For those interested, there is a new web series produced by Peter Joseph. It's the best reality show ever made.
Culture in Decline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2k
Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 82. (Read 288375 times)
Even in the bronze age they had the concept of money, I think. The romans I'm sure they did.
Only a very primitive, aborigine-like society can live without it. And in such societies, you won't have true private ownership nor trade.
Only a very primitive, aborigine-like society can live without it. And in such societies, you won't have true private ownership nor trade.
My only point was that money, as we think of it, is an abstract representation of wealth. It is possible to have an economy with only concrete representations of wealth (i.e. bartering), but such a system is necessarily extremely inefficient compared to what we're used to. If somebody says "money is the problem", they propose reverting to an extremely primitive sort of culture. If somebody say "ownership is the problem", they propose reverting even further.
Good, concise points.
Accumulation of wealth is what drive us as a people and our economy.
Ownership is a method of retaining wealth.
We have almost no controls over ownership in the US. Given enough time and motivation this allows for uncontrolled accumulation of wealth.
Uncontrolled accumulation of wealth will inherently produce concentration of wealth.
It's quite simple to see that uncontrolled wealth eliminates any realistic chance of wealth for the majority.
It is how it has always been. The self-sustaining divide between the poor and the rich. But there is one looming difference that is trending upward.
Our intelligence, our advancing modern capability has placed an equally strict mandate of efficiency over wealth accumulation.
The concentration of wealth and application of that wealth will monopolize intelligence to satisfy the efficiency mandate.
The ultra concentration of both wealth and the vast majority of our collective intelligence will magnify long standing disparity and misery.
This blessing of complete freedom of ownership, our advancement and the "free market" may very likely result in an unintended equilibrium. Ironically, an equilibrium resembling the wealth redistribution of a socialist state where individual wealth of the vast majority is roughly equal. Very little wealth. Dramatic rises in global population only reinforce these ideas.
We follow ideas such as the "American Dream," as if a carrot while our masters give us the stick.
Potential desire for future revolution will be quashed as the opponent will be our collective intelligence.
What is your conclusion then? If you think that we need to balance it out, what it will lead to is a lot of weak people with lots of desires.
Current system of top-down nannying works because they also program you to desire the things they need you to desire, aside with how you need to act, so even if you become weak in many ways, you project your efforts towards a common goal, which makes the whole structure stronger.
No conclusion, maybe the imbalance is part of the human nature itself, there is no way to get definite fair, but anyway human is very adaptable, as long as the life is not threatened
I remember that welfare economics usually use happiness index to measure the effect of a certain political choice, maybe that is the best we can do currently
Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism
What you are saying is that it is "fair" for a strong person to work harder to get the same thing others get, not because he wants to, but because his "need" isn't as big as the other's?
A strong person need to work less harder to get the same thing done than a weak person
While this storng person typically get exessive amount of products to consume, a weak person might not get enough products to consume
On the other hand, their desire has nothing to do with their ability (decided by brain), a strong person's desire can be weaker than a weak person. Those people with less desire typically can think calm and make wise decision and make more money, while those with stronger desire and emotional spend money faster than they earn. And it is typically the later think it is unfair
When it comes to valuate each person's labor, the only judgement is market price, but that really do not show each person's effort, just force everyone to be measured under same standard, so that the weaker ones get kicked out of the game
What is your conclusion then? If you think that we need to balance it out, what it will lead to is a lot of weak people with lots of desires.
Current system of top-down nannying works because they also program you to desire the things they need you to desire, aside with how you need to act, so even if you become weak in many ways, you project your efforts towards a common goal, which makes the whole structure stronger.
Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism
What you are saying is that it is "fair" for a strong person to work harder to get the same thing others get, not because he wants to, but because his "need" isn't as big as the other's?
A strong person need to work less harder to get the same thing done than a weak person
While this storng person typically get exessive amount of products to consume, a weak person might not get enough products to consume
On the other hand, their desire has nothing to do with their ability (decided by brain), a strong person's desire can be weaker than a weak person. Those people with less desire typically can think calm and make wise decision and make more money, while those with stronger desire and emotional spend money faster than they earn. And it is typically the later think it is unfair
When it comes to valuate each person's labor, the only judgement is market price, but that really do not show each person's effort, just force everyone to be measured under same standard, so that the weaker ones get kicked out of the game
Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism
What you are saying is that it is "fair" for a strong person to work harder to get the same thing others get, not because he wants to, but because his "need" isn't as big as the other's?
In a world of scarcity, people are easy to group together and work towards the same goal. But in a world of abundant, it's about how to allocate the resource correctly (not evenly)
Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism
Because of this, the current method will always end up in a political debate, goes for the majority of the voters, so that most of the people are satisfied
Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism
Because of this, the current method will always end up in a political debate, goes for the majority of the voters, so that most of the people are satisfied
Abandoning money is an end, but I wonder why more Zeitgeisters don't embrace Bitcoin as a means to that end? As a vocal fringe group, they might influence similar organizations like OWS.
I think it may be because both groups don't really understand money, and are both anti-capitalist.
http://youtu.be/8ZE6HGjnfzc
Peter Joseph's recent Zeitgeist Day presentation in Vancouver. The first section is highly relevant to many of the arguments and discussions about the validity of a monetary system.
Abandoning money is an end, but I wonder why more Zeitgeisters don't embrace Bitcoin as a means to that end? As a vocal fringe group, they might influence similar organizations like OWS. Peter Joseph's recent Zeitgeist Day presentation in Vancouver. The first section is highly relevant to many of the arguments and discussions about the validity of a monetary system.
I knew I would find Zeitgeisters and Juggalos on here =D
I like this thread, been trying to find ways of implementing all this kinda stuff too.
But, if this whole "global economy" thing wasn't such a big problem, we wouldn't be working on trying to fix it.
I like this thread, been trying to find ways of implementing all this kinda stuff too.
But, if this whole "global economy" thing wasn't such a big problem, we wouldn't be working on trying to fix it.
frankly, Libertarian utopia is much closer to Brave New World than an RBE. As far as I remember, Brave New World is all about being a consumption slave, keeping the economy going,
Please don't pollute Libertarianism with Keynesianism.
http://youtu.be/8ZE6HGjnfzc
Peter Joseph's recent Zeitgeist Day presentation in Vancouver. The first section is highly relevant to many of the arguments and discussions about the validity of a monetary system.
Peter Joseph's recent Zeitgeist Day presentation in Vancouver. The first section is highly relevant to many of the arguments and discussions about the validity of a monetary system.
frankly, Libertarian utopia is much closer to Brave New World than an RBE. As far as I remember, Brave New World is all about being a consumption slave, keeping the economy going, and numbing one's senses with that Soma drug. Zeitgeist utopia rather reminds me of an Equilibrium scenario if it goes wrong (and it probably will).
at the end of Brave New World, the World Controler 'Mustapha Mond' is talking to the savage about the 'Brave New World'.
Quote from: zeitgeist-dude
Poverty, war, crime and hunger are the result of inequitable economic practices, and will not significantly change until we end or significantly alter our subservience to this and associated institutions.
in the Brave New World, there are also no Poverty, War, Crime and Hunger.
frankly, Libertarian utopia is much closer to Brave New World than an RBE. As far as I remember, Brave New World is all about being a consumption slave, keeping the economy going, and numbing one's senses with that Soma drug. Zeitgeist utopia rather reminds me of an Equilibrium scenario if it goes wrong (and it probably will).
The Venus Project has recently achieved a milestone in their efforts to create a mass media major motion picture.
I have encouraged them to accept bitcoin donations for some time, but I have not heard from them about their stance on this issue. Hopefully, when they have a larger monetary goal, they will seek more sources of funding in the future.
I would also point out that there is a similar effort being made by the makers of Waking Up, an open source film that does accept bitcoin donations.
Quote
THANK YOU! We have reached our goal of $100,000 to hire a scriptwriter for The Venus Project’s major motion picture. We even went over that amount by about $13,000. Thanks to a recent larger donation. We deeply appreciate all the dedication and participation from those who donated and encouraged others to do so. The sum raised was almost entirely from smaller donations therefore a large number of people donated. We will keep people informed as to how it is progressing. Thank you again from all of us at The Venus Project.
I have encouraged them to accept bitcoin donations for some time, but I have not heard from them about their stance on this issue. Hopefully, when they have a larger monetary goal, they will seek more sources of funding in the future.
I would also point out that there is a similar effort being made by the makers of Waking Up, an open source film that does accept bitcoin donations.
I'd love to see Jacques Fresco's response to Bitcoin!
"no, we don't need that I have all the plans right here! We just need all these things that I saw on the jetson's errrr the Epcot Center errrr no I designed them because I'm an engineer. Yeah check out these new car designs, I've never actually made any prototypes cause no company will hire me. Here check out a mag lev train it's smarter to travel at Mach 4 so that when you crash your death is quick and painless. What's that Peter? Oh yeah the whole world SHOULD go to Sweden on a lunch break cause that is the scientific and efficient use of the world's resources. Yeah can I get someone to program this computer? Cause really I'm old as fuck and don't even know how to turn it on, it'll get the job done though, mark my words it'll get ALL the jobs done so humankind can become more worthless than the money they so desperately cling to. "
Sorry that was more of a rant than a response to Bitcoins I just think TVP is absolutely absurd just like it's boastful leaders. Anyways, if you are part of TZM or TVP, sorry to troll you here but I have a hard time believing that you put much thought into these organizations. You would be better off joining a charity organization or donating to one, most charitable donations will go a hell of a lot farther than TZM and TVP will ever go.
Also, this thread is tl;dr so sorry if I repeated anything
"no, we don't need that I have all the plans right here! We just need all these things that I saw on the jetson's errrr the Epcot Center errrr no I designed them because I'm an engineer. Yeah check out these new car designs, I've never actually made any prototypes cause no company will hire me. Here check out a mag lev train it's smarter to travel at Mach 4 so that when you crash your death is quick and painless. What's that Peter? Oh yeah the whole world SHOULD go to Sweden on a lunch break cause that is the scientific and efficient use of the world's resources. Yeah can I get someone to program this computer? Cause really I'm old as fuck and don't even know how to turn it on, it'll get the job done though, mark my words it'll get ALL the jobs done so humankind can become more worthless than the money they so desperately cling to. "
Sorry that was more of a rant than a response to Bitcoins I just think TVP is absolutely absurd just like it's boastful leaders. Anyways, if you are part of TZM or TVP, sorry to troll you here but I have a hard time believing that you put much thought into these organizations. You would be better off joining a charity organization or donating to one, most charitable donations will go a hell of a lot farther than TZM and TVP will ever go.
Also, this thread is tl;dr so sorry if I repeated anything
If people let their lives be determined by an AI, then they risk that somebody covertly takes control of it and uses it to control the people. Even decentralizing it does not remove that risk entirely. The only true freedom comes when people trust their own thinking first and foremost.
That scenario is not likely to happen anytime soon. I actually think it will take an AI/robotic brain that's free from our organic defects to indirectly rule us much like in A.C. Clarke's aliens in "Childhood's End."All our technology has been internalized in the past, and I don't see that changing in the future. What I mean is that if we figure out how to make thinking machines, we will use them for personal implants/augmentation first before we use it for any standalone entities. So in the end, we will be the intelligent, super-smart, all knowing beings with wired brains, just as we used to be calculator carrying beings, and are now beings with connected smartphones and access to Google and Wikipedia. Any AI will simply be a tool to make ourselves better.
If people let their lives be determined by an AI, then they risk that somebody covertly takes control of it and uses it to control the people. Even decentralizing it does not remove that risk entirely. The only true freedom comes when people trust their own thinking first and foremost.
That scenario is not likely to happen anytime soon. I actually think it will take an AI/robotic brain that's free from our organic defects to indirectly rule us much like in A.C. Clarke's aliens in "Childhood's End." Jump to: