Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 93. (Read 288348 times)

Not everywhere, they're not been there everywhere. If your claim is an economic truth, it must apply to every situation in any time. Even in imaginary little islands.


It is hard to find an innovation that doesn't produce growth, so I won't try it again.
I gave you previous examples in which there was free trade without growth. Although they're good, the market doesn't need innovations nor growth. I have already proved it to you before, just read my previous post if you're interested in the truth. Of course, you can keep on believing in dogmas and argument to other people that they don't need proof because they're "self-evident".

But they in real life.

Your example of innovation is ridiculous

In my example there's no hydroponic farms. An innovation just reduces the demand for carrots and the producer moves part of his labor to other place, so there's different production, no more and no less production: no growth. In this example, there's innovation but no gorwth. People just cook their soup with less carrot but with better flavor and can take massages too with the money they save eating less carrots.

Innovation is a natural tendency so is automation jobs are lost but they production is not.



Carrot production can be totally automated via hydroponic farms . If one that were growing them suddenly start making massages the demand for oil massages increases which increases production because machines continue to grow carrots plus now people need more oils.

Yes services increase production and energy consumption as well.

You example and reasoning totally missed the issue .

I always strive to know the facts not blind believes. If i am to be wrong i want to proven so and stopped being ignorant.

You're assuming free market requires innovation and it always causes unemployment.
You're statement "if new jobs are created then production rises" is also false.
An example:

A grows carrots to barter for the things he wants.
B invents a new recipe that needs half of the carrots and share it with the community.
Now A can only barter half of his carrot production: he spends half the time he used to to grow the carrots and with the remaining time he makes massages.
Free market, innovation, job creation but no growth of production.

Anyway, as said before, free market doesn't need innovation, so it doesn't need growth. And Job creation != growth.
So, to answer your question, you're wrong.
But again, if this doesn't affect your conclusions about money, why do you insist on this?

If you want to base all decision making in simulation you need to do it.


Well, if a false statement is not important for your conclusions, why keep on repeating lies?
As I told you, profit tends to zero by competition: nothing wrong with profit. The bad thing is interest and capital yields, which you won't have with ripple and freicoin.

Can you tell me how you being an individual relates to the decision making process of choosing whether we should build nuclear plants or solar cells ( as in example ) ?

RBE is not about managing your life only the processes that concerns us all since we all live in a society on one single finite planet.

I saw the video.
I searched the transcript for anything like the word "individual" and there is nothing. Doesn't this philosophy recognize such a thing as the individual?

You should watch this video just from few posts above.

TZM does not advocate technocracy only applying scientific methods for social concern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83LAk3BT7no

About this technocracy:

What about individuality?

This machine world is going to be run an Elite of engineers. What happens if my views don't coincide with these Planners?

I think the key point for a better future society not whether we have some form of money or not, a RBE or not, but that all participation is VOLUNTARY, meaning there is no more initiation of force for any reason, and there is sufficient transparency (ie. no more big lies).

Nobody can predict what will happen once we have an (advanced) society in which everyone is free to do as they please as long as they do no harm. This is because there never really has been such a society in recorded history (although a few come close).

There might be a monetary system or there might not be a monetary system. We might even have a mixed situation where people in some areas organize their lives completely differently than people in other areas. This is what FREEDOM is about. Nobody tells anybody what they have to do or not do. Since people are quite diverse we will probably get many diverse solutions and situations.

I personally think there might be a transition period in which some better forms of money such as Bitcoin are used but that eventually even that becomes obsolete once there is prosperity for everyone (i.e. we reach a Star Trek like level where there is an abundance of energy and things).

I have something to ad up.

Yes free market requires growth because level of automation in increasing all the time - less people have jobs - more new jobs must be created.
Lack of technological unemployment and constant production cant happen at the same time.

You logic is circular. You claim technological unemployment dont exists because new jobs are created , if new jobs are created then production rises.
 Am i wrong or correct ?

I couldn't have put it better myself. These are exactly the issues that plague the ZM/VP.

Half-truths, assumption of a universal mindset and rejection of potential unknowns.

The last point is agreed upon by everyone here as far as I can tell, but the ZM/VP chooses to eliminate it instead of determining why it's a Ponzi scheme. Even elimination of government is unwarranted and even undesirable - it's the current form of government that's at issue, not the existence of an organizational method.

Bitcoin as a system is a realistic solution to the Ponzi scheme that all human-managed currencies end up as; some form of it will eventually supersede existing fiat. That's the economic side. Now, current ideas of government need to be replaced. Since economic factors act as the framework of a society, a government will have to grow to fit the economy. It's just a matter of time.

That's why ZM/VP come off as relying on magic between the stages of starting a movement and accomplishing their goals.

I dont think there was ever mentioning that , the simulation was applied to each scenario of decision making procees of building power source. For example simulation of potential deadly fuel leak form nuclear plant.


Ok lets assume for a moment that is correct. But what exactly does that change , entire decision making process still stays the same ( profit based ) instead of scientific based . The same shit stays around .

Hi, I've already answered to your video.
I guess we still disagree on the same points.

I finished the video! Democracy, technocracy, the free market or the scientific method for social concern?

This video is an attempt to show how the various forms of government and decision making work, what are their advantages and their problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83LAk3BT7no

I've been working on this video for quite some time, now it's finally ready. Hope you guys like it

Sources cited in the video
The scientific method made easy http://goo.gl/v9SZi
Scientists and engineers in the 111th U.S. Congress http://goo.gl/a5uOO
Only two scientists among the 535 member of the U.S. Congress http://goo.gl/Ak8np
BitCoin Forum quote #1 http://goo.gl/JWzes
BitCoin Forum quote #2 http://goo.gl/j24IO
BitCoin Forum quote #3 http://goo.gl/nzDNz

Full transcript and links
http://goo.gl/KUlGw

Oh, I guess this is the video 4v4l0n42 promised us.
Let's analyze some of his mistakes.

1) desired results
Findeton was wrong when he said "There's no scientific theory on whether you should use nuclear power plants or solar panels.".
Yes you can and I'll tell you how. First you decide the desired results...

Well, that's exactly what findeton was claiming is out of the scientific method. Science doesn't give you desired results. Presenting Findeton argumentation cut and out of context makes him look right, but nothing else.

2) maximizing the well being of everybody

You cannot maximize the "well being" of everybody because the "well being" is subjective to each individual. You cannot even define a fungible unit (like watts, newtons, or grams) for the function you're supposed to maximize. You have no means to measure that "function".
You cannot define well being scientifically.

Even if you had all that and the perfect plan you need to motivate people to work on your plan (or wait for the singularity robot that will make it for you).

3) simulation of people's decisions

How do you simulate the people wants and cultural developments?

4) free market requires growth

No. This is false. Only our current monetary system requires growth because it is designed as a ponzi scheme of debt.
With sound money like gold, you would have business cycles that stop the unsustainable growth that capital-money demands in the form of interest. Well, with fiat currencies you have them too but commercial and central banks (and governments) try to stop deflation and just postpone it by printing, making the crises worse.
If they keep on postponing deflation with the current crises, we will end up with hyperinflation for the dollar (with catastrophic consequences for the entire world), maybe it is already unavoidable.

But you don't need capital-money in a free market. You can have money free of interest like ripple or freicoin.

You guys are famous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83LAk3BT7no

Edit: Post of the beast!

Its not only a problem of being authoritarian, its a problem that without price mechanism you can not distribute resources efficiently because information is local and (to the human capacity) infinite.

The Zeitgest movement just ignore this and keeps repeating that without money everything will be dandy. They have resurrected a lot of marxists economic fallacies (most of them dont even know where the ideas they repeat come from).

I'm not sure about that. The venus project may want a global communist government, but the zeitgeist movement doesn't want governments at all. It's all voluntary, and money will just disappear because "it will become useless". "We have tried money and didn't work, we tried governments and the same happened. It's time to try a different thing."

The computer is my friend