to begin with, the idea of collective responsibility is deeply questionable, and I'm not sure how you would enforce it without violence. Especially if the chief factor in happiness is material equality. Really, the only way to enforce that is with violence. Or am I wrong?
ThingWhatKicks 5 hours ago
@ThingWhatKicks
I wish I had the patience to type out all my thoughts in a coherent way; I just find myself aggravated by the characters limit on YouTube. The problem I have with the idea of businesses under any "market" being put at the top of social contribution is that, as a consequence, people are taught that monetary acquisition is the difference between a "winner" and a "loser". And how could one accept the debasement of "losing" when he could be a "winner", at least in appearance.
Omgadnowai 5 hours ago
@Omgadnowai and once you put a communal-organization to do the wealth redistribution you involuntary create a institution that serves as a magnet to the most cut-trough ppl to claim the ladder to this power and you get the reverse of what you expected to get. Humans are fallible and any solution that try to stifle change (i.e. create overseer is doomed to failure) because no society or ecosystem is static.
TheMraptor 4 hours ago
@Omgadnowai => at least in market system you give a chance of competition to counter any successful business/person who decided to go against the community in a non-violent way and win. In creating a top-down structure to control cut-trough businesses you rely on Utopian view of super benevolent unfalible being or group of them that will solve the problem. I say the best solution to the problem is peer-competition not a super committee
TheMraptor 4 hours ago
@ThingWhatKicks
My point about inequality generating unhappiness is not so much the "lack of stuff" as it is a matter of "status". In any given society, being treated or considered inferior to another human being generates in the concerned individual(s) aberrant behaviors as they try to counterpoint that pressure. Whether harmful to others or to the self, these behaviors aren't desirable for a healthy human being. For one to succeed, many have to fail, and that makes me uneasy.
Omgadnowai 4 hours ago
@Omgadnowai you can't make everybody succeed we can only strive to make the percentage of wining bigger. Only market transaction is voluntary exchange where both sides win. Otherwise they wont enter that transaction.
TheMraptor 3 hours ago
Don't be aggravated.
If you want to put things in terms of winning and losing, I suppose I don't see how there could be an alternative. People are not omnipotent. We don't always do the right thing. We make mistakes. Many times, the consequences are significant. Concordantly, it's only reasonable that the person who suffers those consequences is the one who made the blunder. I don't see how to get around this.
ThingWhatKicks 3 hours ago
@Omgadnowai
I'm not sure why you keep putting "market" in quotes. A market is just people freely and voluntarily exchanging things; time, labor, production, ideas, etc. They are the zenith of freedom and morality.
A good solution to inequality of status is to educate people to understand that humans have intrinsic value. We are more than what we accomplish. I'm not quite sure what solution you're suggesting?
ThingWhatKicks 3 hours ago
@Omgadnowai
Yes, markets allow for the possibility that a business will fail. But that misses the point: *businesses (or whatever manages the means of production) are going to fail one way or another!* It's just a question of what happens next. Are they propped up, wasting resources in perpetuity? Does some third party bear the consequences of their failure? Neither of those are rational or moral.
ThingWhatKicks 3 hours ago
Re: "For one to succeed, many have to fail" That's not strictly true, and it misses the point: people are going to fail anyway. People make mistakes, bad judgements. It's only natural. Yes, of course that's unfortunate. But what are you going to do about it? Look, I'm a huge proponent of charity–that is, *voluntary* charity. And that's where morality compels me to stop. I can't force anyone to be charitable, and I can't force a third party to bear the consequences of someone's failure. Period.
ThingWhatKicks 3 hours ago
It's kind of stupid how many times they have to excuse themselves with "I don't claim to know everything"
Omgadnowai 9 hours ago
You already agreed that just about every resources other than oil is infinite, long as it's managed sustainably (a consequence of privatization). You also agreed that human ingenuity is our greatest resource. And what ingenuity does is it INVENTS new resources by discovering new ways to use what we have more efficiently. Oil didn't exist as a resource 300 years ago. Radioactive particles weren't resources until 70 years ago. If you say "resources are limited," you miss the forest for the trees.
ThingWhatKicks 1 day ago
Why? Because it can't happen. As soon as you jack prices up, new competition floods the market, as it does in any market where a profit is to be made. And if you were going into debt to undercut the competition, you now have no way to pay it off, and you go out of business. Problem solved.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
Another thing: we hear a good deal in the video about monopolies "undercutting" the competition. And the consumer, who benefits from lower prices, should complain about this why? Undercutting the competition is the whole bloody point of business, and it is *by definition* progress.
What wasn't brought up is how monopolies supposedly then jack up the prices after the competition is gone. Trouble is, this has never ever happened, ever, as the great Murray Rothbard explains in his lectures.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Their idea is still voluntary, if their system works, great. If not, people are free to leave (unless that changes, I don't see a problem). So we can respect that very much. I would want them to try their idea...and other people can try theirs. As soon as agression enters the picture though...
04tonyd 3 days ago
Comment removed
04tonyd 3 days ago
Comment removed
04tonyd 3 days ago
I'm so glad Stef nailed this guy to the wall on the price issue.
ThingWhatKicks 4 days ago
It's maddening to hear that resources are "finite."
ThingWhatKicks 4 days ago
@ThingWhatKicks So you actually think resorces are infinite?
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000
Uh, which resources do you think are finite?
Food, water, wood, and animals are infinite. Atomic fuels, metals, and other minerals are "finite" in the same sense that solar energy is "finite." The only resource that can even be remotely consider finite is oil, and there is (despite maddening claims to the contrary) some debate on that topic.
And the most important resource of all, human ingenuity (which endlessly allows us to use resources more efficiently), is infinite.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@ThingWhatKicks I agree with most of what you said. Water, food, wood and animals are infinite as long as we consume them in a sustainable way. But we're consuming them at a faster rate than they take to regenerate. And many scientists agree that the damage caused by extreme unsustainable consumption sometimes cant be repaired. I agree that our greatest resource is ingenuity, unfortunately in this system you need money to develop it, for example Tesla coil, unlimited free electric energy.
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000
And if you privatize resources, people have an incentive to consume them only in a sustainable manner.
Many scientists disagree.
Saying you need "money to develop it" is just saying you need "resources to develop it," which is true in any system.
Also, there is no such thing as unlimited free electric energy.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@ThingWhatKicks Of course not, if people see that if they consume them fast and make the resources scarce they will obtain a higher profit, sustainable consumption is never going to be achieved, the best example is oil, we're definetely consuming it a faster rate than it regenerates, and the more scarce it is, the most profit you're going to get. And money does not necessarily mean resources, but in this system, unfortunately, you need money to get access to resources.
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
It is wrong on so many levels to think any sort of algorithm in a top-down manner can calculate any sort of resource allocation.
if 6 billion ppl want to buy just a car and a house ... i don't think you can satisfy this need with the current Earth resources. Not to mention when the Earth population double or triple. I'm not talking anything else just those 2 things..
TheMraptor 4 days ago
@TheMraptor What TVP proposes is a value change so that "6 billion people dont want to buy a car...". An efficient and technical solution to that problem would be designing cities that dont need cars as a mean of transportation. Allocation of resources doesn't forcefully need prices, it needs advanced mathematics calculating the resources available in certain area and the number of people who need them. I recommend the book "Looking Forward" by Jacque Fresco, its available online and it's short.
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000
Unless you plan to do away with individuality (good luck on that), the *efficient* allocation of resources, by definition, requires that you take people's preferences into account. Prices are nothing more and nothing less than the most parsimonious way of accounting for personal preferences. The idea that prices are somehow bad is nonsensical.
What exactly about prices do you find so evil?
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@ThingWhatKicks I never said they were evil, I'm saying they're no longer efficient, they're obsolete. And what is individuality? You think that having a different house, a different car, different clothes is idividuality? If you believe so, then advertising has successfully blinded you. For me individuality is a state of mind, having your own ideas and being able to express them, not necessarilly material goods. Read "Looking Forward", it has an extended chapter about individuality in an RBE.
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000
The idea that any and all desire for particular material goods is the product of evil advertising is insulting and historically nonsensical. Obviously, modern advertising has *exaggerated* this desire, but it has nevertheless always been very strong.
Anyway, am I allowed to prefer corn over carrots? Pork over chicken? Go over Chess? Skiing over boating? Football over hockey? Et cetera. The only way to express these preferences, in trade, is with prices. Explain to me otherwise.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@ThingWhatKicks Those preferences are completely fine, they're rational and they would be ok within an RBE. But on the other hand, trade combined with advertising make you have preferences that are purely based on mantaining conspicuous consumption, and hence mainting a social status and excesive profit for those who sell those kinds of luxurious goods. I recommend you watch the documentary "Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood" for further information on this matter.
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000
If you agree that those preferences are fine, then you've just accepted the concept of prices. Prices are nothing more than quantified preferences.
If you're against prices, you're against quantifying preferences, which means you have no rational way to *fulfill* billions of competing preferences. That's the economic calculation problem in a nutshell. Unless TVP can demonstrate how to quantify preferences sans prices (which was not demonstrated in the vid), it cannot work.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000
What, pray tell, about prices is "no longer efficient"? You must mean they are no longer efficient under a socialized, totalitarian state. Well, obviously.
But prices in a voluntary society would be more efficient and necessary than ever.
I skimmed "Looking Forward," got bored, and stopped. If you have a specific page you desperately think I should read, please cite it.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@ThingWhatKicks Man, I also got bored reading John Locke, Bastiat, Smith and Ayn Rand and Mises but I have to know them and understand them in order to have arguements against them, I cannot just randomly refute what they say if I don't know what they're saying. Its a shame you cannot take 2 or 3 hours of your life to read a book, but If thats the case, the pages you should read is 55 and 85. Peace!
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000 I agree that in some narrow small community or some vertical market you may be able to approximate the 'price mechanism', but not on a big scale, there is too much variables (it is the same thing to say you can calc the exact weather everywhere). With an algorithm and/or state you have a top down system, you can't calculate bottom-up process with top-down process if we talk more abstractly.
TheMraptor 2 days ago
@TheMraptor I think the concept can also be implemented in a large scale if there was real commitment, if people changed their values and realize what's really important, a happy and meaningful life doing what you actually want without worrying about your own survival, spending time with family, cultivating the arts and sciences, improve the technology for humanity's betterment etc. It's vital that we adjust our values to the earth's capacities if we want to survive in a long term as a species.
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000 Too many if's. And in no time of history and the future people in the majority will satisfied to live spartan life.
And what is good for the ecosystem is not always clearcut solution. That is why you need people working in cooperation and competition, The price is the unbiased feedback arbiter which no scientific-model can reproduce.
TheMraptor 2 days ago
@TheMraptor
"The price is the unbiased feedback arbiter which no scientific-model can reproduce."
This.
ThingWhatKicks 1 day ago
@giancarlo3000 you forget that ppl are unpredictable. F.e. I don't want to live in a city, I want to live in big house on the beach. No matter what clever engineering approach you take you always will hit limited resources, limited area, limited anything...
Only one person can have the original Mona Lisa in his house. Human desires are unlimited, human ingenuity is limited.
TheMraptor 2 days ago
@TheMraptor I don't think the desires are unlimited, the desires are imprinted by culture. Unfortunately we live in a culture that makes you want many things you don't actually need, like a big house at the beach with the original Mona Lisa in it. That is why Jacque Fresco explains that a change of values is essential in order to make this system a success. I recommend you read the book "Looking Forward" by Jacque Fresco, it has a list of values that are vital for humanity's happy survival.
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000 There is only 2 ways to resolve conflicts over limited-anything one is force (we exclude that as option), the other is negotiation. Negotiation means exchange based on pros/cons... you give up something to get something. This something has to have a 'label'/price. You can hide it in computer-model but it is still there. You have to have a way to quantify the worth of everybody private property and wealth. Otherwise you are calling for equal redistribution..!
TheMraptor 2 days ago
@TheMraptor Well instead of prices and property the TZM proposes a new concept called "strategic access" which means that nobody needs to own anything because all goods are available at request. Have you ever thought why you need property? I believe it's because you want to have instant access to something, and in this system the only way to get is by owning it. F.e. If you need a car, you use it and then you return it for other people to use it, if you need it again it is given to you, etc.
giancarlo3000 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000
The great thing about anarcho-capitalism, unlike TVP, is that no change in values is necessary.
"Strategic access" suffers greatly from the tragedy of the commons. What, other than spartan ideology, is to prevent people from "abusing" the system.
We need not adjust our capacities to the earth; through ingenuity we adjust the earth to fit us. That's why it's maddening to hear about "finite" resources. TVP solves a problem that doesn't exist.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@ThingWhatKicks Ok, you believe that earth's resources are unlimited, I certainly cannot tell you wether that's true or not, I don't have the technical knowledge to determine that, and neither do you, I believe. If you want to know if resources on earth are really unlimited, don't ask an economist, ask a geologist, an agronomist, an engineer, a cartographyst, etc. I can recommend 2 documentaries which consult experts (actual scientists) "Pyramids of waste" and "There's no tomorrow".
giancarlo3000 1 day ago
@giancarlo3000
Price and property are mere extensions of preference and natural law. I own my time and labor, obviously. Therefore, what I produce with my time and labor is my property. Price is nothing more than my preferences, quantified. A system without property is a system in which I do not own my time and labor, and a system without price is a system in which my preferences cannot be fulfilled. Address that, will you?
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@ThingWhatKicks Property's not a natural law, its an abstraction created to obtain exclusivity of use over goods under the idea that there is not enough on this earth for everybody. In a system without property you don't "own" yourself, that is a modern economic concept, "owning yourself". Instead of owning yourself you ARE yourserlf, you are free. Preferences are quantified according to the individual interests, if you want to be a painter, painter parapharnalia would be supplied to you.
giancarlo3000 1 day ago
@giancarlo3000
I didn't say property is a natural law. I said it's an EXTENSION of natural law. I am axiomatically free, therefore I (not some third party) control what I do with my time/labor. Concordantly, I (not some third party) control what my time/labor produces. If I don't control the produce of my time and labor, then I'm not really free, am I?
ThingWhatKicks 1 day ago
"Quantify" means to "attach a number to something." Saying, "preferences are quantified according to individual interests" is technobabble; i.e., a meaningless statement designed to obfuscate rather than clarify. To quantify individual interests (which are the same thing as preferences), you must convert them into a number, which is WHAT price IS. (I.e., "I am willing to give you $0.021 gold for that side of pork.") If you're against prices, you're against quantification by definition.
ThingWhatKicks 1 day ago
@ThingWhatKicks
I see your point, but I'm kind of bummed at the way the "market" operates right now. It doesn't "ask" people what they want, it merely uses advertising to promote desires. And it works, as should be expected. However, the orientation of said advertising and market economy is, at the moment, a cutthroat wasteful one. That which is produced is produced with no regards for environmental limitations. Human desires should be satisfied to the extent the environment allows it.
Omgadnowai 11 hours ago
@Omgadnowai We don't have market economy now.. we have government regulated pseudo market economy
TheMraptor 4 hours ago
@ThingWhatKicks Prices are sadly not fixed by mere demand at the moment. The notion of monetary acquisition is based on differential advantage (man I hate saying that), and in a culture where rampant consumerism is the norm, that means any strategy is good in order to acquire money, even if it implies generating scarcity for the purpose of creating low supply for a given demand, thus higher prices. Value is now purely monetary, with no regard for "environmental value".
Omgadnowai 11 hours ago
@ThingWhatKicks
With a bit of thought, perhaps a static "currency pool" could work, with prices of given goods and resources would increase or decrease based on the current system's production capacity, and people would be allocated a static amount of "currency" to spend on things they need through a computerized system, with perhaps a "public currency pool" where citizens get to distribute their "public currency" on projects. As more efficiency is achieved, the prices of "projects" decrease.=>
Omgadnowai 11 hours ago
@ThingWhatKicks
=> I have no idea what I'm saying, since I'm no math wiz, but I definitely can't see how you can hope to satisfy infinite amounts of manufactured desires. Ask people what they want, don't suggest to them "You want this or that" in ways so subtle they're literally engineered to consume under their own. Educate them so they can see the sense in increasing a society's efficiency, and they will "allocate" their "currency" on public projects that aim to do that.
Omgadnowai 11 hours ago
@Omgadnowai
Environmental limitations can only be determined if the environment is privately owned; meaning that there is someone who directly bears the cost of poor environmental management. If the environment is owned communally, it is subject to the tragedy of the commons and we should not be surprised that people make decisions w/o regard to environmental costs. The only way they'll care is if they have to bear the costs individually.
ThingWhatKicks 10 hours ago
You can't just "create" scarcity. The only way to do it is with a cartel (this has been the dream of uber-businessmen forever), but there has literally _never_ been a case where a cartel was sustained for more than a few months *in a voluntary market*. Even the early American railroads couldn't manage to hold a cartel together, even when there were only two or three (!!) competitors in the market. It wasn't until the railroad barons got the Federal government involved that the cartels stuck.
ThingWhatKicks 9 hours ago
Thus it is impossible to create artificial scarcity without violence, particularly statist violence.
No one believes that the "market" (you are correct to put it in quotes) is currently free in any sense. So we would naturally expect to find lots of problems cropping up.
Differential advantage is just business-speak for "peaceful market progress."
Environmental value should be expressed monetarily (what else could it be expressed in?) and it would be, in a system of privatization.
ThingWhatKicks 9 hours ago
The total quantity of precious metals is relatively static (unlike fiat currency, of course) and so as productivity increases, prices decline. That's how money (i.e., precious metals) works.
ThingWhatKicks 9 hours ago
Natural desire is infinite; forget about manufactured desire. How to satisfy it? With endless improvements to productivity. A first-world standard of living is a x1000 what it was 500 years ago. Who's to say that productivity can't continue to increase indefinitely? Of course it can. And it will, if we can keep the state off our backs.
I don't know what you mean by "public projects." I don't like public anything, because individuals do not bear the costs for abusing public things. Privatize!
ThingWhatKicks 9 hours ago
@ThingWhatKicks
I assume the only distinction between you and I regarding the perception of human societies is I really can't find a good reason why someone who's unable to participate VERY successfully in the market should be subject to biosocial pressures emanating from the inequality in social status. We are, along with "consuming beings", social beings, and a huge chunk of our identity and behavior is shaped by social pressures. Factual inequality leads to stress, as far as I've seen.
Omgadnowai 9 hours ago
@ThingWhatKicks
"Weeding out the failures", as Stephan said at a point in the discussion, is a social disposition I find to be on the cutthroat side of "market economies". Human beings are happier (isn't that the purpose of finding a proper socio-economic system ?) when regarded as equals by their peers. I sincerely cannot see how you can extrapolate more happiness comes out of mundane subservience to the owners of ideas/capital than from equality.
Omgadnowai 9 hours ago
No, we agree. I see no reason why someone who isn't a star businessman/employee (and thus not rich) should be treated negatively. Why do you think they will be? Most people are not exceptional. Fortunately, most people also understand that material inequality is a very childish reason to mistreat someone. And I don't know anyone who's stressed out because they don't have as much stuff as someone else. That's a very childish reason to be stressed, don't you think?
ThingWhatKicks 5 hours ago
Re: "Weeding out the failures." It is a feature of voluntary markets that capital goods flow towards the people who can manage them most efficiently. If your business is making losses, it is harming everyone by wasting resources. Are you saying that failing businesses should be propped up, in the name of social justice? I've never heard that one before, but that leads to the question--who pays? I'm sure not going to fund someone to keep wasting resources, just so they'll feel socially adequate.
ThingWhatKicks 5 hours ago
Of course I'd like people to be happy, but I think that relevance of material equality is very minor. And may I counter by suggesting that people are happiest when they are functioning at their full potential, and are surrounded by friends/family who they mutually love and care for? Material equality means, by necessity, that some people are not being rewarded commensurately for functioning at their full potential.
ThingWhatKicks 5 hours ago
I don't know what you mean by "mundane subservience to the owners of ideas/capital." Are you denigrating people who voluntarily choose to be employed…? The vast majority of people haven't the ability to run a profitable business, but--thanks to employment--they can still live like kings.
Nevertheless, work is of course merely a means to happiness, not an end in and of itself. And voluntary markets create the most productive workers.
ThingWhatKicks 5 hours ago
@Omgadnowai Equality is pipe dream.
TheMraptor 4 hours ago
Comment removed
Omgadnowai 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThingWhatKicks
In such a system, I suppose you would determine prices not based on demand but rather on the environmental limitations. People's demands would revolve around those limitations, and prices would adapt based on the efficiency of the whole, decreasing as more efficiency is attained and vice versa. Basically, ask people what they want among the available goods/projects, and let them allocate their currency share. But their currency pool is static and their participation is direct.
Omgadnowai 11 hours ago
@giancarlo3000
And, although potential resources are effectively unlimited, products are limited (there is only so much pork, only so much corn, only so many hockey skates, etc.) and capital goods (factories, etc.) are limited. So the only way to ensure that everyone's preferences are fulfilled in the fairest way possible (i.e., the most economically efficient manner) is to QUANTIFY those preferences (i.e., put a price on them).
ThingWhatKicks 1 day ago
@ThingWhatKicks I don't know what to say, you seem to have pretty solid arguements and its obvious that the answers I have won't satisfy you. It seems to me that I lack the necessary knowledge to refute many of your theoretical arguements. The best I can do to inform you about our ideas is recommend you literature, articles, documentaries. Peace.
giancarlo3000 1 day ago
@ThingWhatKicks I was thinking along the same lines.. What is the most basic thing in Science even more fundamental than the Scientific method itself ? It is Quantifying ..w/o "quantity" you can't have Science, you can't have computers, you can't have measurement... what distinguish our and giancarlo opinions is, IS this Quantity personal property OR communal property. And BTW I'm computer programmer and have some knowledge on AI in general.
TheMraptor 1 day ago
By the way, I am an engineer. FWIW.
And you haven't explained how limited products will be allocated if preferences and individual interests can't be quantified. (Because quantifying them, by definition, means putting a price on them.) If you answer is "to change people's values," fine. Trouble is, there's nothing morally wrong with wanting "more." Whereas the only condition for anarcho-capitalism is non-aggression, and aggression is obviously amoral. So that's an easier pill to swallow.
ThingWhatKicks 1 day ago
@giancarlo3000
Stefan explained how profit works. A profitable industry attracts more producers, who bid down the cost and neutralize profits. And if you own a resource, you have every incentive to utilize it sustainably, because you suffer the consequences if it is depleted. It's only when resources are put in common (i.e., "strategic access," statism, etc.) that the tragedy occurs.
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
@giancarlo3000
Money by definition means resources. You are confusing money with fiat currency, which is NOT money. And saying "you need money to get access to resources," is simply saying, "you need to offer something of value in return." Why is that unfortunate?
ThingWhatKicks 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@giancarlo3000 There is only 2 ways to resolve conflicts over limited-anything one is force (we exclude that as option), the other is negotiation. Negotiation means exchange based on pros/cons... you give up something to get something. This something has to have a 'label'/price. You can hide it in computer-model but it is still there. You have to have a way to quantify the worth of everybody private property and wealth. Otherwise you are calling for equal redistribution!
TheMraptor 2 days ago
... you can't produce computer program to do the price-calculation w/o the availability of price .... that is utopia.
TheMraptor 4 days ago
This is not a debate. This is DISCUSSION. And that is how you get such great conversations.
muffinspuffinsEE 6 days ago 4
@muffinspuffinsEE and its also why these vids are very long, big +++
MGsven 5 days ago
Thank you for the rational debate.
nasty1182 1 week ago 3
@stefbot you touched the subject of the impossibility of infinite economic growth. I believe the thinking behind that is based on the view that since economy is measured by GDP, it is true that it is not a value in itself, even though that is how it is often portrayed. These "degrowth" people have a valid point, but they seem to often mix up these concepts such as consumerism and production with GDP etc...
glasnikov 1 week ago
@glasnikov i was trying to say that the "cult" of GDP growth is indeed something that must be argued against. It is a real problem, that economic growth is associated with this brute measure called the GDP. Unfortunately people often think this means that economic growth is bad or impossible or unsustainable, when they are actually talking about this perverted measure of economic growth.
glasnikov 1 week ago
great great debate stef. High level of gravitas in your words. Much-welcomed
stronghold10a 1 week ago
My gut instinct before I listened was that the hiway to hell is paved with good intentions, why improve upon nature, sovereign humans do not recognize all these governments and debt slave jobs, and corporatons and on and on. Enlightened disengagement is the only response to the parasitical Rothschild false debt slave system.
TheTime4solutions 1 week ago
Its not money its USURY, its false debt, its false debt slavery, its immoral extorted theft called tax, its false debt called war. Thats the problem when a group of humans use a control stratigy the above to enslave humanity into false debt forcing immoral submission to liars thieves and mass murders. Enlightened disengangement, individual freedom, sovereign human, thats the answer, nature is no liar, nature will provide, it gives you air food and water. Be human reject the debt money.
TheTime4solutions 1 week ago
Having centralized server farms managed by who knows whom is a scary thought...
Sounds like a totalitarian technocracy to me, where everything is pre-decided for you- no freedom involved in that whatsoever..
DackIsBack 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We already have super computers to manage the most complex calculations that our economy requires...
The (not so free)market provides them to whoever needs to make such calculations.
Ofc, the free market would be even better.
DackIsBack 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DackIsBack 2 weeks ago
One problem I've noticed with people who object to a Resource Based Economy is they seem to think the change is going to happen overnight. Almost all the arguments against it I've heard imply this. Yeah. If you try to implement the system overnight, there would be a lot of problems because people are conditioned to the monetary system. People think money is the only incentive because they live in a monetary system. Unbeknownst to them, the structure of the money system creates that mindset.
knglerxst 2 weeks ago
All Stefan says about prices is understandable but does he not understand that almost half the worlds population is living under poverty? Money gives you this self-preserving ideology, it's a little hard to explain. Money controls earth, fact. From birth, you are taught to take care of yourself, then money is introduced as if it were a natural causation. Working for ones' self... it forces you to have a self-oriented mindset.
There is so much I can say, just not enough space.
CntthnkO15 2 weeks ago
@CntthnkO15 the point was that money creates selfishness and selfishness leads to non-care for others, or you consider yourself more important over another when you make decisions. Money people aren't socially responsible, because they don't know what it is and it comes back to their point about childhood being a time where you are conditioned to act in a certain way by schools or ignorant parents/guardians.
CntthnkO15 2 weeks ago
@CntthnkO15 I meant "most people aren't" instead of "money people aren't"
CntthnkO15 2 weeks ago
@CntthnkO15
That's not money, though. That's scarcity itself. Reality itself imposes limitations on which satisfactions can be pursued simultaneously.
Suppose a caveman has some extra meat at the end of the day, and the choice to either feed a starving stranger, gorge himself on more than he needs or to trade the meat for something else that he might need later.
What difference does it make to this situation whether or not there is a commonly accepted currency? How would that -
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 weeks ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM If we organize our production and upgrade to full technology, we would be able to feed, cloth, and house all humans. In this system, it isn't possible because there aren't that many jobs available and in the near future, many will be disappearing.
CntthnkO15 1 week ago
@CntthnkO15
So you're saying producers purposefully restrict their output, forsaking a competitive advantage and the prospect of enormous profits until their competitors catch up?
Furthermore, it's not just one industry for a brief time or the jurisdiction of one (potentially competition-inhibiting) state, but ALL producers everywhere and forevermore?
Or, is it just that the technology, under present conditions of scarcity and of its own maturity, is itself wasteful and -
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 week ago
- unfeasible?
You know, if you people actually believed in this fantastic technology you keep spouting as the solution to all problems, you wouldn't be making videos on YouTube and asking for donations. You would find some part of the last remnants of the market economy where you're still allowed by the state to use it, and you'd make enough money to build a dozen cities.
So anytime someone consumes more than they "should", you consider this proof that it is appropriate to-
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 week ago
categorize them as non-human? In practical terms, what does that mean for the purposes of your political policy, exactly? You'll forgive me my hyperbole if I'm a little bit leery about statements like that. -
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 week ago
You just admitted that money has nothing to do with the programming. It exists in the absence of money. In fact, since it applies both to modern men and to pre-historic cavemen, might we make the leap that it applies to all observable and theoretically observable men throughout human history?
Would you also say it applies to animals? I'm thinking you almost have to, since you characterize the behaviour as non-human. Right?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 week ago
@CntthnkO15
That's not money, though. That's scarcity itself. Reality itself imposes limitations on which satisfactions can be pursued simultaneously.
Suppose a caveman has some extra meat at the end of the day, and the choice to either feed a starving stranger, gorge himself on more than he needs or to trade the meat for something else that he might need later.
What difference does it make to this situation whether or not there is a commonly accepted currency? How would that -
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 weeks ago
- affect the basic nature of the situation in any way? At most, it might give him a better idea of what he would give up if he were to either gorge himself or feed the stranger.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 weeks ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM The idea of gorging is false, it shouldn't happen, if it does, that person is not civilized nor is he considered human by definition. So, not saying people don't gorge, just saying in a cooperative society, we wouldn't have stupid problems like that. People are programmed to act this way, life is a business to the owners of this world, and we are all puppets.
CntthnkO15 1 week ago
If I was talking to this guy, this wouldn't have lasted more than half an hour.
CntthnkO15 2 weeks ago
WHY is the movie removed? I saved it this afternoon to watch for the evening... : (
Chhaylin 2 weeks ago
@jamrow708
The reason people are so manipulated by manipulative advertising and state propaganda, is because of the abysmal education the vast majority of people were given in public schools, and were never taught how to think critically.
Once we, as a species, start Unschooling (google it) our kids en masse, the false advertisements and propaganda will no longer be an issue, because it simply won't work anymore.
TheCapitalistdog 2 weeks ago
man, Stefan, you're one handsome fellow. Seriously. Babies?
jaykgrey 3 weeks ago
Nice vid.
cookdave 3 weeks ago
There is something very creepy about Molyneux.....he's like a cross between Max Headroom and Ted Bundy
oneblueorange 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Like every marxist, this Zeitgeist turd brings up how happy primitive people are. They want us living in caves again.
MoneyIsSilver 3 weeks ago
The idea that there is no way to indicate demand for a good or service outside of monetary abstraction is really quite bizarre. We communicate demand for many things on a daily basis without money. Money is not the only vessel for communicating information. Within an infrastructure that is optimized to sustainably provide goods/services free of charge, is it that hard to conceptualize a computer network in which demand for a given good/service can be input by an individual on a localized basis?
InvertedFox 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InvertedFox Yes. How is such a system going to allocate resources that aren't plentiful enough for everyone? IS everyone going to get a yacht? Or no one? Who decides?
Computers need programmers.
MoneyIsSilver 3 weeks ago
@InvertedFox What about things that you want now, but take months to make? The fact is that money allows for almost 7 billion people to communicate with each other without even speaking. Markets are natural systems, created from spontaneous order, that allow us to measure the success of a producer. Capitalism is the ultimate form of democracy.
metzger90 2 weeks ago
@metzger90 "What about things that you want now, but take months to make?" What has that got to do the argument that money isn't the only way to express information..? How is production time at all relevant to this mechanism? The fact is that people are able to express what they want/need without money, and technological networks just make things easier. Its pretty simple really, either we destroy the planet&ourselves in pursuit of profit, or we evolve the fuck up and deal with shit rationally.
InvertedFox 2 weeks ago
Avoiding sweatshop products only make the workers in the sweatshops poorer. Without the sweatshops they'd be even poorer, and might have to resort to stuff like prostitution or selling their kidney to survive.
jsem94 1 month ago 2
@jsem94 If there are only sweatshops then probably it's not even a free market. Otherwise if people didn't buy sweatshops products then it wouldn't be profitable for them to even exist, on the other hand the sweatshop workers skills would be very valuable, since they have very high productivity.
MrFmmcosta 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jsem94 That's called "conjecture". You have no way of proving or any evidence of what will happen to sweatshop workers upon being fired
MoneyIsSilver 3 weeks ago
@jsem94 :) - Bang on
FrankiePoker 3 weeks ago
I love this video and I think that the ideas presented by both sides of the argument are wonderful, however, I would like to comment upon the use of the term "American Indian", as a descendant from indigenous people, I would like to state that we were not "Indians", we did not reside in India. Also, natives were more than "stone age tribes" who were "technologically retarded", we had the most accurate calendar we know about, diverse agriculture, medicine, and wonderful architecture.
lubicuslatinae 1 month ago
What a privilege to get to enjoy this kind of positive, constructive thinking.
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago
I know of no religious group that "threw" or "burned to death" anyone for claiming that the Earth was flat. That is a fiction promulgated by bad public schools
I think you are referring to how the Church treated Galileo. They placed him on House Arrest for libel against the person of the Pope, but putting the pope's words into the mouth of foolish character Simplicius is his book.They also attacked him for making assertions of how the universe works without any actual experiments or real proof.
magister343 1 month ago
@magister343 There are only a couple of Christian writings that ever supported a flat Earth, al by ignorant laymen. Church officials claimed it was not relevant to salvation and so had no official position, but tended to mock such ideas. By the late middle ages the Church heavily supported an Aristotelian cosmology, which involved concentric spheres that were the natural homes to the classical elements.They viewed science as a tool for practical prediction; Galileo, as a key to objective truth.
magister343 1 month ago
Nice and clarifying discussion. Although i would liked to have heard more on the incentive part of the discussion for free market, because if money would be the only incentive to bring forth new business, then i think that would be selling yourself short. If people will benefit from your passion then it is good for everybody ?
readynef 1 month ago
Which in turn boost your energy and give you some sort of status. People will always want to compete to each other, and i think this could be one way of doing that. Only take out money and put reward in the form of opportunity in place ? of actual money.
readynef 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@readynef Real money is a reward, since it has its own value. What you think of money (fiat currency) is NOT money.
Fiat currency is NOT money.
Pieces of paper printed by the government are NOT money.
Money IS goods that people value for themselves, like gold and silver. Cheese, hemp, and even salt have all been used as money.
Money is simply a good. It differs from only goods in that it is popular enough to be used as a medium of exchange.
MoneyIsSilver 3 weeks ago
It's so refreshing to hear Stefan use the word "liberal" in its original sense.
Ishpeck 1 month ago
57:10 Stef, you said you are British? But you were born in Athlone, Ireland (that is not Britain)
Fuck walmart.
Privatising everything is not the answer.
I've come across a comment on another site from a religious zealot that claimed the TVP/TZM are cults -- how ironic.
Laurence J. Peter: "Against logic there is no armor like ignorance."
Jacques Fresco: "We must declare all the Earth’s resources as common heritage of all the people of the planet."
Laoch111 1 month ago
@Laoch111 He grew up in Britain so i'm not surprised that he identifies as British. And yes the answer is to transition to a voluntary society :)
firebadger101 1 month ago
I don't see how the 100% free market can save the planet from further pollution -- if anything it will make it worse (if that is even possible). The 100% free market will demand exponential consumption -- the planet can only take so many hits.
H. G. Wells: "Advertising is legalized lying."
Laoch111 1 month ago
This is not a simple algorithm. You first need to inventory all available resources, minerals, water, land, etc (the supply). Then, you can either estimate or use historical figures to determine the cost of that resource in embodied energy. Then determine the needs (demand) on that resource. An algorithm would then allocate the supply according to needs, keeping in mind the energy required to produce that resource only. The algorithm is not concerned with Price or the ability to make a profit.
wbalthrop 1 month ago
@wbalthrop From what I understand, that is basically what The Venus Project advocates.
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
I don't represent the Venus Project but I would like to offer one possible answer to Stefan's Price problem. I too am a software developer specializing in Accounting and Economics.
To begin with you need to throw out all of your built in notions of out capitalist economics works. There is no cost of production beyond the allocation of available energy to do work. There is no labor cost, no rent, no cost of materials, no maintenance, no taxes, fees or anything else.
wbalthrop 1 month ago
@wbalthrop Do you know how many people and resources there are in this world? What computing power exists to allocate this? What automated labor technology exists to replace all labor?
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual It's not hard to make a computer that does complex math. That's what computers do. Also, no one said anything about eliminating all labor; just the labor that automated machines can do which is a significant amount. Manufacturing jobs can very well be a thing of the past. Honestly, those are some very stupid questions.
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
@Nathan173AB Umm NO. What's retarded is saying computers do math. Yeah no shit computers do math, they still have to programmed. The global workforce is 3 billion, employers don't hire labor if they can automate it cheaper. Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual It's a statement of fact. I only told it to you because you seemed to not be aware of the obvious. "What computing power exists to allocate [resources]?" you asked. And plenty of businesses automate their labor. I suppose you expect it to be this miraculous overnight transformation. I hope for Stefan's sake you and a few others I've seen here are not the model fans of his. That is, people who disregard for facts and the reasoning a toddler could pull off.
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
@Nathan173AB Nope, it's not a statement of fact either. Look up how much computing power even the fastest computer in the world has. And I explained to you computers still have to be designed and programmed by people. And I am not his "fan". Keep your stupid presumptions to yourself. And you didn't answer the question. Tell us if it's an anarchy who will program your computers and how a high standard of living will be provided for everyone without anyone having to work.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual Those are interesting statements considering how incredibly ignorant you'd have to be of several things to make them. For one thing, you make it seem as if inventorying resources is some intensive task that can't be done, which is crap. All it is is glorified counting. Businesses do this all the time with merchandise. The only difference on a global scale is that the numbers are bigger. I would not be surprised if the computer I'm using now could get the job done.
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
@Nathan173AB "I would not be surprised if the computer I'm using ow could get the job done". LOL what an idiot! Your computer can itemize and allocate all the world's resources and service 7 billion people. Sure.
Umm NO. YOUR organization (TVP) claims all if not most labor can be automated. And the 3 billion people that will have to work, have NO incentive to go to work and be productive in this lawless society. We have tried communism many times. Try reading a history book.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual "LOL what an idiot! Your computer can itemize and allocate all the world's resources and service 7 billion people. Sure." Good you can be an insulting prick. Now all you need to do is make your case, but of course you have no case otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to petty bullshit.
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual "3 billion people that will have to work, have NO incentive to go to work and be productive ... We have tried communism many times. Try reading a history book."
Again, your ignorance is staggering. Communism failed due to lousy government and infrastructure. Incentive is always there if there is need and reward. You don't particularly like to take a shit I'm sure, but you do it anyways because it needs to be done. Incentive.
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual You're really quite stupid. You make arguments against things you know nothing about and talk about human nature without having a knowledge of human nature. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm only stating a fact that you are being a very stupid, willfully ignorant, waste of breath.
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
@Nathan173AB Umm NO. I don't need to make my case, the burden is proof is on YOU.
Communism, Soviet Union for example failed due to it's economic system, and incentive played a huge role /watch?v=urAZ03xtC8E
Must take one hell of a retard to compare working to taking a shit. If I am guaranteed an income irrespective of my performance, then I have no incentive to work. People pursue their own self-interest, people don't go to work b/c they love their neighbor.
Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual Second of all, the goal of a resource-based economy is to eliminate as much labor as possible. It would be nice to eliminate all labor, but any idiot understands that that's not going to happen. You are essentially passing off this obvious fact as an argument as if no one else is aware of it, which makes you come off as a patronizing asshole rather than as an intellectual. It seems to me that you're just someone who likes to hear their own rambling. Sorry. :-]
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
I hope everyone here has read ishmael.
Orionx30 1 month ago
0:56:00 did stefan just drink ketchup?
xbaronxoxbeefdipx 1 month ago
The logic is flawed by giving an example if how $500,000 should be invested by a business by pitching to a board. The venus projects premise is.pribiding neccessities such as food to those who need it but cannot afford it. Stefan says you can do lots with a piece of steel. Well you can do lots with a piece of chicken but the need for the hungry to metabolise it. Projecting a business model of investment for return to a planet where thousands die daily from hungers, disease and so on doesnt wash
ladbroke8 1 month ago
>calls himself an anarchist
>believes in heirarchy
An/archy/ = without heir/archy/
The free market is not free. There's always somebody at the top who has more money and therefore more power.
Goat777Face 1 month ago
Two radio hosts should NEVER INTERVIEW EACH OTHER! This interview could be 15 minutes long and we'd all be better off. Stefan has a rock solid, proven system. The Venus project won't be possible (or advantageous for any segment of society; compared to Stefan's society,) for 100 years.
gatersaw 1 month ago
@gatersaw Stefan does not have a proven system. There has never been a genuine free market except during the hunter-gatherer days. Saying that TVP won't be possible or advantageous for X amount of time is just a declarative statement of which I'm sure you didn't base on any sort of facts.
Nathan173AB 1 month ago
@Nathan173AB Hunter/gatherer is not capitalism. This country experienced capitalism in a libertarian society after the revo war. We had a hard currency temporarily. In 50 years USofA eclipsed everyone's production. TVP is communism which has been tried and has always resulted in significant death: Mao killed over 100million with his failed attempt. Stalin killed 20mill. (Declarative statement? Haha.)
gatersaw 1 month ago
The Venus project kid is not so great, Peter Joseph and Jack Fresco are giants (as is Stefbot).
Why does Stefbot bother with this kid ?
spystyle 1 month ago
Brave New World here we come
breakinmedia 1 month ago
if you said put yourself in their turban, you be arrested for hate crime in the UK
breakinmedia 1 month ago
How sickening to see the clever smile rising to the surface of this clever mans face as he sets out to rip apart the naive rather than using his passion to broaden the feasibility of forward movement; while he flatters his cleverness with the illusion of success there is so much to do
kittycatiya 1 month ago
@crothersdaniel
kittycatiya 1 month ago
How refreshing it is to see a civilized debate...
krabatenn 2 months ago
Comment removed
tmarrow1000 2 months ago
Comment removed
tmarrow1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No country is free today, as if they ever were...a strong case could be made that america was once free, but if they were truly free, they would have never been able to descend into tyranny as they are now. One free country standing alone is doomed to fail, we need to set the world free.
We will always have time to achieve freedom...but will we always have the oppertunity?.......
kylearsenault1 2 months ago
Wikipedia has a fair article on the calculation problem, though it's a bit jargony. Contributions from both sides of the debate appear in it.
tdbtdbthedeadbunny 2 months ago
Is the calculation problem really so heavyweight, or have the Zeitguys really just waved the magic wand? I just watched another video with the Venus Project guy, and for him the first step is to take a survey of the world's entire stock of resources. He needs to read some Hayek.
tdbtdbthedeadbunny 2 months ago
One thing Stefan neglected to point out about the calculation debate. That, along with the experience in the early Soviet Union made socialists give up on the idea of doing without money. Various flavors of market socialism were devised to try to overcome the calculation problem, but they all included the idea of having money as the medium of exchange.
tdbtdbthedeadbunny 2 months ago
money creates always inequality some have many some have few and most have nothing humans are equal and must have same acess to everything
boldman01 2 months ago