On May 18 2012 08:52 Rassy wrote: "I'd rather not have a product being completely sold out, because some retards voted for or against production"
Yes that would be annoying, but this is not how it would work off course. It could be though that you wanted a product wich only verry few other people would want. Then to make that product would be highly inefficient, you would have to sacrifice other products wich might be more popular.
People have to be a bit flexible here and a bit more idealistic, this is nothing for short term. Ask yourself this question: How should we go to the stars? Should we be the ferengi or should we be voyager. Come on people, dare to dream.
The system you are talking about already exists. It's called the free market. When in the market for goods and services people vote every time the purchase something and at what price.
On May 18 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote: In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built.
Well first of we will create an abundance compared what we have today, But im sure this situation will emerge at some point for some resource so it is a valid question.
Second it would be based upon the importance it holds to all of human kind as a whole, It is hard for individuals like you to understand such values since you dont have them yet, Full transperancy of where resources are allocated would be available to all.
Thirdly creating synthetic substitues for resource we cannot make abundance is gonna be an important part of society any society. We dont make houses out of diamonds.
I cannot stress enough the abundance of resources we will have compared to today, using the latest technology to conserve,recycle,extract and synthesize. We will have very little waste!
I will stop writting solved so you guys dont get to upset.Instead ill express what i personaly feel about the questions you ask.
VALID QUESTION
Not a valid answer.
How do you "prioritize needs?" Do you stop producing iPads until Africa is fed? What is more important water or food? Shelter or electricity? Roads or cars? Buses or boats? Science or art?
You cannot say that you will create an abundance later. The question pertains to NOW.
Read it. All of it. Question is still not answered.
Peter Joseph himself has said that the question has not been answered by Zeitgeist or Jacque Fresco or the Venus project. All he's said is that even though they haven't answered it in the past 40 years that they've been working on it, once in charge they'll figure it out.
On May 18 2012 08:52 Rassy wrote: "I'd rather not have a product being completely sold out, because some retards voted for or against production"
Yes that would be annoying, but this is not how it would work off course. Capitalism doesnt avoid this problem btw, as there are tons of products wich i would like to buy for cost price+some profit, wich are not available while they technological possible. It could be though that you wanted a product wich only verry few other people would want. Then to make that product would be highly inefficient, you would have to sacrifice other products wich might be more popular.
People have to be a bit flexible here and a bit more idealistic, this is nothing for short term. Ask yourself this question: How should we go to the stars? Should we be the ferengi or should we be voyager. Come on people, dare to dream.
You've presented nothing that would beat our current system, even on a theoretical level. Sorry.
Disregarding the direct-economy-control side, I do think that the internet might allow for more direct democracy decisions on a local level in the future. I'm not, however, too sure it's a good idea. But it's going to be an interesting future for sure.
Every person should be guaranteed the highest technically possible standard of living without the use of money, trade or debt. There is no longer any logical reason not to do this. Virtually all of human suffering is caused by our outdated system of exchange.
All forms of debt and subordination are not only a hindrance to progress, but are now completely unnecessary. This is due to our command of technology and the ease with which we can produce and manufacture goods for ourselves.
Why would anyone give people the "highest possible" standard of living? In other points of the charter they're all about "reasonable use of resources" and so on. Wouldn't a system where you don't have (for example) a computer or a TV at home, but they are easily available for the public in libraries, schools, community centers and such? This way you invigorate social life and deal with quite a bit of procrastination (it's harder to use computer for procrastination in public places than at night in your cozy home).
People who, for any reason, are unable to look after themselves or contribute back into society, should be afforded every possible amenity, compassion and care from the rest of the community without obligation.
Someone earlier in the thread stated that some of their statements are very vague, even though they claim them not to be. How about this one? I understand it's about disabled, very old, very young and people otherwise excluded from your usual productive life, but this statement just as well encompassess all those who simply don't want to do anything.
In general, the idea for the kind of world this charter proposes is nice. Unfortunately it's just not possible, especially in the democracy and capitalism ridden world we have now.
Ok this is a lost case i have to be realistic, the time is not right.
After decades of breaking down human spirit by soap tv, porn and tabloids, people have lost their imagination and dreams. They accept the life they have without questions and complaints, and most of all they dont want it to change. Are they realy happy with it though? Well this is hard to tell but a poll wich showed that 50%+ of tl would be willing to risk his life with a 1/100 change to get 1m$ makes me doubt this. Monney has become so important to people, well rather the lack of monney that manny are willing to take a 1/100 change of dying to get 1m. 1m isnt a large amount by anny means, wich only emphasises how desperate people are for monney.
Noone answered my question btw.
Do people realy think we will go to the stars as capitalists? And if so, should we even want that?
Capitalism and competition have never achieved annything in space or physics. Contrary to global cooperation and idealistic people who didnt do it for the monney but because they loved it. When i was watching voyager ages ago i hated the ferengi and i think most people here do. People know intuivily that this is not the right way,but they dont want to admit it and they fear the changes that might come.
On May 18 2012 10:08 Rassy wrote: Do people realy think we will go to the stars as capitalists? And if so, should we even want that?
Capitalism and competition have never achieved annything in space or physics. Contrary to global cooperation and idealistic people who didnt do it for the monney but because they loved it. When i was watching voyager ages ago i hated the ferengi and i think most people here do. People know intuivily that this is not the right way,but they dont want to admit it and they fear the changes that might come.
Yet somehow your questions are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Are you seriously suggesting that we organize socity in a way to "reach the stars" - according to your subjective view of this being the ultimate goal?
Not only that but there's nothing stopping you from setting up a space company and asking for donations, charging for advertisements or creating some other form of income to your company. If people actually wanted this (above something else they value) then it'd happen. And, guess what, it is already happening.
I took the liberty of disregarding the start of your post as it seemed a bit too detached from reality.
Peter Joseph himself has said that the question has not been answered by Zeitgeist or Jacque Fresco or the Venus project. All he's said is that even though they haven't answered it in the past 40 years that they've been working on it, once in charge they'll figure it out.
Source/Relevance? we arent answering this today either you think we need to be all knowing to move out of this shit system? There are plenty of problems that will still remain we wiill never achive perfection. There are problems not caused by the monetary system such as emotional inpaired reasoning like you are having right now.
But this system is designed its the scientific method applied to society there is no better rule for governing society in existence at this point in time.
Peter Joseph himself has said that the question has not been answered by Zeitgeist or Jacque Fresco or the Venus project. All he's said is that even though they haven't answered it in the past 40 years that they've been working on it, once in charge they'll figure it out.
Source/Relevance? we arent answering this today either you think we need to be all knowing to move out of this shit system? There are plenty of problems that will still remain we wiill never achive perfection. There are problems not caused by the monetary system such as emotional inpaired reasoning like you are having right now.
But this system is designed its the scientific method applied to society there is no better rule for governing society in existence at this point in time.
Yes, you need to be damn well sure that you know what you're doing. Otherwise you'll collapse society, causing conflict and societal regress, because you're too stupid to run the country properly, however noble your intentions were. Not only that, but you actually did claim this system would achieve perfection and abundance for all, eliminate conflict, and so on.
As for the second part of your post; Do you even know why we have politics? You can't replace politics with "the scientific model". It's already used in all places where it's actually possible. (well, it's not foolproof, governments are full of both incompetent employees and ignorant politicians, more so in some countries than others, but still). It's like you actually believe countries are run by people just imagining shit while in reality it's the exact opposite, they go with what's tried and tested and what research has showed to be the best option. I'm sure you've heard of the word ideology. I'm just going to state this again: This so called movement of yours is an ideology and as such would be a political decision to implement. It would compete with other ideologies (and all the ideologies which are active today involve capitalism, for good reason. You'd be the new commie party, and with the new busswords you might actually get some votes).
Peter Joseph himself has said that the question has not been answered by Zeitgeist or Jacque Fresco or the Venus project. All he's said is that even though they haven't answered it in the past 40 years that they've been working on it, once in charge they'll figure it out.
Source/Relevance? we arent answering this today either you think we need to be all knowing to move out of this shit system? There are plenty of problems that will still remain we wiill never achive perfection. There are problems not caused by the monetary system such as emotional inpaired reasoning like you are having right now.
Lol!
Source:
Start at 44:18 to around 55:00 Peter later brings in an engineer who completely fails to even understand the question.
Relevance: Really? I asked you a question (you asked for questions BTW) and you failed to answer it. I then pointed out that NO ONE ELSE involved in RBE has EVER answered that question either. If you can't operate the system that we can't use it. If you can't figure out how to operate the system after working on it for 40 years then it's probably a crap system.
but you actually did claim this system would achieve perfection and abundance for all, eliminate conflict, and so on.
I didnt promise any form of perfection but yes there would be abundance and an end to conflicts as destructive as the ones we have today. And abundance is not the same as infinite.
Also alot of what you say is just outright false and naive thats why i dont respond to it so dont feel neglected, i read it.
Relevance: Really? I asked you a question (you asked for questions BTW) and you failed to answer it. I then pointed out that NO ONE ELSE involved in RBE has EVER answered that question either. If you can't operate the system that we can't use it. If you can't figure out how to operate the system after working on it for 40 years then it's probably a crap system.
but you actually did claim this system would achieve perfection and abundance for all, eliminate conflict, and so on.
I didnt promise any form of perfection but yes there would be abundance and an end to conflicts as destructive as the ones we have today. And abundance is not the same as infinite.
You have yet to show that you have something that is in the slightest bit workable. You can't even figure out if a steel mill should be built or not. All you are doing is saying nice things. That is not an argument, let alone proof or facts or data.
Peter Joseph himself has said that the question has not been answered by Zeitgeist or Jacque Fresco or the Venus project. All he's said is that even though they haven't answered it in the past 40 years that they've been working on it, once in charge they'll figure it out.
Still waiting on the source of this.
Start at 44:18 to around 55:00 Peter later brings in an engineer who completely fails to even understand the question.
The person speaking at 44:00-55:00 is not peter joseph btw.
Relevance: Really? I asked you a question (you asked for questions BTW) and you failed to answer it. I then pointed out that NO ONE ELSE involved in RBE has EVER answered that question either. If you can't operate the system that we can't use it. If you can't figure out how to operate the system after working on it for 40 years then it's probably a crap system.
And to answer this trivial question, Demand if someone requests a product it will be saved and entered into the system demand of a good or service will be meassured and production/Infrastructure adapted for it. Values will also be studied and the commericial society that we have today will go out the door.
The reason i asked for relevance is because you assume that our economy today works properly, Obviously it does not and as mentioned in the video "We are not looking to reinvent the wheel" any useful ways to gather data that is benefcial to humanity as a whole will be used and developed in the future even if it served a monetary system.
Peter Joseph himself has said that the question has not been answered by Zeitgeist or Jacque Fresco or the Venus project. All he's said is that even though they haven't answered it in the past 40 years that they've been working on it, once in charge they'll figure it out.
Relevance: Really? I asked you a question (you asked for questions BTW) and you failed to answer it. I then pointed out that NO ONE ELSE involved in RBE has EVER answered that question either. If you can't operate the system that we can't use it. If you can't figure out how to operate the system after working on it for 40 years then it's probably a crap system.
And to answer this trivial question, Demand if someone requests a product it will be saved and entered into the system demand of a good or service will be meassured and production/Infrastructure adapted for it. Values will also be studied and the commericial society that we have today will go out the door.
The reason i asked for relevance is because you assume that our economy today works properly, Obviously it does not and as mentioned in the video "We are not looking to reinvent the wheel" any useful ways to gather data that is benefcial to humanity as a whole will be used and developed in the future even if it served a monetary system.
The person you see is Stefan Molyneux and the person on the phone introduces himself as Peter Joseph. It is a debate between the two.
"We are not looking to reinvent the wheel" shows that they have no clue. They have only looked at the economy from the consumer side and have paid zero attention to how things are poduced. You cannot simply "make what people want" since that does not consider, at all, what resources go into their production (efficiency). As stated time and again you cannot, you absolutely cannot copy the current methods for determining production since they rely entirely on price. You DO need to reinvent the wheel.
The person you see is Stefan Molyneux and the person on the phone introduces himself as Peter Joseph. It is a debate between the two.
Thats just an automated message they have in V-radio they have one with jacue fresco and roxanne aswel. Also you didnt notice the voice didnt fit? and i guess you never seen the Zeitgeist movies either.
Lets continue talking about this, after you seen some more material you havent realy found a tressure trove of flaws like you think most if not all of what you talk about is in the films.
And dont lie and make up qoutes like this one, and please dont waste time wyrming your way out of it just go watch the movies.
Peter Joseph himself has said that the question has not been answered by Zeitgeist or Jacque Fresco or the Venus project. All he's said is that even though they haven't answered it in the past 40 years that they've been working on it, once in charge they'll figure it out.
The person you see is Stefan Molyneux and the person on the phone introduces himself as Peter Joseph. It is a debate between the two.
Thats just an automated message they have in V-radio they have one with jacue fresco and roxanne aswel. Also you didnt notice the voice didnt fit? and i guess you never seen the Zeitgeist movies either.
Lets continue talking about this, after you seen some more material you havent realy found a tressure trove of flaws like you think most if not all of what you talk about is in the films.
And dont lie and make up qoutes like this one, and please dont waste time wyrming your way out of it just go watch the movies.
Peter Joseph himself has said that the question has not been answered by Zeitgeist or Jacque Fresco or the Venus project. All he's said is that even though they haven't answered it in the past 40 years that they've been working on it, once in charge they'll figure it out.
It's not a lie (or a quote for that matter) it's the 100% truth.
DeliCiousVP so at this point if you can't answer the question beyond posting links to 2hr long propaganda films then I'm done with this little debate even though it's been fun . It's a simple question in market economies but a huge question as to how a RBE will be run in the real world. If it (in both parts 'a' and 'b') cannot be answered thoroughly then the RBE cannot work.
Here's the question again.
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built.
On May 18 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: DeliCiousVP so at this point if you can't answer the question beyond posting links to 2hr long propaganda films then I'm done with this little debate even though it's been fun . It's a simple question in market economies but a huge question as to how a RBE will be run in the real world. If it (in both parts 'a' and 'b') cannot be answered thoroughly then the RBE cannot work.
Here's the question again.
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built.
You had your answer and you have the material provided. And you did lie because you claimed they admited that yet they had done no such thing. You argue like a politician and are more intressted in winning then learning you can go win in your corner somewhere.
On May 18 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: DeliCiousVP so at this point if you can't answer the question beyond posting links to 2hr long propaganda films then I'm done with this little debate even though it's been fun . It's a simple question in market economies but a huge question as to how a RBE will be run in the real world. If it (in both parts 'a' and 'b') cannot be answered thoroughly then the RBE cannot work.
Here's the question again.
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built.
Of course he has no answer to this...
All attempts at Utilitarian central control economies have failed and will continue to fail, and can never succeed, because we as humans are individualists, and the social circle of the people we actually care about is much smaller than the society that we live in, so we have dissenting interests, the "fair" reconciliation of which is a problem of exponential mathematical complexity, meaning it's not solvable in practice, at least in a dynamic system.
We're not bees or ants in a single hive or anthill, we don't all share a common purpose without coercion.
On May 18 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: DeliCiousVP so at this Point if you can't Answer the question beyond posting links to 2hr long propaganda films then I'M done with this little debate even though it'S been fun . It'S a simple question in market economies but a huge question as to how a RBE will be run in the ReaL world. If it (in both parts 'a' and 'b') cannot be answered thoroughly then the RBE cannot work.
Here'S the question again.
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built.
You had your Answer and you have the material provided. And you did lie because you claimed they admited that yet they had done no such thing. You argue like a politician and are more intressted in winning then learning you can go win in your corner somewhere.
I consider being asked a direct question and not responding with an answer (as you are now) to mean that you, in fact, have no answer to the question. Furthermore, by being asked a question, and producing no answer, you (or anyone else) are inherently admitting that you do not have one.
On May 18 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: DeliCiousVP so at this point if you can't answer the question beyond posting links to 2hr long propaganda films then I'm done with this little debate even though it's been fun . It's a simple question in market economies but a huge question as to how a RBE will be run in the real world. If it (in both parts 'a' and 'b') cannot be answered thoroughly then the RBE cannot work.
Here's the question again.
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built.
Of course he has no answer to this...
All attempts at Utilitarian central control economies have failed and will continue to fail, and can never succeed, because we as humans are individualists, and the social circle of the people we actually care about is much smaller than the society that we live in, so we have dissenting interests, the "fair" reconciliation of which is a problem of exponential mathematical complexity, meaning it's not solvable in practice, at least in a dynamic system.
We're not bees or ants in a single hive or anthill, we don't all share a common purpose without coercion.
You say we dont share the common purpose as a need ? So its just fiction that we need food water and shelter? You are not an individual capable of critical thinking you are a guardian of the status quo which is the absolute opposite of an well informed individual.
Its cute to be so naive, and dangerous to be so ignorant.
EPT
they have in V-radio they have one with jacue fresco and roxanne aswel. Also you didnt notice the voice didnt fit? and i guess you never seen the Zeitgeist movies either. 
