Communists everywhere, wasn't killing 100 million people enough for these idiots?
Statists everywhere— Wasn't killing more than 100 million people enough for these idoits‽
Topic: The Three Questions: What do you propose? (Read 3451 times)
Statists everywhere— Wasn't killing more than 100 million people enough for these idoits‽
Communists everywhere, wasn't killing 100 million people enough for these idiots?
After looking deeper into TZM movement I can't help but draw similarities to Anarcho-Communism. It seems like TZM is a technocratic version of Anarcho Communism. PJ's critique of Capitalism is pure Marxian except Marx is about labor and PJ is about money. Marx talks about "estrangement" & PJ talks about "structural violence". They have exact stance on the creative individual and the relation of state to the market. i.e. The market impedes the individual from realising his/her full potential
Where Communists use the state mechanism to redistribute supply, TZM would use an algo to do it. BTW Lenin also had the same idea about technology.
I do agree w the critique part but I'm more of a Post-Keynesian. I don't think the market or the state or money need to be eradicated completely, just reformed. I think regulations have to be smarter using better macro models
1. Markets. I think markets are wild and unpredictable but cyclical. There should be countercyclical policies in place to soften effects of market wings. What those policies are, I don't know at the moment. But something like "Job Guarantee" is an interesting proposal
2. State. This is a hard one becasue, the state is the one entity that has the power/ budget to enact countercyclical policies. However, the current structure of the state is inefficient. Central Banks work because because they aren't directly influenced by political parties. However, the Central Bank can only use monetary policy. Fiscal policy is still left to legislatures. Perhaps there should be an Office of Fiscal Policy that works like the Fed
3. Technology. I think algo can analyse big data. But ultimately humans are programming the algos so there will be bias. Even using algos, there will still be a political factor. I'm not sure that by letting algos decide everything is a good thing
4. Money. I think it's ridiculous to try to have an economy (even a non priced Communist economy) to exist without money. Even if money has no value you would still need it as a unit of account to do logistics
5. Inequality. This is a big problem now and probably some redistribution can occur temporarily by reforming tax laws. But the longer term vision should focus on education, infrastructure, social services, etc.. This is such a big problem that it will take quite a lot to solve. I'm skeptical that TZM concept can solve this issue
Where Communists use the state mechanism to redistribute supply, TZM would use an algo to do it. BTW Lenin also had the same idea about technology.
I do agree w the critique part but I'm more of a Post-Keynesian. I don't think the market or the state or money need to be eradicated completely, just reformed. I think regulations have to be smarter using better macro models
1. Markets. I think markets are wild and unpredictable but cyclical. There should be countercyclical policies in place to soften effects of market wings. What those policies are, I don't know at the moment. But something like "Job Guarantee" is an interesting proposal
2. State. This is a hard one becasue, the state is the one entity that has the power/ budget to enact countercyclical policies. However, the current structure of the state is inefficient. Central Banks work because because they aren't directly influenced by political parties. However, the Central Bank can only use monetary policy. Fiscal policy is still left to legislatures. Perhaps there should be an Office of Fiscal Policy that works like the Fed
3. Technology. I think algo can analyse big data. But ultimately humans are programming the algos so there will be bias. Even using algos, there will still be a political factor. I'm not sure that by letting algos decide everything is a good thing
4. Money. I think it's ridiculous to try to have an economy (even a non priced Communist economy) to exist without money. Even if money has no value you would still need it as a unit of account to do logistics
5. Inequality. This is a big problem now and probably some redistribution can occur temporarily by reforming tax laws. But the longer term vision should focus on education, infrastructure, social services, etc.. This is such a big problem that it will take quite a lot to solve. I'm skeptical that TZM concept can solve this issue
Go fishing, read a book, go camping, climb Mt Everest, ride a bike, have a bar-b-que, play soccer, smoke a joint.....
Oh yeah, have sex....how did I forget that one?
In my 20's I did a stretch of unemployment. During which, short of climbing Mt.Everest (though I did climb as it happens), I did all the things you mention.
But I can't say it was the happiest time of my life.
I take your point - but there will always be ways to contribute to society (it will never be perfect), but possibly not in the ways we were once accustomed. There will always be ways to help - help will always be needed.
Hedonism isn't really fulfilling long term either - mores the pity.
freedom while consuming products and services but not to work
Yeah, I know what you are saying. But people need work. I don't mean working at Burger King on a zero hours contract. I mean doing something meaningful, something with responsibility, with scope for self expression. The traditional middle class jobs have cornered the market in this sort of thing. Teachers, artists, engineers, doctors, lawyers,
But even these jobs are going to eventually get eaten up thru tech advances.
What we going to do - all sit around all day watching Jerry Springer ?
Go fishing, read a book, go camping, climb Mt Everest, ride a bike, have a bar-b-que, play soccer, smoke a joint.....
I can think of so many things I would rather do than work
Oh yeah, have sex....how did I forget that one?
freedom while consuming products and services but not to work
Yeah, I know what you are saying. But people need work. I don't mean working at Burger King on a zero hours contract. I mean doing something meaningful, something with responsibility, with scope for self expression. The traditional middle class jobs have cornered the market in this sort of thing. Teachers, artists, engineers, doctors, lawyers,
But even these jobs are going to eventually get eaten up thru tech advances.
What we going to do - all sit around all day watching Jerry Springer ?
Go fishing, read a book, go camping, climb Mt Everest, ride a bike, have a bar-b-que, play soccer, smoke a joint.....
I can think of so many things I would rather do than work
freedom while consuming products and services but not to work
Yeah, I know what you are saying. But people need work. I don't mean working at Burger King on a zero hours contract. I mean doing something meaningful, something with responsibility, with scope for self expression. The traditional middle class jobs have cornered the market in this sort of thing. Teachers, artists, engineers, doctors, lawyers,
But even these jobs are going to eventually get eaten up thru tech advances.
What we going to do - all sit around all day watching Jerry Springer ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE
The Three Questions: ( please watch video before answering the below as the premise is explained as in great detail. )
1) Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for improved ecological sustainability in the world today?
2) In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs (“cost efficiency”) in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?
3) In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral, emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an effect?
The Three Questions: ( please watch video before answering the below as the premise is explained as in great detail. )
1) Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for improved ecological sustainability in the world today?
2) In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs (“cost efficiency”) in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?
3) In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral, emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an effect?
When you produce more but you the people 't need to work as much it is a good thing, automation is a good thing because the aim is to enjoy comfort, safety, freedom while consuming products and services but not to work
1) Demand for human employment is not something that needs to be "maintained". I would actually prefer not to work. Why is further economic growth a goal? What collective decided this? Yes, there is an incentive to reduce resource use, he refers to it in the video, it's the incentive to maximize profit. Price keeps the supply and demand for a resource in balance.
2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.
3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week? The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.
2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.
3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week? The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.
So you are proposing an economy where the only needed labour is a basically repairing the machines and you expect this to work?
My only proposal is that people be free to participate in an economic system of their own choosing. It sounds like David Joseph fears that machines and robots are going to make human labor obsolete. I don't believe it's possible for machines to supply all of the goods and services that the market demands, but if they were, then yes, the only human labor required by the market would be to repair and operate those robots and machines.
What product or service would human labor produce or provide if robots and machines are supplying them all?
It's just a pretty silly thought experiment. We have machines called automobiles that get us from place to place. We have machines that wash and dry our clothes. We have machines that plow farmland. The list goes on and on. These machines have to be designed, built, operated, repaired, and maintained by someone.
Those are pretty good questions.
My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.
But PJ has the same problem as Marx. The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption
My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.
But PJ has the same problem as Marx. The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption
You really expect things to go on forever the way they are without disruption? disruption is a given, if what we get after is RBE or a madmax scenareo is another history. Disruption will happen as a natural result of our current system.
PJ says markets have propensity for structural violence? Yet we still have markets despite several large scale wars and revolutions. So, yes, I expect markets to go on forever. Boom and bust cycles but not madmax armageddon
Those are pretty good questions.
My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.
But PJ has the same problem as Marx. The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption
My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.
But PJ has the same problem as Marx. The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption
You really expect things to go on forever the way they are without disruption? disruption is a given, if what we get after is RBE or a madmax scenareo is another history. Disruption will happen as a natural result of our current system.
1) Demand for human employment is not something that needs to be "maintained". I would actually prefer not to work. Why is further economic growth a goal? What collective decided this? Yes, there is an incentive to reduce resource use, he refers to it in the video, it's the incentive to maximize profit. Price keeps the supply and demand for a resource in balance.
2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.
3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week? The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.
2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.
3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week? The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.
So you are proposing an economy where the only needed labour is a basically repairing the machines and you expect this to work?
Im not going to start counterargumenting these which would be easy... I'll leave it for other posters for now. What im going to say tho is: Besides trying to counterargument the 3 points, you have to PROPOSE solutions. TZM proposes solutions, let us hear yours.
Also, the last time I saw Molyneux vs Joseph Molyneux got obliterated, only a fanboy would think otherwise.
Also, the last time I saw Molyneux vs Joseph Molyneux got obliterated, only a fanboy would think otherwise.
And BTW, Stefan Molyneux is an idiot. At least this Peter Joseph guy has a brain
You must have missed this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtv5E6CkLE
Yeah exactly. Molyneux cant even stay on point and likes to talk over people. If his ideas are any good he wouldn't need to do that.
The problem w Peter Joseph is RBE is utopian. His critiques of market forces are correct. He just doesnt have a good solution yet what to do about it.
And BTW, Stefan Molyneux is an idiot. At least this Peter Joseph guy has a brain
You must have missed this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtv5E6CkLE
1) Demand for human employment is not something that needs to be "maintained". I would actually prefer not to work. Why is further economic growth a goal? What collective decided this? Yes, there is an incentive to reduce resource use, he refers to it in the video, it's the incentive to maximize profit. Price keeps the supply and demand for a resource in balance.
2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.
3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week? The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.
2) If machines were providing all of our needs (not that this is even possible), and the market only demanded goods produced and services provided by those machines then those who needed or wanted jobs would have to get a job repairing or maintaining those machines.
3) Why should someone who doesn't want to work have the same income as someone who wants to work 40 hours a week? The inequity in labor income is a function of supply and demand in a free market economy.
Oh great, Peter Joseph. Hasn't Stefan Molyneux already addressed his mindset and this Zeitgeist thing?
I couldn't even get halfway through it. Just illogical nonsense. Sounds like he wants to replace a centrally planned economy with a new, improved, centrally planned economy.
I doesn't really talk about the solution. He talks about his premise (the 3 questions) which are quite correct and not illogical at all.
He only talks about getting rid of markets, but he has no idea how to do it. That's my big critique of RBE there's no way to get to there without disruption on the scale of bloody revolution like France or Russia
And BTW, Stefan Molyneux is an idiot. At least this Peter Joseph guy has a brain
Oh great, Peter Joseph. Hasn't Stefan Molyneux already addressed his mindset and this Zeitgeist thing?
I couldn't even get halfway through it. Just illogical nonsense. Sounds like he wants to replace a centrally planned economy with a new, improved, centrally planned economy.
Those are pretty good questions.
My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.
But PJ has the same problem as Marx. The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption
My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.
But PJ has the same problem as Marx. The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption
Oh great, Peter Joseph. Hasn't Stefan Molyneux already addressed his mindset and this Zeitgeist thing?
Jump to: