Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 48. (Read 288348 times)

again, nothing new under the sun. Marx/Engels called their economic theory Scientific Socialism as well.

Marx was even talking about automation back then already. In fact, his analysis is all about the surplus value which, while acknowledging it will lead to technological progress and appreciating the dynamics of capitalism, will throw capitalism into crisis after crisis as long as the means of production are in private hands (aka the "profit motive"), until capitalism will ultimately fail and abolish itself, and the world will finally awaken and convert to the socialism/communism route.

This "utopian communism" does (largely) imply elimination of scarcity and intelligent and fair redistribution of resources. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

Wouldn't we all be happy if we all can get what we need and know our food is actually healthy and not pumped full with sugars and other garbage to make us eat and consume more for their corporate profits? You're talking about rations as if we would have to live on a strict diet prescribed by a supercomputer, but when technology is able to create an abundance of food and other resources there is enough for everyone and no need for rations. I fail to see how this would be a bad thing.

It's the only possible outcome.

So your supercomputers and robots make the production of silicon, and thus semiconductors, very inexpensive. The economically illiterate believe this means that semiconductors are no longer scarce.

What actually happens is that since semiconductors are inexpensive people will want to use more of them. If an i7 costs $0.005, then I'll want a room full of them.

It won't be possible for everybody to have as many as they want, no matter how shiny your robot silicon miners, so you'll need some method of determining how much everybody is allowed to have.

If you're not using a market price discovery function, you're back to good old central planning, which is still just as broken now as it was in 1920 when von Mises debunked it.

Actually, no, I didn't think that would have been the answer. Though that is what I would expect.

It's not like you don't know the answer though.

The central planners will decide how much of each resource everybody needs, and will dictate how it will be provided to them, so that they can declare victory when everybody receives their rations.

80 pages and no answer to that? Sheesh.....glad I didn't start reading this thread 2 years ago.

Will check back in late 2015.

Sorry, no answers there. "Using the scientific method" is just as vague as "using the most profitable method" or "using the method that would take care of the most need." With just that statement by itself as the explanation, the article might as well have said "using the best method that will make everyone happy." Any other ism's can also then just say the same thing.

One other thing that has never been explained by anyone involved in this movement is how do they plan on eliminating scarcity on a planet that has scarce resources, and for people who have scarce time.

Well I still don't think the word communism applies here, although there are similarities. The communist movement did not plan to remove labour or scarcity for instance. The goals of a RBE are also broader and they are meant to be applied on a global scale, since we are all one species and don't want to deplete the earth's resources or sacrifice the environment we all share. A resource based economy is about managing the earth's resources intelligently and eliminate labour and scarcity so humans can live in harmony with nature and each other again. It's an entirely different train of thought, although there are overlapping goals and ideals with communism.

Well, this is communism, almost blueprint.

Read up on communism. The USSR and the Eastern Bloc were not communism. It's not only anarcho-communists that say so, even the Soviet leaders said so. How?

The idea of communism has always been the vision of a classless society, explicitly with the goal of removing the state (and thus, leaders and politicians with it). It has always been projected into the future as some kind of utopia. The differences between the various strains of the diverse socialist and communist movements have merely been about how to get there (which might be the only difference to the Zeitgeist movement, as they don't seem to lay out any road map).

Socialism is sometimes defined as the intermediate phase on the road to communism. The USSR categorized themselves as socialist in this respect. Lenin's approach specifically had been to implement Marx's idea of the temporary(!) "dictatorship of the proletariat". This approach was heavily attacked by anarcho-communists like Kropotkin etc...

The "computerized systems" are nothing new either. In fact, Allende tried to implement a cybernetic society in Chile in the beginning of the 70ies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn - We didn't really see the results, as he was removed by Pinochet too soon.

I think you may be able to find the answer to that in here:
http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/blog/matt-berkowitz/false-left-right-paradigm-vs-resource-based-economy

Basically the main difference as I see it is that a resource based economy places technology and the scientific method at the forefront of decision making, instead of politicians obsessed with votes and spreading propaganda. Humans when placed in a position of power can easily become corrupt and make bad decisions, but computerized systems that apply math and science to questions like resource allocation are not prone to these human flaws. Bitcoin for example was also invented to take the control of money out of the hands of individual human beings and place it in the hands of cold but trustworthy math.

Nobody ever does. Not even RBE proponents.

I'll refrain from reading >70 pages, but I support this, to some extent at least. Bitcoin is not the be-all-end-all solution, but it will help us get there.

Agreed, and I was wondering about that, too. Though he did sort of address it by saying that government is by nature aggressive, and if we slowly change the psychology of people to reject violencenand practice the NAP, that things like government will not only be too costly to implement, but will be viewed as just violence, not as "it's government, so it's OK."



Peter doesn't understand that the reason we have competition in the first place is due to limited resources, be they commodities, food, or even skilled labor, time, and proximity (the tons of food we grow here in the states are no good for Africa that is thousands of miles away). So, I think I get what he is trying to achieve, but, as I said, I just don't see any way of getting from where we are to where he wants us to be without either a lot of very rich people giving a lot of their money, time, and resources away on building this, or without a government or so,e authority forcing everyone to pay to build this infrastructure, and then forcing everyone to conform to it...

I think Peter argued that a free market will always end up creating a state for themselves because the forces of competition and self-preservation will automatically gravitate towards that. It's inherent in the free market's game theoretic model so to speak. Now you may or may not agree with Peter on that, but Stefan never actually addressed or seemed to understand that point.


I don't think you understand him and the zeitgeist movement very well. Peter is against our system of competition for maximum profit at the cost of our environment and everyone else, and believes that with our current technology and with real cooperation we can invent a system together that abolishes this need for competition and creates an abundance for all people which would free them from poverty and their mundane slave-wage jobs. Is this true? I'm not sure, but that's what the debate should have been about.

Thing is, I don't actually know that his intentions are good. Like I've seen with all other seitgeist proponents, they have a general (or specific) goal that they want to achieve, but never any actual steps needed to take to achieve it. And the only steps I can see towards their goal involve basically forcing people to act and do things in a more socialist and economically-planned manner, which, when asked about, they always inevitably deny wanting to do. In a way it's like saying my intention to send you on a trip to Italy is good, but leaving out the part where the method of me sending you to Italy involves stuffing you into a cannon and firing you across the world (obviously not good for you).


I understood is as pretty much taking care of the poor and those in poverty to make sure they have all their basic needs always taken care of. His claim, and the claim of all zeitgeise followers, is that it is already possible with today's technology. Personally I'm not so sure. Plus the resources for the basic needs will have to come from somewhere, and thus from someone...



I understood it as Peter insisting that the state and the free market are one and the same, despite being repeatedly told that the state is the opposite of a free market, since it is only able to exist through coersion, not through trade/production, while Stefan consistently poiinted out that things like exploitative corporations are actually a product of the state, and wouldn't exist without state support either. Not sure why you understood that as Sefan treating corporations as a nonissue...



Right, that's what I got from that too. Peter, just like our local zeitgeister here, keeps insisting that the solution to the environment being destroyed by government regulations/subsidies is to have more government regulations/subsidies...


I didn't see the follow-up videos yes, but considering the first followup is titled "Peter Joseph v Stefan Molyneux Debate Analysis," which was followed up by a response video that in the title calls Stefan's analysis "The Art of Nonesense - Pathology or Con Artistry," I kinda doubt Stefan would bother giving Peter any more time. Considering the level of jackassery and disrespect Peter was showing in their initial debate, if I was Stefan, I would have written him off as a lost cause right after that.

Yeah, Peter is very rough around the edges, but his intentions are good--however, we know exactly where those can lead.  I think Stefan did a fairly decent job here sorting through the word salad, but I'm still confused as to Peter's actual intents; it seems he's chiefly concerned with having a sustainable planet, but this can devolve just as PETA's mission devolved, where the ultimate way to conserve X is to eliminate Y, usually people.  Though I do believe a sustainable and healthy world is an incredible priority, I also find that being able to enjoy that world in freedom to be important as well.  This seems to be the two philosopher's disconnects; Peter advocates the RBE without paying much attention to the state, or treating it like a non-issue, while Stefan advocates anarchism without paying much attention to corporations, or treating that as a non-issue; of course, the two concepts are inseparable, and whenever you have one central source of power, you'll have other major powers flock to it; corporations thrive through the state, the state extends power through corporations, and there's nothing any individual can do to keep the two from doing the horizontal monster mash in bed together.

So it seems their intentions are aligned but they're both missing the valid points of the other; Peter is correct to say that we should push for a better, sustainable planet, and would be agreeable if he would admit that it must be done voluntarily, for there is a huge difference between arriving here with the state and without, as the state only acts in its own interest, which is often against what's best for everyone; Stefan is correct to say that fiercely maintaining one's personal liberties through voluntaryism would solve a lot of problems in our world, but doesn't seem to admit that major corporations can't exist in their current form without subsidies from the state, nor acknowledges the damage they're causing and how the public must pay for it; in other words, public losses private gains.

So, hopefully they'll return for another round and come to agree with one another, but as far as I could see in that video, they were mostly just butting heads.  Peter could also bare to be a little friendlier

Just watched the initiial debate, and, with apologies to Stefan for relying oon adjectives, but WOW is Peter Joseph an asshole.

Memorable moment btw, when Stefan pointed out that Peter hasn't really explained his claim yet, Peter retorts with, "But I have explained it, in detail, with many examples." That reminded me so much of our LightRider here, as that has frequently beed his answer to a question or a point. Hint, if someone is asking that, it means you either haven't explained it, or done a terrible job at it. Just saying that you have, even saying you have many times, doesn't actually prove or support anything 

No Adam and Steve? 

You forgot Chuck and Eve.

Hope they will also have Wikipedia to look up Dunning-Kruger