Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 114. (Read 288375 times)
Zeitgeist Movement and Project Venus are sects/cults. Just letting you know that.
RBE will have to be forced on people at gun point, but only for a while, until the people are finally free of counter revolutionary thought and its adherents, then a bright new day will dawn!
FA Hayak predicted this kind of thing before;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6lSR62wmSo
FA Hayak predicted this kind of thing before;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6lSR62wmSo
Quick reminder for the last comments, obviously you did not read the thread.
1. TZM != TVP
2. Techno-cult bla bla bla bullshit: don't just put labels, read the material, argue with reason and provide actual criticism or STFU.
1. TZM != TVP
2. Techno-cult bla bla bla bullshit: don't just put labels, read the material, argue with reason and provide actual criticism or STFU.
Jesus guy, I sat through Zeitgeist Addendum didn't I, wasn't that enough?
I could write criticisms but frankly a glance through history should reveal that people have thought Venus Project thoughts before...
in history...
even in sci-fi...
Many, many times.
There is no Year Zero, if you don't know why already I cannot help you.
By all means dream your irrelevant pristine dreams, and don't let boring stupid tedious quarrelsome humanity get in your way.
Quick reminder for the last comments, obviously you did not read the thread.
1. TZM != TVP
2. Techno-cult bla bla bla bullshit: don't just put labels, read the material, argue with reason and provide actual criticism or STFU.
1. TZM != TVP
2. Techno-cult bla bla bla bullshit: don't just put labels, read the material, argue with reason and provide actual criticism or STFU.
Zeitgaist Movement says some interesting things, but ultimately they are a vacuous techno-cult. It's not the first time in history that misguided and somewhat misanthropic dreamers have asserted that mankind's redemption can be found only in technology. Laughably naive in sum.
Also, I spent 5 minutes reading The Venus' projects about section and couldn't figure out what the fuck you guys are talking about. I mostly read sentence after sentence that basically said this over and over again:
"The Venus Project is a leap forward in technological thinking. Old ways of thinking clearly are not serving humankind. Read on to find out about our innovative solutions to the challenges the world faces today. For too long we've been living in a world that.... blah blah blah."
It led me to believe that your project doesn't actually have anything to say.
"The Venus Project is a leap forward in technological thinking. Old ways of thinking clearly are not serving humankind. Read on to find out about our innovative solutions to the challenges the world faces today. For too long we've been living in a world that.... blah blah blah."
It led me to believe that your project doesn't actually have anything to say.
The futuristic, hypotrophic cities (hitech strip malls) on your home page make me want to puke. Give me a narrow alley and a 450 squarefoot apartment crammed in between hundreds of other apartments, please.
We already live in a resource based economy.
The major problem we have is the fact that the monetary system is transferring wealth from the bottom to the top. With each new dollar that is printed a little bit of your current dollars goes down in value. The wealth is transferred to bankers and Washington (who gets to spend the new dollars first).
With bitcoin this does not occur. Rather the money supply inflates very quickly early on but slows down over time. Eventually it gets to the point where the increase in new money being created is marginal and results in little or no inflation. The power to print money is returned to the people who ought to be the rightful owners of it. Bitcoin is the currency of the people.
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
What he is referring to is that the power of the printing press allows banks to create artificial booms and bust cycles. When you want to create a boom cycle you simply start printing lots of money, which the banks lend. This creates easy/cheap credit which businesses and individuals borrow. This also creates an artificial boom in the stock market/asset prices. When you want to create the bust you simply stop printing money or reduce the rate at which you print. This makes it difficult for people to repay their loans. As a result they default. When people start defaulting it sends panic in the market and you get a bust. It is at this very moment that banks will fire up the printing press once again and buy up large amounts of assets for cheap. This is what occurred in the great depression and the more recent 2006 housing bust.
There is also the problem of interest. All money put in circulation has been done so by borrowing it at interest from the fed. It is impossible to repay 14.5 trillion in loans from the fed if there is only 14 trillion total money supply.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson
When you use bitcoins rather than fiat currency you are returning the power of money back to the people.
The major problem we have is the fact that the monetary system is transferring wealth from the bottom to the top. With each new dollar that is printed a little bit of your current dollars goes down in value. The wealth is transferred to bankers and Washington (who gets to spend the new dollars first).
With bitcoin this does not occur. Rather the money supply inflates very quickly early on but slows down over time. Eventually it gets to the point where the increase in new money being created is marginal and results in little or no inflation. The power to print money is returned to the people who ought to be the rightful owners of it. Bitcoin is the currency of the people.
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
What he is referring to is that the power of the printing press allows banks to create artificial booms and bust cycles. When you want to create a boom cycle you simply start printing lots of money, which the banks lend. This creates easy/cheap credit which businesses and individuals borrow. This also creates an artificial boom in the stock market/asset prices. When you want to create the bust you simply stop printing money or reduce the rate at which you print. This makes it difficult for people to repay their loans. As a result they default. When people start defaulting it sends panic in the market and you get a bust. It is at this very moment that banks will fire up the printing press once again and buy up large amounts of assets for cheap. This is what occurred in the great depression and the more recent 2006 housing bust.
There is also the problem of interest. All money put in circulation has been done so by borrowing it at interest from the fed. It is impossible to repay 14.5 trillion in loans from the fed if there is only 14 trillion total money supply.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson
When you use bitcoins rather than fiat currency you are returning the power of money back to the people.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'clear concepts' here. The terms have dictionary definitions, but so what? They are reifications. Reifications are concepts that we use as generalized shortcuts to convey a complex idea quickly; but ideas themselves aren't real things. Capitalism and communism are often considered opposites, yet in China they work together. The 'ism' generalization becomes way too murky in the real world. Where is capitalism? Where is communism?
If you mean pure capitalism or pure communism, nowhere neither of them. But they are useful concepts to express ideas in the real world.
Not sure what reifications are, but "concepts that we use as generalized shortcuts to convey a complex idea quickly". Yes. The same with all concepts and words. Words are just shortcuts to ideas. What I don't understand is why we can use "town" but shouldn't use "communism". Are words ended in -ism worse for any special reason?
I see a lot of people labeling things as "isms." While labels are somewhat useful, they are limited by the context in which they are covering. Capitalism, collectivism, communism, etc. are a convenience for casual conversation within a limited scope, but they have no more relevance to science than talking about creationism versus evolution. Using "isms" require fallacious support when talking about real world, rather than hypothetical systems. For example: people often use terms like entropy to describe something that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Ridiculous. I don't have a problem with analogies, metaphors, and allegories; but when overgeneralizing about enormously complex subject matter it's best to build an argument one-piece-at-a-time. This takes a lot of self education. The science will take care of itself.
I disagree. Capitalism and communism are not labels but clear concepts to me. Their context is politics and economics.
However, my definition of capitalism is quite unusual, since it requires not only free market but also a monetary system in which money is loaned at interest.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'clear concepts' here. The terms have dictionary definitions, but so what? They are reifications. Reifications are concepts that we use as generalized shortcuts to convey a complex idea quickly; but ideas themselves aren't real things. Capitalism and communism are often considered opposites, yet in China they work together. The 'ism' generalization becomes way too murky in the real world. Where is capitalism? Where is communism?
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/tzm-town-hall
The Zeitgeist Movement recently held their first Town Hall meeting in LA this weekend. It is something that is going to be down more frequently to help engage the community with these ideas. Please check it out if you're interested in the subject!
Also, thanks for keeping the discussion ongoing and relevant. It is good to see.
The Zeitgeist Movement recently held their first Town Hall meeting in LA this weekend. It is something that is going to be down more frequently to help engage the community with these ideas. Please check it out if you're interested in the subject!
Also, thanks for keeping the discussion ongoing and relevant. It is good to see.
A resource based economy? Stupidest thing ever.
Also, The Venus Project is a sect/cult.
I see a lot of people labeling things as "isms." While labels are somewhat useful, they are limited by the context in which they are covering. Capitalism, collectivism, communism, etc. are a convenience for casual conversation within a limited scope, but they have no more relevance to science than talking about creationism versus evolution. Using "isms" require fallacious support when talking about real world, rather than hypothetical systems. For example: people often use terms like entropy to describe something that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Ridiculous. I don't have a problem with analogies, metaphors, and allegories; but when overgeneralizing about enormously complex subject matter it's best to build an argument one-piece-at-a-time. This takes a lot of self education. The science will take care of itself.
I disagree. Capitalism and communism are not labels but clear concepts to me. Their context is politics and economics.
However, my definition of capitalism is quite unusual, since it requires not only free market but also a monetary system in which money is loaned at interest.
I see a lot of people labeling things as "isms." While labels are somewhat useful, they are limited by the context in which they are covering. Capitalism, collectivism, communism, etc. are a convenience for casual conversation within a limited scope, but they have no more relevance to science than talking about creationism versus evolution. Using "isms" require fallacious support when talking about real world, rather than hypothetical systems. For example: people often use terms like entropy to describe something that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Ridiculous. I don't have a problem with analogies, metaphors, and allegories; but when overgeneralizing about enormously complex subject matter it's best to build an argument one-piece-at-a-time. This takes a lot of self education. The science will take care of itself.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/tzm-town-hall
The Zeitgeist Movement recently held their first Town Hall meeting in LA this weekend. It is something that is going to be down more frequently to help engage the community with these ideas. Please check it out if you're interested in the subject!
Also, thanks for keeping the discussion ongoing and relevant. It is good to see.
The Zeitgeist Movement recently held their first Town Hall meeting in LA this weekend. It is something that is going to be down more frequently to help engage the community with these ideas. Please check it out if you're interested in the subject!
Also, thanks for keeping the discussion ongoing and relevant. It is good to see.
However, barring individuals from choosing to use currency and dispensing all "abundant" goods through a central computer is far from a favourable situation.
Agreed. Nobody has proposed such nonsense (read what I wrote earlier).
[...] suggest that this value would be trained into them through "scientific education." In this, I see TZM's methods as being no different from those used by countless totalitarian regimes in the 20th century
You misinterpreted. It is a simple recognition of the fact that as education rises, the natural consequence is decline in population, we see that in every civilised country. It is by no means a value imposed, nor would anyone be compelled not to have children (as it happens in totalitarian regimes like China).
What Joseph referred to was his own view of life, he said that, for him, it would be irresponsible to bring a child on this planet without thinking of the consequences, he didn't say people shouldn't have children.
Utopian collectivism with a central computer is, unfortunately, still collectivism
Detached from the current monopoly of central bank notes, currency is just one of many means of exchange. The right to barter for both needs and wants is essential if individuals are to live in a society with any semblance of individual choice and basic freedoms.
Freedom of choice often comes with error and personal responsibility, thus there is no absolute utopia for those who believe in voluntary interactions. However, barring individuals from choosing to use currency and dispensing all "abundant" goods through a central computer is far from a favourable situation.
Beyond the monetary issue, I have also been disturbed by the views espoused by Joseph and Fresco concerning how families would cease to exist in this system due, in part, to overpopulation hysteria (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX9Ds_8jG38). If people were to spontaneously choose to stop having families for personal reasons so be it, but Fresco and Joseph suggest that this value would be trained into them through "scientific education." In this, I see TZM's methods as being no different from those used by countless totalitarian regimes in the 20th century
Detached from the current monopoly of central bank notes, currency is just one of many means of exchange. The right to barter for both needs and wants is essential if individuals are to live in a society with any semblance of individual choice and basic freedoms.
Freedom of choice often comes with error and personal responsibility, thus there is no absolute utopia for those who believe in voluntary interactions. However, barring individuals from choosing to use currency and dispensing all "abundant" goods through a central computer is far from a favourable situation.
Beyond the monetary issue, I have also been disturbed by the views espoused by Joseph and Fresco concerning how families would cease to exist in this system due, in part, to overpopulation hysteria (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX9Ds_8jG38). If people were to spontaneously choose to stop having families for personal reasons so be it, but Fresco and Joseph suggest that this value would be trained into them through "scientific education." In this, I see TZM's methods as being no different from those used by countless totalitarian regimes in the 20th century
Hey guys,
thanks for the feedback.
At first, I was a bit reluctant to join the conversation. So far I've seen that most of the times in forums the argument goes a bit like "ur face is stoopid!", and the whole conversation just deteriorates to nothingness.
I gave it a shot, and I found rather intelligent people instead, capable of putting their beliefs aside and evaluate what others present. So, thank you for the civilised discussion, I hope to get more sound criticisms so that we can improve our model even more.
If anybody is interested, I hosted the TZM global radio show last week, topic Automation and Technological unemployment.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/zmglobal/2011/06/15/june-15th-11--tzm-global-radio-host-federico-pistono
I also mentioned you guys
thanks for the feedback.
At first, I was a bit reluctant to join the conversation. So far I've seen that most of the times in forums the argument goes a bit like "ur face is stoopid!", and the whole conversation just deteriorates to nothingness.
I gave it a shot, and I found rather intelligent people instead, capable of putting their beliefs aside and evaluate what others present. So, thank you for the civilised discussion, I hope to get more sound criticisms so that we can improve our model even more.
If anybody is interested, I hosted the TZM global radio show last week, topic Automation and Technological unemployment.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/zmglobal/2011/06/15/june-15th-11--tzm-global-radio-host-federico-pistono
I also mentioned you guys
. ..Let me begin by counter-posing two different
conceptions of democracy. One conception of
democracy has it that a democratic society is one
in which the public has the means to participate
in some meaningful way in the management of
their own affairs and the means of information
are open and free....
An alternative conception of democracy is that
the public must be barred from managing of their
own affairs and the means of information must
be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may
sound like an odd conception of democracy, but
it's important to understand that it is the
prevailing conception....
Chomsky 1991
evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/chomsky03.htm
Full speech
conceptions of democracy. One conception of
democracy has it that a democratic society is one
in which the public has the means to participate
in some meaningful way in the management of
their own affairs and the means of information
are open and free....
An alternative conception of democracy is that
the public must be barred from managing of their
own affairs and the means of information must
be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may
sound like an odd conception of democracy, but
it's important to understand that it is the
prevailing conception....
Chomsky 1991
evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/chomsky03.htm
Full speech
AFAIK, there are no functioning democracy in the entire world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland
Is not total democracy though, but it's much better than, for exmple, in Spain.
Anyway, I don't want to enter ina democracy discussion. I just wanted you to know. As far as I know is the more direct democracy in the world.
Jump to: