The problem is not and never has been money. The solution is not and never will be government-controlled access.
Profound financial inequality is bad. Money is not, and nor is money's only function to separate the rich and poor. Money is useful to everyone - and would be even in a world of financial equality - because it allows people to allocate their finite stake in the world according to their personal priorities. I chose to buy a crappy but economical car and go on a £10,000 safari. You might choose to buy expensive food and cheap clothes, or vice versa. Some things are inherently scarce; not everyone can live by the sea. How are we to determine to whom the experience of living in sight of water is most precious?
Thus, even if equality were enforced from on high, it would involve currency.
Furthermore, when deciding how best to contribute to society, how should I make my choice? Here again, money proves useful by allowing others to express how valuable to their lives they believe my contribution to be, an analysis which would be otherwise quite impossible. And if there is something I want to do that is not especially well rewarded - that too is my choice to make: satisfy myself or the wants of others.
Yes, money is open to abuse. The way businesses are owned and run permits the executive parasitism that accumulates wealth in the pockets of the undeserving. Short-sighted and shallow thinking means billions are spent on trivia while genuinely useful research goes underfunded. But that is a problem with people, not money.
What is that supposed to show ? That communist states had worse pollution than first world capitalist ones ? It might be true. Also it might be explained by the fact that West exported their pollution to the third world countries, whereas communist block did not (to such degree).
But more importantly it has nothing to do with what he claimed. That in current capitalist system environment destruction is rampant. And the main thing that is done is to move it away from consumers to places where noone cares at this time.
Why has there been more technological improvement in the last 100 years than in the rest of history combined if the monetary system prevents technological improvement?
The second sentence is just plain wrong, people contribute to society by working for themselves for the monetary incentive. Anyone saying anything else is deluding themselves or their audience. People work to sustain and improve themselves and their situation and through some mysterious mechanism you don't understand (magic?) this creates enough abundance (another thing you don't understand) that there are people who can devote their mental and physical labor solely to helping others. Do you think that was the case 10,000 years ago?
Technology breeds more techology as it free people from the burdon of physical labor, But without labour you cannot make money in a monetary system thus it is an enemy of the system this is why our current monetary system stagnates technology.
Completely false. It's been pointed out to be completely false many, many times.
Capitalism creates wealth - more resources for more technological advancements. Money provides an evaluation system to decide which technology is more efficient (uses less resources).
Hence capitalist societies have better technology and a wider diffusion of technology.
That is a simplistic opinion with no conclusive evidence one way or the other. The issue is incredibly complex and our current knowledge can only offer glimpses at it.
Anyway reading the rest of the discussion it seems one side with simplistic views throws opinions and catch-phrases at the other side with simplistic views that is doing the same.
No, they throw the unsold products into the trash bin and then they throw it into big waste piles.
While this is true, it's only true for products which are not effective (ie. not cheaply produced, or effectively marketed). In the end this goes back to the fact that capitalism is the most efficient system we have, as it gets rid of all faulty products. That we get some waste in this manner isn't as big of a problem as it might seem, rather it's part of the evaluation mechanism (self-regulation). Alternatively, though, this would-be waste could be handled by the government to either give out for free to poor people (when a business would otherwise throw it away) or donated to other countries.
On May 17 2012 19:30 mcc wrote: Anyway reading the rest of the discussion it seems one side with simplistic views throws opinions and catch-phrases at the other side with simplistic views that is doing the same.
Obviously there are lots of facets of capitalism, and lots of ways to organize it. This debate, however, is about general concepts, so it kind of follows logically. The real dealbreaker here, though, is that one side has empiric data (both historic and otherwise) to back up its points and the other doesn't.
What is that supposed to show ? That communist states had worse pollution than first world capitalist ones ? It might be true. Also it might be explained by the fact that West exported their pollution to the third world countries, whereas communist block did not (to such degree).
It's not "might be true," I know you have an ideological predisposition to minimize it, but it is entirely true. You also have a predisposition to silly claims like "pollution is exported to the third world." No one held a gun to their head and demanded they develop their economies. Well, Economic Jokeman says someone did. You go on to say 'but everyone rose' in life expectancy and general health. If what you term "exporting [our] pollution" to them had not occurred, they would not have risen at all.
But more importantly it has nothing to do with what he claimed. That in current capitalist system environment destruction is rampant. And the main thing that is done is to move it away from consumers to places where noone cares at this time.
There's that predisposition, environment destruction is not rampant in the current capitalist system. Where is environment destruction most rampant? Countries with less developed economies. Why is the air and water and soil cleaner in the more capitalist countries? Government? Laughable.Why is the amount of forest growing in capitalist countries and still disappearing in countries like Brazil? Government? Funny.
Yes, life expectancy grew, but it grew basically everywhere. And again it does not address his point.
It directly addresses his point, you just have that predisposition to say it doesn't. If economics has nothing to do with technological and medical advancement I suppose the West outstripped Russia in and similar countries in health by magic, perhaps? Or maybe it was exploitation. But since exploitation was higher in Russia and similar countries... it must be very confusing for you.
Linking Cato is like linking a bible in a scientific journal. Also it is an opinion piece with no data.
Not really interested in your opinion of Cato, you aren't exactly a credible source of opinion on the matter. You have reasons other than the actual worth of their presentation to dismiss them with prejudice.
Also if you had actually read the piece you'd see it makes repeated references to multiple sets of data, of course you came in for a quick predisposition-driven hit job so it's doubtful you did more than skim it. In any case the references are to data that is fairly common knowledge, it is not my fault if you are dismissive of the facts.
A world without monney is possible if we go back to living in tribes. The world you describe is only possible if people care for everyone in the community and are willing to make personal sacrifices for the community. You will never be able to achieve this inside a modern state, because the people only care for a verry small part of that state (their direct family and close friends).
Its like genetics. Ants inside one colony are all genetically related to eachoter and ants have no problem at all in sacrificing their own live for the community. Humans on the other hand are genetically alot less related, they are only genitically related to their direct family, and they emotionally related to their close friends. Humans will only be willing to sacrifice personal gain or even give their life if it directly benefits their family or friends. Sacrificing personal gain for the community is a neccesary in a world without monney/owners (i asume that ownership is also impossible in a free world charter) and thus i expect communitys to scale back down from nations to the level of tribes.
"I can't believe this troll thread is still going. I wish it would be closed to the idiots posting in it wouldn't take up a top forum spot."
Well there is unfortunatly verry little worthwhile reading on the forum and this thread is one of the more interesting, despite its irrational ideas, at least its interesting and makes one think. Contrary to the 99th thread about arizona putting someone in jail for this or that silly thing.
What is that supposed to show ? That communist states had worse pollution than first world capitalist ones ? It might be true. Also it might be explained by the fact that West exported their pollution to the third world countries, whereas communist block did not (to such degree).
It's not "might be true," I know you have an ideological predisposition to minimize it, but it is entirely true. You also have a predisposition to silly claims like "pollution is exported to the third world." No one held a gun to their head and demanded they develop their economies. Well, Economic Jokeman says someone did. You go on to say 'but everyone rose' in life expectancy and general health. If what you term "exporting [our] pollution" to them had not occurred, they would not have risen at all.
But more importantly it has nothing to do with what he claimed. That in current capitalist system environment destruction is rampant. And the main thing that is done is to move it away from consumers to places where noone cares at this time.
There's that predisposition, environment destruction is not rampant in the current capitalist system. Where is environment destruction most rampant? Countries with less developed economies. Why is the air and water and soil cleaner in the more capitalist countries? Government? Laughable.Why is the amount of forest growing in capitalist countries and still disappearing in countries like Brazil? Government? Funny.
I would say the role of government in the control of pollution has been quite essential in capitalist countries. Not sure why you are trivializing their part. People just dont become very concerned with pollution untill a certain standard of wealth has been achieved. And aquiring a higher standard of living is what market economies seem to do much, much better than centrally planned ones.
No, they throw the unsold products into the trash bin and then they throw it into big waste piles.
Normally you put stuff on sale instead of throwing it away. It is really, really rare that a retailer chooses to throw away a product at a 100% loss than try to sell it for something.
No, they throw the unsold products into the trash bin and then they throw it into big waste piles.
Normally you put stuff on sale instead of throwing it away. It is really, really rare that a retailer chooses to throw away a product at a 100% loss than try to sell it for something.
Producers generally don't allow retailers to sell sub-standard products, and they generally don't allow retailers to sell products below a certain price. Something about protecting their brand image and all that.
e same thing caused the first as what causes them now... a drive to acquire wealth.
It was also wealth.
Lets end this, What is wealth?
Accumulation of good and services.
Its the middle-man to goods and services that we no longer need, Its a diffrent world now our technology,enviroment and social education is demanding a shift just like we demanded a shift back in the revolutionary days. Wealth will only cause further inequality and profit based corruption we dont need it and we havent for alot of years. Ever since we had the technology to produce food for every person on this planet our monetary system started becoming obsolete.
SOLVED
You are arguing semantics. You will not call it wealth therefore it is not wealth.
We need capital goods to produce things. We need inventory to prevent stock outs. You need consumer goods to keep people healthy and happy. In other words you need wealth. It doesn't matter if it's owned collectively through an access system or privately - you still need it!
And! As Peter Joseph himself has admitted, after 40+ years the RBE / Venus Project has yet to develop an algorithm to allocate resources absent a price system. They just *believe* that they can do it once they're given the chance.
No, they throw the unsold products into the trash bin and then they throw it into big waste piles.
Normally you put stuff on sale instead of throwing it away. It is really, really rare that a retailer chooses to throw away a product at a 100% loss than try to sell it for something.
Producers generally don't allow retailers to sell sub-standard products, and they generally don't allow retailers to sell products below a certain price. Something about protecting their brand image and all that.
Generally retailers can set their own prices (I used to work in retail). There are some situations where prices get mandated by the manufacturer, but in those cases it is still very rare that a company will just chuck out the product.
No, they throw the unsold products into the trash bin and then they throw it into big waste piles.
Normally you put stuff on sale instead of throwing it away. It is really, really rare that a retailer chooses to throw away a product at a 100% loss than try to sell it for something.
Producers generally don't allow retailers to sell sub-standard products, and they generally don't allow retailers to sell products below a certain price. Something about protecting their brand image and all that.
Generally retailers can set their own prices (I used to work in retail). There are some situations where prices get mandated by the manufacturer, but in those cases it is still very rare that a company will just chuck out the product.
Having worked briefly in a supermarket chain I know premium brand food producers are very protective of the prices of some of their products. When dealing with products with an expiration date it happens that stuff has to be thrown out. I would say that the problem this presents to society is grossly exagerated. Companies do not like to be wasteful at all and will correct surplus problems wherever possible.
There are also countless examples of extremely wasteful behavior in centrally planned ecnonomies, that suggest to me that central planning is, if anything, alot worse at this kind of thing. See the common example of a Soviet nail factory or iron production in Maoist China.
Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
On May 18 2012 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
Investments in a RBE supposedly would be taken care of by the central planning comittee much like in the centrally planned economies of the past. The state controls all the factors of production so profits are not necessary for reinvestment.
And to be fair, ignoring Cambodia, there aren't really any examples of a centrally planned economy getting caught in a downward spiral perse, central planning is just characterized by a remarkable lack of economic progress. I think a premise of RBE supporters is that we already have enough wealth, so further progress is unnecessary.
On May 18 2012 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
Investments in a RBE supposedly would be taken care of by the central planning comittee much like in the centrally planned economies of the past. The state controls all the factors of production so profits are not necessary for reinvestment.
And to be fair, ignoring Cambodia, there aren't really any examples of a centrally planned economy getting caught in a downward spiral perse, central planning is just characterized by a remarkable lack of economic progress. I think a premise of RBE supporters is that we already have enough wealth, so further progress is unnecessary.
That's not actually what they're saying though. That was Marx's idea, and he was honest about it. These people have no clue.
On May 18 2012 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
Investments in a RBE supposedly would be taken care of by the central planning comittee much like in the centrally planned economies of the past. The state controls all the factors of production so profits are not necessary for reinvestment.
And to be fair, ignoring Cambodia, there aren't really any examples of a centrally planned economy getting caught in a downward spiral perse, central planning is just characterized by a remarkable lack of economic progress. I think a premise of RBE supporters is that we already have enough wealth, so further progress is unnecessary.
"Profits" are not necessary but the same factors that make up profits are. To profit you have to produce more than you consume (revenues > expenses). Same in an RBE - you have to create products that people want without using more resources than they are worth. If you can't do that then there will be nothing left over after production to replace the capital equipment.
Planned economies of the past did this by either mimicking what market economies did or try to calculate what prices would be if a market economy had been in place.
Mimicking: planned economies typically did well in the early years because they could look at current market economies and then plan how to get there. People in the US drive cars, so let's build steel mills, car factories and gas stations. But as they get closer to the market economy the can't mimic it anymore - it's too volatile and so they stagnate.
Determining market prices: the Soviet Union in some cases used "economist engineers" to figure out what prices would have been in a market system in order to determine if an improvement should be made in a factory (if it was worthwhile).
Edit: Better example - if a steel factory only required the resource steel to be built an RBE would be easy. A factory that used 1000 units of steel to create would need to produce more than 1000 units to be worthwhile. But a steel factory uses many different resources to produce steel and so absent a price system evaluating if it is worthwhile becomes so difficult that in the past 40 years of talking about it Jacque Fresco & the Venus Project have not said how they can do it.
To many walls of text adressing statements nobody ever made, To many phrases with the word never in it. lets get back on point and keep it to an issue preferable by asking a question or questioning something. And please express yourself so one can actually understand your question!
EPT
