@Rassy, thanks but I don't actually want to get rid of money, I just wanted to point out that it is more than a simple tool for exchange but apparently I was unsuccessful...
@Reason: Seriously? Well although you seem determined to leave this way, I will make a last effort: First you could read the interview (yeah 10 minutes of your time) and comment on it, I'd appreciate it. Then to make it as simple as possible so that my convoluted English is out of the way: I do not and did not propose abolition of money. My point is that money is not just a way to simplify commerce (throughout all of recorded history). Money comes together with a form of power and it changes the society not only in commerce. Both of these changes are not always positive and should be open to critique.
[EDIT]: To give this more meat (but ignore the edit if it's too complicated for you): Imagine there was a king in a land without money and he wanted to go to war. The logistics of keeping an army supplied is a difficult task, so he devised a scheme: He would pay the soldiers newly coined money but would also demand that taxes be payed only in this new coin. Thus solving the logistic problem. If this was a true event, would you still say that money is inherently good and only to simplify exchange?
What people are trying to explain is that this RBE crap/free world charter would be the worst possible way to achieve these goals. Our current system might not geared towards meeting those requirements, but its the system that has proven to be the less terrible of all.
The way i see the results so far is.
Freemarket>Social democracy>RBE
Free market capitalism isent even the strongest ideology out there and so far it has been proven to be the most destructable form of goverment this is also due to our advanced technology that allows us to do more,faster and easier destuctrion.When we have the tools to destroy the world you dont wanna offer a profit based incentive for people to do so.
You all blindly miss the facts get this, You make money out of destroying the world enviorment the habitat, You make money out of keeping people sick, You make money on keeping wars going, You make money on scarcity.
Lets see any of you argue with these FACTS and we can have a real battle. If only one of these were true we would need to walk away from the monetary system fast, But they all are! Now pick the easiest one you feel you can "Debunk" and lets spit the facts on each other untill one of us looks riddiculus.
You are all talking ouf of your ass and its time to get all of you rectified
What people are trying to explain is that this RBE crap/free world charter would be the worst possible way to achieve these goals. Our current system might not geared towards meeting those requirements, but its the system that has proven to be the less terrible of all.
You all blindly miss the facts get this, You make money out of destroying the world enviorment the habitat, You make money out of keeping people sick, You make money on keeping wars going, You make money on scarcity.
Same would be true under RBE. You'd word it differently but that wouldn't change the reality.
You are looking at things from a very American perspective. People being sick in a country with socialised medicare is a huge burden on the system. It is more effective and cost efficient to have people recover as soon as possible, and get out of the hospital here than it is to keep them in it.
Wars are not a form of income for most countries.
Scarcity is only 1 factor or method of creating value. An abundance of an item can account for greater income if your item is wanted by many. There are many different ways to market, sell and place value on products and services.
As for the environment, we are starting to see a shift toward new technology and markets based around protecting the environment. I agree this is a good cause, but it is also one attainable under the current situation.
Most of your points dont relate to me, as they dont relate to many other countries. For your system to work, EVERYONE on the planet would have to agree to switch. We have no motivation to do so.
Free market capitalism isent even the strongest ideology out there and so far it has been proven to be the most destructable form of goverment this is also due to our advanced technology that allows us to do more,faster and easier destuctrion.When we have the tools to destroy the world you dont wanna offer a profit based incentive for people to do so.
Which countries had or have the worst pollution and direct destruction of the physical environment?
(Hint: answer is not capitalist countries, historically or currently).
You all blindly miss the facts get this, You make money out of destroying the world enviorment the habitat, You make money out of keeping people sick, You make money on keeping wars going, You make money on scarcity.
Irony Bear says don't make yourself look silly by claiming that people are blindly missing facts when every "fact" you bring up is actually the opposite!
Capitalism = better for the environment Capitalism = better for health Capitalism = better for peace Capitalism = less scarcity
All facts.
Lets see any of you argue with these FACTS and we can have a real battle. If only one of these were true we would need to walk away from the monetary system fast, But they all are! Now pick the easiest one you feel you can "Debunk" and lets spit the facts on each other untill one of us looks riddiculus.
None of those are facts that's what is so funny.
Where did the Aral Sea go?
You are all talking ouf of your ass and its time to get all of you rectified
What people are trying to explain is that this RBE crap/free world charter would be the worst possible way to achieve these goals. Our current system might not geared towards meeting those requirements, but its the system that has proven to be the less terrible of all.
You all blindly miss the facts get this, You make money out of destroying the world enviorment the habitat, You make money out of keeping people sick, You make money on keeping wars going, You make money on scarcity.
Same would be true under RBE. You'd word it differently but that wouldn't change the reality.
How it have no such incentive it has a reverse incentive from what i just wrote,
Clean,Healthy enviroment for everyone includes you Healthy people are more productive and if other people are healthy odds are you will be healthier Wars? For what there is no resource to fight over no idealogies to argue over if it cant be tested and proven it is disregarded. You create abundance for everyone in every area possible while resource managing and not wasting anything to cyclical consumption.
If you studied the material for 1 second you would have noticed this.
SOLVED
Irony Bear says don't make yourself look silly by claiming that people are blindly missing facts when every "fact" you bring up is actually the opposite!
Capitalism = better for the environment Capitalism = better for health Capitalism = better for peace Capitalism = less scarcity
All facts.
Nu-uh response with 0 value.
IGNORED
You are looking at things from a very American perspective. People being sick in a country with socialised medicare is a huge burden on the system. It is more effective and cost efficient to have people recover as soon as possible, and get out of the hospital here than it is to keep them in it.
True, When you have a medical industry made to be cost efficient its less of a burdon on the state compared to a capitalistic model.
But the medical industry in a capitalistic system is able to drain out money from the sick populace very efficively, And when you have insurance company that have stockholders it creates a sick and extremly lucrative market. Where they try to max out profits by deniying healthcare to cancer patients if it is too expensive or offer cheaper alternative with much lower survival rates.
Social medicine is the obvious and superior form of healthcare to everyone around the world except your typicaly indoctrinated freemarket evangealist.
VALID but IRRELEVANT(American rule the world not Canada)
Wars are not a form of income for most countries.
I never said countries usualy its private intrests that push the war mongering in congress and in public media, And its not uncommmen for false flag attacks to be staged to earn incentive.
There are many intrest thats warprofiter all from arms dealers to construction companies to air conditioners. and the obvious petrol companies and FED that borrows out money to the goverments of the world in order to afford their upkeep.
SOLVED
As for the environment, we are starting to see a shift toward new technology and markets based around protecting the environment. I agree this is a good cause, but it is also one attainable under the current situation.
The double sided coin of enviormental polution is that you save money ditching your toxic waste somewhere instead of properly disscarding it with minimun pollution.
And then you develop a market for removing the toxic waste for a cost as ineffieciely as possible like the case is in the amazons where chevron dumped tons and tons of toxic wastes into the river raping the land.
Most of your points dont relate to me, as they dont relate to many other countries. For your system to work, EVERYONE on the planet would have to agree to switch. We have no motivation to do so.
If we got 5% of the population that would be enough to begin, You have nothing but motivation to do so because it is in your best intrest to do so.The longer we wait the higher the odds that your mother/father will die prematurely. Social medecine cant compete with an almost endless tap of resources going into medical research. There is a possibility that we can even stop age depending on how fast we transition.
You have nothing but motivation and if you "feel" that you dont you have seriously missunderstood this direction.
SOLVED
(Will get sources in a sec once im done with the points)
What people are trying to explain is that this RBE crap/free world charter would be the worst possible way to achieve these goals. Our current system might not geared towards meeting those requirements, but its the system that has proven to be the less terrible of all.
You all blindly miss the facts get this, You make money out of destroying the world enviorment the habitat, You make money out of keeping people sick, You make money on keeping wars going, You make money on scarcity.
Same would be true under RBE. You'd word it differently but that wouldn't change the reality.
How it have no such incentive it has a reverse incentive from what i just wrote,
Clean,Healthy enviroment for everyone includes you Healthy people are more productive and if other people are healthy odds are you will be healthier Wars? For what there is no resource to fight over no idealogies to argue over if it cant be tested and proven it is disregarded. You create abundance for everyone in every area possible while resource managing and not wasting anything to cyclical consumption.
If you studies the material for 1 second you would have noticed this.
SOLVED
You said you would respond with facts
You are making me sad by not responding with facts!
If we switch to a RBE tomorrow we'd still have the exact same wants and the exact same means to deliver those wants. So you'd produce the same results. If you disagree show me the fact (read: fact not opinion or idea) that proves otherwise.
Example: show me what waste you would cut and how you would cut it. If you can't do that then you are wrong.
"Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war."
This is exactly where the flaw in logic arises from. If we had the resources to do it then we had the money to do it as they are one and the same thing. From here the entire RBE grows into the sham that it is. It is all predicated on the idea that there is some magic unlock-able fountain of wealth out there just waiting to be used. There is none.
My point DeliciousVP, is that many countries dont have those problems you listed. You need a GLOBAL change, not just an American change for your RBE. There is no insentive for places like Canada to even consider this, because the quality of life is quite high, and we are comfortable and relatively liberal and free.
On May 17 2012 12:29 Focuspants wrote: My point DeliciousVP, is that many countries dont have those problems you listed. You need a GLOBAL change, not just an American change for your RBE. There is no insentive for places like Canada to even consider this, because the quality of life is quite high, and we are comfortable and relatively liberal and free.
Canada is the leading RBE country join your chapter eh. Which it should be being one of the most educated and socialy conscious places on earth.
But you are right this is a global change but it still needs to grow from one place and it appears to be vanncouver and montreal.
This is exactly where the flaw in logic arises from. If we had the resources to do it then we had the money to do it
Lets say your right, It is irrelevant wether we currently have the resources to do it or not, And it is a transition this is no revolutionary blow up the banks and it will all be fine no. Its a transition and it starts with social consciousness, Legislature to the economy(Kill the free markets) establish clear lines of communication with the rest of the world, We stop trying to create meaningless jobs and start automating. Shorten the work day by 4 hours. There is alot of bumps to overcome as we transform the infrastucture it can take 5-10 years maybe even more.
And it starts naturaly by itself the second it is politicly recognized that unemployment is here to stay, There will be riots confusion and lots of extremist saying this is the only path. Not very diffrent from what im saying but without the facts to back it..
Pollution Monetary and incentive based(Communism is a monetary system to you know) Health technology based improvements Scarcity technology based improvements(Questionable source) Peace Technology based inequality in army strength and shadow wars(questionable sources)
Even tho i question sources i consider them as "facts for now"
Lets say your right, It is irrelevant wether we currently have the resources to do it or not, And it is a transition this is no revolutionary blow up the banks and it will all be fine no. Its a transition and it starts with social consciousness, Legislature to the economy(Kill the free markets) establish clear lines of communication with the rest of the world, We stop trying to create meaningless jobs and start automating. Shorten the work day by 4 hours. There is alot of bumps to overcome as we transform the infrastucture it can take 5-10 years maybe even more.
And it starts naturaly by itself the second it is politicly recognized that unemployment is here to stay, There will be riots confusion and lots of extremist saying this is the only path. Not very diffrent from what im saying but without the facts to back it..
Lol!
You do not have the factories and machines to do that!!
Why does Fresco need money? Why won't people support him through their passions?!?
They are all patched out the conflict started when jacque fresco was taken ill and peter joseph told them that they could not afford to create a full feature film that would be succeptable to the american audiance(Budget needed to to be high for this picture they had in mind)
This caused roxanne frescos partner to feel as thus Peter joseph was receiving more credit then he deserved and the fact that peter joseph is more realistic with his expectations caused a conflict where they splited up.
We are emotional creatures and i understand the emotional reaction that roxanne had but it was a mistake. Anyway everyone are friends now. It was quite the emberrasment tbh. Live and learn people.
Good dirt digging btw, When you cant find a flaw in the idea find it in the person. This is one of reasons why i dont reveal what i do or who iam.
Jacque Fresco get's asked the question - "will there be population control in RBE?"
His answer: We'll educate people.
The RBE is supposed to be able to substain 100 billion people if nessceary according to the current plans
Pollution Monetary and incentive based(Communism is a monetary system to you know)
A monetary system exists in RBE, it's called "resources" instead of "money," which is the point you can't get into your head. Everything else is identical to Marxism.
Health technology based improvements
Just too tiresome. Why were there technology-based improvements? Let's not forget advances in technique and fertilizers and pesticides. Why did those advances occur?
Scarcity technology based improvements(Questionable source)
1. The source is not questionable, I understand you think it's questionable because your mind operates at a very shallow level, but that doesn't make it so. The source is basing opinion off of hard data, deal with it. 2. Again, why were there technology based improvements? Magic?
Peace Technology based inequality in army strength and shadow wars(questionable sources)
Why is there inequality in army strength?
Again, no the source is not questionable, you just throw that out there because you have nothing to say.
Shadow wars is another joke of a contention, please address the real point: the drop in both the size and number of armed conflicts, "shadow" or not.
The RBE is supposed to be able to substain 100 billion people if nessceary according to the current plans
EPT
