| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Toasterbaked
United States160 Posts
Let's reach am agreement first. Do you agree that an RBE will never work without having superabundance for every good we want/need? It's a yes/no question. If you say yes, we can discuss on whether if we can achieve superabundance or not If you say no, then doesn't RBE assume every single resource will be so abundant that all resources lose value, and therefore makes money obsolete? | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
I do agree that rbe wont work without having abundance of all of the goods we need, and most of the goods we want. Delicious might think different about this btw, and he has been the main defender I cant speak for him but as far as i know the defenders of rbe do agree with this. It is a mood point for them annyway since abundance will be a given fact in an rbe. | ||
|
Toasterbaked
United States160 Posts
On June 01 2012 13:27 Rassy wrote: Like every yes or no question it is not possible to answer as the answer wich i would like to give is "yes but" I do agree that rbe wont work without having abundance of all of the goods we need, and most of the goods we want. Delicious might think different about this btw, and he has been the main defender I cant speak for him but as far as i know the defenders of rbe do agree with this. It is a mood point for them annyway since abundance will be a given fact in an rbe. Abundance is a given fact in an RBE, because, RBE cannot function without abundance. People, without total abundance, will probably have something they want that they cannot get. Delicious gave me a step-by-step information on how to get to an RBE. (from thread "the free world charter", page 70) Step1:Social reforms/regulation of the markets/Valueshifts/charity organizations provided with subsities Step2: Create abundance for the nessceties of life without a pricetag. Start placing the nesscery infrastructure to exit the monetary system. Step3: The monetary system is now 100% obsolete, and values have shifted from ownership to access, social concern is personal concern. Without abundance, it would suck if you wanted something because it wouldn't be fair to others, even I'd you are willing to work for it | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 01 2012 13:22 Toasterbaked wrote: Well... Let's reach am agreement first. Do you agree that an RBE will never work without having superabundance for every good we want/need? It's a yes/no question. If you say yes, we can discuss on whether if we can achieve superabundance or not If you say no, then doesn't RBE assume every single resource will be so abundant that all resources lose value, and therefore makes money obsolete? Yes, that's how I see it. You need superabundance first - then you can use RBE or communism or whatever you want as economics and money will be pointless. In the time between now and then however, you are stuck with money and capitalism since that's the only thing that works when you have scarcity. In the future can we have superabundance? Sure, why not? But will it take 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years? I have no idea. | ||
|
Goobus
Hong Kong587 Posts
Let's give a short example of, say, widgets. The world currently can produce 10,000 widgets/year, but the demand for widgets is 50,000/year. What happens in the current economic system? The price of widgets goes up, which changes the quantity demanded of widgets (the only people who can get widgets are those who can afford it; the people who can't afford it still want widgets, but now widgets are more expensive than what they are willing to pay for them). Now, what happens is that savvy entrepreneurs see that the price of widgets is skyrocketing, so people flock into the widget producing industry in order to capture some of these profits. Over time, the number of widgets produced increases, the price of widgets goes down (tending towards the cost of production), and everyone who wants a widget gets a widget at the price they are willing to pay. Of course, this is a gross oversimplification of the way the system currently works - in reality, there are many obstacles to the system achieving this perfect level of efficiency (such as government regulations, monopolies, evil politicians, etc.), but by and large, the economic system is able to achieve this to a remarkable degree of efficiency. Note that in the beginning of my post, I said that this is humanity's current solution to the problem of how to distribute scarce resources. Now what happens if resources were not scarce? (i.e. we can produce whatever people want at whatever quantity for everyone in the world) Well, then I guess the RBE would work, with an important caveat. Whatever technological system that Zeitgeisters come up to control the production and distribution of resources would have to be absolutely perfect - any kinks in it would be disastrous. Today's economic system relies on self-regulation and feedback systems (i.e. supply and demand) to determine the perfect level of production, price, etc. Without a perfect computer that knows exactly what society wants, this will be impossible. Of course, this is all assuming the scarcity problem can be solved, which we are arguably not even close to. I haven't even touched on the psychological, cultural, and logistical problems of implementing this system. TL;DR: the current economic system already does what Zeitgeisters claim to be able to do, but is able to evolve and deal with scarcity much better than any human designed system could. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On June 01 2012 11:55 DeliCiousVP wrote: Funny rants with some truths in it. The guy at 11 minutes is an idiot (and I did not watch the rest, nor will I). At least you agree that there is no thoughtcrime in our current (western) society, good to know. | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
Delicious, you are aware that Molyneux is an 'anarcho-capitalist' that has demolished the venus project? <= Here is the movie of that. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Hmm well yes you are right , But... One of the arguments of rbe is that capitalism makes resources and products scarce. Resources and products are not inherently scarce annymore with current technology according to rbe advocates, Contrary to the past, where the lack of technology made products and resources scarce. Capitalism didnt solve this scarecity with new found technologys, instead it cultivated it. | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On June 01 2012 21:16 Rassy wrote: "It's alarming how little understanding of economics most posters in this thread (esp. the proponents of this RBE system) show. Our economic system in its current state has evolved as a response to one thing, and one thing only - the problem of how to distribute scarce resources to different members of society, and money is merely there as a means to achieve this distribution in a few ways." Hmm well yes you are right , But... One of the arguments of rbe is that capitalism makes resources and products scarce. Resources and products are not inherently scarce annymore with current technology according to rbe advocates, Contrary to the past, where the lack of technology made products and resources scarce. Capitalism didnt solve this scarecity with new found technologys, instead it cultivated it. And this is, of course, complete rubbish. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
It suprises me btw hat none of the people arguing against an rbe is attacking the basis of it. The basis of rbe is that we can produce enough products for everyone in the world with current technology. As soon as people manage to proove that this is wrong, the whole rbe falls. Noone in this thread has so far seriously attacked this point. Rbe didnt do much to proove its side either btw, though it did give an example with a calculation of all farmland in the world and how much it should be able to produce, They probably did manny more calculations to come to the conclusion that scarecity is artificial though i am not sure where to find them (lol). With knowing everything i know i dont think its a completely unreasonable claim. Therefore i have been trying to find more info on the calculations but that is not easy to find unfortunatly. Rbe should maybe provide more calculations and research on potential production as its a verry strong argument for their case. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
Funny dat DeliciousVP would post a movie of Molyneux of Free Domain Radio. Delicious, you are aware that Molyneux is an 'anarcho-capitalist' that has demolished the venus project? There are a lot of different people across many "ideologies" that recognize some of the flaws in the system. Many of you guys completely disregard the value shift from a competitive-personal concern to a cooperate-social concern for personal concern. That comes from an understanding of the technology available today coupled with a EQ that reflects that we live in the 21st century. the basis of rbe is that we can produce enough products Define products? Do you mean the necessities of life such as food,water,shelter,communication,transport,tools(Computer) Or do you refer to extravaganzas like Diamond hats? Whatever the monetary system can produce, We can produce more because in a Resource based economy no "fictional" obstacles exist such as money. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 01 2012 21:33 Rassy wrote: yes, most likely, though there is some truth in it. It suprises me btw hat none of the people arguing against an rbe is attacking the basis of it. The basis of rbe is that we can produce enough products for everyone in the world with current technology. As soon as people manage to proove that this is wrong, the whole rbe falls. Noone in this thread has so far seriously attacked this point. Rbe didnt do much to proove its side either btw, though it did give an example with a calculation of all farmland in the world and how much it should be able to produce, They probably did manny more calculations to come to the conclusion that scarecity is artificial though i am not sure where to find them (lol). With knowing everything i know i dont think its a completely unreasonable claim. Therefore i have been trying to find more info on the calculations but that is not easy to find unfortunatly. Rbe should maybe provide more calculations and research on potential production as its a verry strong argument for their case. Well the idea that we could have superabundance today is complete crap. You would literally need to show something like 20X the entire productive capacity of the USA (trucks, factories, mines, roads, bridges, trains, machines, buildings, farms, educated workforce etc.) just sitting somewhere, unused, just to bring the entire world up to USA standards... which isn't even superabundance. As long as all that doesn't exist (and it doesn't) then you would need to take time and resources to build them - you'd have scarcity - and then the RBE just doesn't work. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
You would literally need to show something like 20X the entire productive capacity of the USA (trucks, factories, mines, roads, bridges, trains, machines, buildings, farms, educated workforce etc.) fart-facts As long as all that doesn't exist (and it doesn't) then you would need to take time and resources to build them - you'd have scarcity - and then the RBE just doesn't work. That don't sound like a very practical way to do it? Why would you do it like that?Nor am i sure thats even the case. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Fart-facts? 20X the USA economy spread over the world would bring world per capita GDP up to USA standards (roughly). Our economy comes from our productive capacity (factories, machines etc.) so to boost the world economy you'd need to boost the world's productive capacity. That don't sound like a very practical way to do it? Why would you do it like that? If you want more stuff you need to build the productive capacity to produce those products. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
We dont have enough houses though i guess we could start building them. There is lots of room (besides in the netherlands ><) and there plenty logs to chop or stones to bake. There is something odd going on with houses btw. In the 50,s a house costed about 3 times the anual net. salery. Now a house cost about 10 times an anual net. salery. People should be able to build a house in 3 years of manhour wich would be like 6000 hours, Shouldnt that be enough to chop the wood, make the planks, and build a house? The land might be a problem but america has no lack of land, it could be cheap. Everyone can do some research on this but am pretty convinced it should be possible in 6000 man hour to build a house from complete scratch. Then how come we now have to pay 10 years manhour to get something what only takes 3 years of man hour to build? It feels as if the system makes us way less efficient , 10 years work to get something wich only takes 3 years of work to make. @ below: Ok you have a decent point, houses now are indeed alot different then the houses from the 50,s Do they now realy take 20k manhour to build though? No i think it still takes around 6000 man hour to build a house and that improved technology now allows us to build better houses in 6000 hours then in 1950 This is only my guess though. Imo it is absolutely not feasible and durable to spend 10 years of your working life on getting a house, it feels as if it takes way to much time compared to the time you need to work to get all other things. Its not only not feasible, i also think it is not needed. Housing could maybe be a good example of scarcity created by the system though i have to admit i would need a bit more data before i can be sure of this. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 02 2012 01:04 Rassy wrote: Yes housing is a good point. We dont have enough houses though i guess we could start building them. There is lots of room (besides in the netherlands ><) and there plenty logs to chop or stones to bake. There is something odd going on with houses btw. In the 50,s a house costed about 3 times the anual net. salery. Now a house cost about 10 times an anual net. salery. People should be able to build a house in 3 years of manhour wich would be like 6000 hours, Shouldnt that be enough to chop the wood, make the planks, and build a house? The land might be a problem but america has no lack of land, it could be cheap. Everyone can do some research on this but am pretty convinced it should be possible in 6000 man hour to build a house from complete scratch. Then how come we now have to pay 10 years manhour to get something what only takes 3 years of man hour to build? It feels as if the system makes us way less efficient , 10 years work to get something wich is worth 3 years of work:s Houses today are not the same as they were in the 50's. "In 1950, the average home was 1000 square feet, growing to an average size of 2000 square feet in 2000." http://www.moyak.com/papers/house-sizes.html Add into that technology and quality and houses are more expensive. If you want to buy a cheap house for 3X annual salary you can do that - but standards of the 50's are not the standards of today so expect to be disappointed. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
Do they realy take now 20k manhour to build though? No i think it still takes around 6000 man hour to build a house and that improved technology now allows us to build better houses in 6000 hours then in 1950 This is only my guess though. Imo it is absolutely not feasible and durable to spend 10 years of your working life on getting a house, it feels as if it takes way to much time compared to the time you need to work to get all other things. Its not only not feasible, i also think it is not needed. Technology exist that can build a house from the ground up in 24 hours using 3D technology and its not a cardboard box house either. If you go even further back you can use prefabricated parts and assemble them on place this process can take between 48-72 hours depending on a variety of factors. Fart-facts? 20X the USA economy spread over the world would bring world per capita GDP up to USA standards (roughly). Our economy comes from our productive capacity (factories, machines etc.) so to boost the world economy you'd need to boost the world's productive capacity. This is so incorrect i cant even fathom how you can believe something so silly, Here you get a little tutorial up your alley. you only need to overcome the monetary system by 1% to beat it which is a cake wonk since the system don't recycle or try and reach abundance. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
You know, for people like me who want to heed your appeal "to understand what TVP really is about", got tricked by your following "First of all" into thinking that a short summary of the project can be found in the upcoming paragraph, only to then realize that they have to watch a 90 minute video on youtube to satisfy their initial curiosity. :p Anyways, I'll definitely check that video out, it sounds very interesting. Especially because - since ever I have been a child - I wondered why nobody except me was dreaming of a world where all tedious labors would be done by machines and everybody could just work in science or art, depending on their interests. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 02 2012 01:22 DeliCiousVP wrote: Technology exist that can build a house from the ground up in 24 hours using 3D technology and its not a cardboard box house either. If you go even further back you can use prefabricated parts and assemble them on place this process can take between 48-72 hours depending on a variety of factors. Nice accounting. You need to count the hours and resources that went into making the prefab parts and the machines that made the prefab parts too. 'Labor hours saved' is not the only thing you need to account for. This is so incorrect i cant even fathom how you can believe something so silly, Here you get a little tutorial up your alley. I have no idea what you are trying to say here... Edit: You changed your post so let me respond: RBE cannot work w/o already having superabundance. If you disagree show evidence. You have yet to do so after 80+ pages of arguing for it. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
2v2
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
