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.
Here is a better thread giving you more sources and information about a resource based economy i only had 2 hours to work on it before it got censored hope it helps.
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.
No you don't if you have a machine that can construct a thousand houses through 3D technology you don't calculate like that.
So how long will it take to make this house? Using 3D technology it will take 24 hours.
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.
Here is a better thread giving you more sources and information about a resource based economy i only had 2 hours to work on it before it got censored hope it helps.
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.
No you don't if you have a machine that can construct a thousand houses through 3D technology you don't calculate like that.
So how long will it take to make this house? Using 3D technology it will take 24 hours.
Yes you do calculate like that. You must add up all costs!!
Your math is to only measure outputs. You need to measure inputs as well since inputs are not infinite.
Edit: it's an irrelevant argument anyways. This technology is still new and not widely available yet. If it is more efficient it will be used... pretty plain and simple.
Yes you do calculate like that. You must add up all costs!!
Haha no that is not relevant you just want it to work like that to strengthen your argument, Lets go into a factory and we talk to the manager and we ask how long does it take for a car to be done from start to finish?
According to you he will say 2 years because thats how long it took to invent the original infrastructure? No! He will say the relevant time for the product in question not the machinery behind it because it has no relevance here.
Edit: it's an irrelevant argument anyways. This technology is still new and not widely available yet. If it is more efficient it will be used... pretty plain and simple.
Yes you do calculate like that. You must add up all costs!!
Haha no that is not relevant you just want it to work like that to strengthen your argument, Lets go into a factory and we talk to the manager and we ask how long does it take for a car to be done from start to finish?
According to you he will say 2 years because thats how long it took to invent the original infrastructure? No! He will say the relevant time for the product in question not the machinery behind it because it has no relevance here.
Edit: it's an irrelevant argument anyways. This technology is still new and not widely available yet. If it is more efficient it will be used... pretty plain and simple.
At least you can admit that you were wrong good.
No, you don't add it up in terms of 'time.' Time is not the only resource you need to consider. You add up all resources you use with a common term (money) to compute your inputs and you then compare it to your outputs.
If you want to just use time then you would amortize the time over time (or use) as you would amortize the cost of the equipment over time (or use).
No, you don't add it up in terms of 'time.' Time is not the only resource you need to consider. You add up all resources you use with a common term (money) to compute your inputs and you then compare it to your outputs.
If you want to just use time then you would amortize the time over time (or use) as you would amortize the cost of the equipment over time (or use).
No, you don't add it up in terms of 'time.' Time is not the only resource you need to consider. You add up all resources you use with a common term (money) to compute your inputs and you then compare it to your outputs.
If you want to just use time then you would amortize the time over time (or use) as you would amortize the cost of the equipment over time (or use).
You know PR would be happy to have you.
Bro you are trying to convince people that the world in 2012 is a post scarcity economy. That is EPIC level BS.
If we have more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet why don't we?
Bad governments, for one.
Warlords, for another.
It has nothing to do with money. When the local government steals your aid shipments or some warlord or fanatic militia does, and your aid workers get killed or kidnapped or kidnapped then killed, you stop sending aid shipments after it happens too many times.
Bro you are trying to convince people that the world in 2012 is a post scarcity economy. That is EPIC level BS.
If we have more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet why don't we?
The reason these threads go on and on and on is because whenever you get stuck on a certain topic you deflect it to another one. We were just discussing if we currently have a post-scarcity economy or not. Clearly we do not - and now you want to deflect and move on to a new topic - world hunger (which we've already talked about).
Do you want to drop the current topic? If so we can't come back - you need to either stay on topic or concede the point so that we don't return to it later in an endless loop. I'm not going to keep playing the topic merry-go-round.
It has nothing to do with money. When the local government steals your aid shipments or some warlord or fanatic militia does, and your aid workers get killed or kidnapped or kidnapped then killed, you stop sending aid shipments after it happens too many times.
The reason these threads go on and on and on is because whenever you get stuck on a certain topic you deflect it to another one. We were just discussing if we currently have a post-scarcity economy or not. Clearly we do not - and now you want to deflect and move on to a new topic - world hunger (which we've already talked about).
Do you want to drop the current topic? If so we can't come back - you need to either stay on topic or concede the point so that we don't return to it later in an endless loop. I'm not going to keep playing the topic merry-go-round.
You see you guys don't know, truth is you guys are clueless. I know how to solve these problems we know we offer real solutions and real change, and not only for the poor and starving people of the world but for everyone. Everything i say is backed up by science studies and technology not fact-farts that i see you guys throwing around. I don't have to resort to terms like NEVER and HUMAN NATURE.
We live in a system that promotes scarcity yet assumes that we can have infinite growth? a Resource based economy don't assume that we have infinite resources no quite the opposite. But a monetary system assumes that we can have a cyclical assumption and infinite growth paradigm forever. we have depleted in seas,polluted fresh water created massive deserts.
Only reason you guys can afford to have such an ignorant world view is because you were hatched on the good side of the fence.
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.
Why can't we have advanced technology with capitalism? Scarcity is becoming solved with capitalism with technology- Starving children were the norm 200 years ago. The average standard of living has indeed increased- for example, we live longer on average than we did in the past.
The RBE cannot exist without technology which must create superabundance. That does not mean that the RBE creates advanced technology.
Why won't businesses want to develop new technologies to make their workings more efficient? Technology can improve efficiency, and efficiency causes them to be able to create their products at a lowered cost. This means the business benefits because their lowered prices can compete with other businesses, which are driven to create even more efficient technology to lower their own costs.
So, how has capitalism created scarcity with newfound technologies, regarding the point I made above?
It has nothing to do with money. When the local government steals your aid shipments or some warlord or fanatic militia does, and your aid workers get killed or kidnapped or kidnapped then killed, you stop sending aid shipments after it happens too many times.
The reason these threads go on and on and on is because whenever you get stuck on a certain topic you deflect it to another one. We were just discussing if we currently have a post-scarcity economy or not. Clearly we do not - and now you want to deflect and move on to a new topic - world hunger (which we've already talked about).
Do you want to drop the current topic? If so we can't come back - you need to either stay on topic or concede the point so that we don't return to it later in an endless loop. I'm not going to keep playing the topic merry-go-round.
You see you guys don't know, truth is you guys are clueless. I know how to solve these problems we know we offer real solutions and real change, and not only for the poor and starving people of the world but for everyone. Everything i say is backed up by science studies and technology not fact-farts that i see you guys throwing around. I don't have to resort to terms like NEVER and HUMAN NATURE.
Dude, I have a master's degree in this stuff (and so do others responding to you) so no I'm not 'clueless'. I ask you basic questions about how a RBE will work and you fail to answer beyond using adjectives like 'efficient' and citing random technologies. You do NOT back it up with scientific studies that are in any way relevant to the economic questions you are being asked.
All you do is say stuff like "we'll be more efficient and produce more with 3D printers" which is not an answer because we do not have enough 3D printers to produce everything we need today. So you will have to use the scarce resources we have today to produce the infrastructure required to build the printers you will utilize in the future.
Since resources are scarce today building the printers and the infrastructure to build the printers themselves will require that something else does not get produced. That requires a value judgement between different production possibilities.
Currently to do that we use the price mechanism to limit current consumption to what is possible and coordinate production to produce what is demanded by consumers.
In a RBE, as best as I can tell, that will be coordinated through 'science' and 'technology' and other things that are currently incapable of making value judgements between multiple production possibilities. This leaves how a RBE will work on an internal and technical basis a complete mystery to people (like myself) that know how the current system works and know what is needed to make it run on a technical level.
I have problems with accepting something from people, who created Zeitgeist movie part one, full of intentional lies about Christianity. it has been definitely debunked, for example here http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeitgeistpartone.shtml
Why can't we have advanced technology with capitalism?
Because abundance is not absorb-able in a monetary system. You cant make money on something if you have an abundance of it.
Also in a monetary system we create inferior goods yes inferior, Most people think well wont competition try to create the best good possible in order to compete for market share? No it is much more profitable to mass produce inferior goods that are intrinsically inferior due to having to reduce the production cost. And also they are have built in planned obsolescence this means that the goods are designed to break down after a certain usage, you especially see this in cellphones,cars,computers this is built in an not an accident. This is very good for maintaining cyclical consumption and profit as you have to go back every 1-3 years and get a new product.
Scarcity is becoming solved with capitalism with technology
Rephrasing "Scarcity is being solved by technology and braked by capitalism"
The average standard of living has indeed increased- for example, we live longer on average than we did in the past.
Improvement in the world has nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with technological/social progress.
The RBE cannot exist without technology which must create superabundance..
a Resource based economy only works due to the technological progress we have today yes, Our system for monetary exchange is a horrible system but it "worked" 200-300 years ago back than we didn't even have the tools to destroy our planet like we have today. On a second note our monetary system works even worse today because we have fractional banking(Create money out of thin air through debt) most "economy" students learn about Adam smith and his teachings. Little do they know that Adam smith never expected investment banking and fractional currency manipulation, he lived 250 years ago after all.
that does not mean that the RBE creates advanced technology.
No it utilize advanced technology, and provides an environment where technological progress can flourish and be quickly implemented. And the social implications are ..the.religions depiction of what heaven is cant even compete with what we can create and is it so far fetch? go back 200 years and place a person from that age in our world it would be more magical and heavenly than he could have ever fathomed.
Since resources are scarce today building the printers and the infrastructure to build the printers themselves will require that something else does not get produced. That requires a value judgement between different production possibilities.
What resources are that? do you even know? do you know what materials are rare and what are not? Do you know if we have the resources to create 3D technology on a massive scale? You would be surprised at the amount of waste that could easily provide the world with the necessities and goods many times over.
Dude, I have a master's degree in this stuff
Cute, come back with a PhD
I have problems with accepting something from people, who created Zeitgeist movie part one, full of intentional lies about Christianity. it has been definitely debunked, for example here
There were some minor inconsistencies that were inaccurate I believe the newest versions dealt with that. The general message however is still the same. These debunking usually only have access to Internet information which is lacking. The sources that are being questioned are usually the ones tied with Acharya S who have traveled around the world collecting data and people are questioning her authenticity. Which i would not but i can see why Christians would.
Since resources are scarce today building the printers and the infrastructure to build the printers themselves will require that something else does not get produced. That requires a value judgement between different production possibilities.
What resources are that? do you even know? do you know what materials are rare and what are not? Do you know if we have the resources to create 3D technology on a massive scale? You would be surprised at the amount of waste that could easily provide the world with the necessities and goods many times over.
We do not have the capacity to produce 3D printers on a massive scale today. No one has built enough factories as of today. That's what matters.
You seem to be confusing things like 'iron in the ground' as a resource with the capacity to extract iron through mining and produce steel in steel mills, etc.
We do not have the capacity to produce 3D printers on a massive scale today. No one has built enough factories as of today. That's what matters.
Sure we do not that we need to today more important things to do.
So let me get this straight, you literally think that companies are sitting on tons to unused capacity and they are just not using it because they are a bunch on meanie heads?
"won't businesses want to develop new technologies to make their workings more efficient?"
Businesses definatly want to work efficiently but can you tell me in what interest it would be of anny business to create abundance? The price would drop to zero once everyone has a durable cheap product and the company has lost its market to make monney on. Businesses, specially thoose in wich competition has deminished due to fusions and near monopolys of a few big players have little to gain from making items abundant. The best example of this would be the oil industry btw.
Just as companys have little to gain by making items durable. Now you can argue that competition will force companys to make durable and cheap items, and it works like this in theory but this is not what we see in reality. Maybe its due to kartels and near monopolys, wich allows existing companys to easily push out newcommers who have a better and cheaper product (or they just assimilate the company in a take over bid, wich happens verry often) There probably manny reasons but as it is now i see little motive for companys to make their products abundant or durable. Not only would they loose their market, they would also loose the control over all their workers, who then dont have to work 8 hours a week annymore
to sum it up: I see manny motives for big companys to not create abundance, and the only motive i see for creating it (competition and be better and cheaper then your competitor) is not working in reality, at least i dont see it.
see manny motives for big companys to not create abundance, and the only motive i see for creating it (competition and be better and cheaper then your competitor) is not working in reality annymore, at least i dont see it.
This don't strike you as obvious Jonny? i bet Rassy don't need a master degree to put two and two together and you still don't see it?
You see we have reached a point where we are able to be so efficient in many we don't have a need for a market in many areas, And with a better social understanding no need for a market period.
If a company could make oil abundant they would definetely do so because that means they could keep selling it, as once oil is used it is hard to recycle it and therefore people have to go back and by more. Artificial scarcity is completely different then abundance. In fact, the entire reason behind aritificial scarcity is a lack of abundance. We all know oil is going to run out sooner rather then later, so naturally companies want to make as much as they can off of what's left. Were oil abundant, companies would just try to sell a lot more of it, as that's much easier and efficient (and the demand is astronomically high) then trying to hoard it/parcel it out slowly. In fact, a large percentage of companies in this world would love abudance. The only ones who wouldn't are those that use 100% recyclable products or those that are unable to access the abudance. (i.e. it's buried too deep underground,etc)
EPT
No it utilize advanced technology, and provides an environment where technological progress can flourish and be quickly implemented. And the social implications are ..the.religions depiction of what heaven is cant even compete with what we can create and is it so far fetch? go back 200 years and place a person from that age in our world it would be more magical and heavenly than he could have ever fathomed.
