On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
But people manipulate supply and demand on order to maximise profits. If they create abundunt energy the price tag dissapears so there is an incentive to halt technology.
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own?
No one cares what those companies want. COMPETITION demands that they provide what the market wants.
If a new technology can make electricity cheaper than it WILL BE USED. You fundamentally do not understand how the market economy works. It is NOT about constricting supply to artificially raise the price. It is about finding a cheaper way to do something to earn a profit. That is what drives the price DOWN!
You have to also consider that market economies in late capitalism are very much concerned with manufacturing demand artificially in order to create new sectors for growth. This is unsustainable and totally absurd to boot.
Capitalism will not be overthrown, it will be obsoleted.
(fwiw - I'm a communist, but the sort of magic-faerie-land communism in these videos is silly.)
On May 07 2012 03:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: from the zeitgeist video:
1. technology does create jobs, and it does destroy jobs. it would be foolish to suggest that the horse-and-buggy maker was most pleased with the automobile, but the fact is that generally the employees of the horse-and-buggy industry were almost certainly benefiting from the automobile, and perhaps even got jobs building automobiles. flash forward into the future and we see the automobile industry has provided millions of jobs. thus his supposition that manufacturing will eventually be entirely replaced by machines is foolish. who will build the machines that must build the machines? who will fix them? Who will make sure they run correctly? Who will move them from place to place? who will design them? for every machine that replaces one job, there will be at least another job involving the production and use of that machine.
2. he wants to know what wall st. produces? they produce the investment that is required for the growth of business. what does the wall st. secretary produce? she produces organization and efficiency for her employer so that he can focus on creating more money with investment. just because he doesn't like these things does not mean that they are "fake" or that they don't matter.
3. no one is forcing a scientist to work on military projects.
4. is walking into a job you don't want to do so that you can get money that you "need" to spend freedom? the simple answer is yes, it is freedom. the problem this guy is having is that he doesn't recognize that "freedom" is not synonymous with "wonderful". there could be nothing more free than a man deciding to work at a job in order to pay bills that he freely incurred upon himself. and at the end of the day, there is no better example of freedom than telling a man that he is free to starve if he doesn't work. wonderful? no. free? yes.
5. laws are not only for the regulation of property, and eliminating property will not eliminate murder, rape, etc. governments are necessary for those exact reasons, rape, murder, etc. local governments could suffice for those, but what happens when the rape and murder is on a larger scale, to the point that one community is persecuting another? then you need a central government to exercise control over these smaller more local governments. the elimination of property would not negate this fact.
6. a direct quote:
"It is not an issue of what any of us like, it is an issue of what is right for society and what is sustainable for the human species."
he said that in response to a woman saying: "i do not want to go back to working the land, i want to be a journalist."
so basically, he's not going to let us do what we want (which is the selling point of your philosophy), but is going to force us to do what he thinks is right and good for society.
7. he can't even provide a new incentive, he just takes away old incentives.
8. this guy makes a whole lot of assumptions about people that he's never met...
Thank you for breaking down something I didn't have the will to do another time.
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be.
Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies.
Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer.
Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement.
i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion.
This will not happen in the next 100 years (min.) because of these four reasons (at least) :
1) - We are not technologically advanced enough to automate all the jobs. Probably not for a long time too.
2) - People that have wealth at the moment don't want to lose that status so it won't happen because money = power.
3) - Related to n°2. Research in technology is for a big part financed by wealthy people or at least wealthy organizations that won't specifically aim at the goal of automating every job because that would also mean that you are diminishing the amount of "consumers" that could pay for products (because they have a job).
4) - You would have to do an immediate transition from "manual" work to "automated" work because otherwise the transition would be a massive crisis in the world because of the number of jobless people.
(Didn't read fully the OP, but i think that my answer is still on topic)
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be.
Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies.
Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer.
Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement.
i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion.
We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine.
Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures.
4. is walking into a job you don't want to do so that you can get money that you "need" to spend freedom? the simple answer is yes, it is freedom. the problem this guy is having is that he doesn't recognize that "freedom" is not synonymous with "wonderful". there could be nothing more free than a man deciding to work at a job in order to pay bills that he freely incurred upon himself. and at the end of the day, there is no better example of freedom than telling a man that he is free to starve if he doesn't work. wonderful? no. free? yes.
There's no magic state of nature that a worker lives in before he freely enters into a debt society. There's nothing "free" about being part of the lower classes. Most of what you say is fairly reasonable but this is really myopic and displays a lack of class consciousness.
On May 07 2012 03:45 LunaSea wrote: This will not happen in the next 100 years (min.) because of these four reasons (at least) :
1) - We are not technologically advanced enough to automate all the jobs. Probably not for a long time too.
2) - People that have wealth at the moment don't want to lose that status so it won't happen because money = power.
3) - Related to n°2. Research in technology is for a big part financed by wealthy people or at least wealthy organizations that won't specifically aim at the goal of automating every job because that would also mean that you are diminishing the amount of "consumers" that could pay for products (because they have a job).
4) - You would have to do an immediate transition from "manual" work to "automated" work because otherwise the transition would be a massive crisis in the world because of the number of jobless people.
(Didn't read fully the OP, but i think that my answer is still on topic)
1) Not for all,but most meaning the majority of jobs can be automated today. 2) Correct 3) They are all competing in the market automating means they lose workers yes and consumers decrease yes. But they make alot more profits because a workers paycheck dont go back into the same companies pocket its not their problem. 4) We are currently at 600 million unemployed people this number is expected to start rising exponentialy with each year. We are in the transition right now. every second spent trying to get the jobs back is further instability caused.
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be.
Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies.
Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer.
Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement.
i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion.
We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine.
Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures.
We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe.
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be.
Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies.
Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer.
Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement.
i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion.
We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine.
Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures.
We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe.
Capitalism is however a very powerful engine for driving technological innovation, and for encouraging "exploits across the globe" (lol).
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase.
On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote: I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase.
Universal civil service.
And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning.
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be.
Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies.
Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer.
Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement.
i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion.
We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine.
Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures.
We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe.
Capitalism is however a very powerful engine for driving technological innovation, and for encouraging "exploits across the globe" (lol).
It's true that we no longer need it.
People dont need econimic motivators to invent or inovate or experiment they only need security and means. Which is what a RBE offer security and means more means then you would ever get in a monetary system.
On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote: I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase.
Universal civil service.
And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning.
Universal civil service?
And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning?
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be.
Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies.
Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer.
Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement.
i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion.
We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine.
Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures.
We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe.
Capitalism is however a very powerful engine for driving technological innovation, and for encouraging "exploits across the globe" (lol).
It's true that we no longer need it.
People dont need econimic motivators to invent or inovate or experiment they only need security and means. Which is what a RBE offer security and means more means then you would ever get in a monetary system.
Yes, we're fundamentally in agreement. Look at the way innovation works in the open source movement. With 3d printing and biotech all the mode of production will be open source, so it will all work like that.
The idea that you don't need currency is dumb though. Money is fun.
Finance capital, however, is a big problem. It's very important to distinguish the two.
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
But people manipulate supply and demand on order to maximise profits. If they create abundunt energy the price tag dissapears so there is an incentive to halt technology.
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own?
No one cares what those companies want. COMPETITION demands that they provide what the market wants.
If a new technology can make electricity cheaper than it WILL BE USED. You fundamentally do not understand how the market economy works. It is NOT about constricting supply to artificially raise the price. It is about finding a cheaper way to do something to earn a profit. That is what drives the price DOWN!
You think money gave us what we have today or technology? you think money invented the wheel? and its proven that monetary reward hinders creativity.
And everything you just said is incorrect new technology is only absorbed if the market can find it profitable. "Their competion will develop it then" you would think so but they actually patent it so its against the law to use the new technology,.and im sorry to have to reverse this on you but you fundamentally dont understand market economy.
Companies have also realised that co-operating with each other can bring more profits to them this is known as forming a cartell. like the gas companies and cigarette companies do where they agree on pricing between each other.
Competion also forces companies to dish out inferior products in order to maintain market share and continue on the cyclical consumption cycle.
No, the wheel was invented by some guy. War populated it.
On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote: I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase.
Universal civil service.
And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning.
Universal civil service?
And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning?
Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc.
Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible.
In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc.
the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning)
On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote: I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase.
Universal civil service.
And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning.
Universal civil service?
And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning?
Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc.
Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible.
In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc.
the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican)
Thank you. You are the only person who I've ever met to give quantifiable answers to questions that most who believe in communism/ect act like can be shrugged off as no big deal to overcome.
Would the civil service be volunteers? Would they receive any extra benefits compared to those who reap their rewards?
The distributive network you speak of is also the most plausible form of central planning I could imagine. How feasible do you think it is to create such a network where surpluses and shortages are predicted/accounted for as well as the different value different people attribute to different things?
On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote: I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase.
Universal civil service.
And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning.
Universal civil service?
And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning?
Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc.
Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible.
In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc.
the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning)
Iam very much for maintaining the infrastructure of the military because they already embed values from the RBE oh except that they kill people. :D Such as efficency and co-operation.
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine"
If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be.
Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies.
Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer.
Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement.
i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion.
We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine.
Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures.
We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe.
Such exploits were not possible without relatively developed societies, which had higher standards of living.
EPT
