This is 4 years ago when Peter jospeh still had fairly high hopes for open conversation between two individuals. Now we know better tho that actually discussing something in a calm and informative way, Is a trait ihard to find in the masses.
18:30ish. Peter Joseph asks Alex Jones:
"What is evil? Define it for me." He then goes on to declare that evil is a religious term that has no meaning blah blah blah. Everything is defined and explained in a way that is beneficial to his theory.
A classic rhetorical tactic intended to muddle up and basically shut down a conversation, the opposite of actually discussing something in a calm and informative way.
Anything inconsistent with Peter Joseph's wrapped-in-a-neat-little-bow view of human nature and culture - like, say, the fact that while "what you own" is an important part of identity in human culture, it is neither the sole factor nor even the most important - is either meaningless or the result of generations of deceit practiced on a gullible general public. Religious identity, family identity, national identity, local geographic identity, interest identity, these don't fit neatly into the theory, so they mean nothing or are actually harmful and must be done away with.
Alex Jones proceeds to go on his whole Satanism bit, cementing the realization that one of the men you're listening to is a fanatic, and the other one a huckster.
Can you proof to me that Adam Smith 'realized' he was wrong? Furthermore; Adam Smith his focus was not on 'the contribution to society by the wealthiest'. If anything; Adam Smith feared the wealthiest (for modern public choice reasons).
Do you think he is wrong with his 'invisible hand' metaphor? Why?
Adam smith admired the wealthiest to begin with as he wrote his thesis on "perfect liberty". As time went by he started having his doubt as the wealth gap kept increasing. And even tho scotland was becoming richer due to the Glasgow merchants he didnt see this reflected in the general population as he predicted instead the merchants were building great houses for themself.
But it is easier to understand all of this if you understand what shapes human behaviour.
That there is an inviisble hand that control supply and demand and brings equalibrium is absurd. There are factors none of them invisble or natural.
I will plug the episode again but TL gets angry when i have to constantly repeat stuff so Follow the parts and make your own opinion.
[/spoiler]
I will ask again: can you proof it to me? I am someone who is academically involved on the writing of Adam Smith. I would like some academic resources.
Can you explain to me what standard economists mean with 'the invisible hand metaphor' and why it is wrong? (The first step of arguing that something is wrong, is presenting it a way that supporters would agree with.)
4) Adam Smith is not all that is modern economic theory. Ludwig von Mises, who wrote extensively on why communism doesn't work, is pretty important to the discussion too.
You mean the most important economist ever is relevant to an economics discussion? :D
<3 Ludwig von Mises
The Venus Project/RBE Economy fail the test of grasping the relevance of economic calculation. That is why I keep hamering on the role of money and what will replace it. Key economic questions that have not been answered.
There is only one way to achieve the RBE dream: a free market, a tolerable administration and the free flow of goods and services.
"What is evil? Define it for me." He then goes on to declare that evil is a religious term that has no meaning blah blah blah. Everything is defined and explained in a way that is beneficial to his theory.
A classic rhetorical tactic intended to muddle up and basically shut down a conversation, the opposite of actually discussing something in a calm and informative way.
And here i thought he was trying to tell alex that behaviour is enviromentaly determined and you arent borne "Evil"
i listened to this yesterday and alex jones cracks me up hes one well i wouldent call him a fanatic maybe a little crazy but he is defintly a beliver, I dont go to info wars or listen to alex jones in general i just digged it up for fun. Figured you guys needed something juicy you might be able to debunk.
And here i thought he was trying to tell alex that behaviour is enviromentaly determined and you arent borne "Evil"
That isn't the context Alex Jones was talking about - another trick. Talk about the context you want to talk about, in essence talk past the person you're talking to - another way to avoid honest and informative conversation.
What's the role of money in our economy and how will it disappear/what will replace it in your future society?
Money serves as a sort of replacement today as the middle man to resources or more commenly known as a represanttive of goods and services, There wont be no labour for income and no goods for services so no need for income.
I hear many of you guys wondering who makes the descion in a RBE? Not who but what and that what is The scientific method. And yes we will surrender part of our descion making to machines that have the capability to absorb alot more data then a human faster and more efficient. And before you go screaming sci fi and post terminator pics.
Know this if you ever used a caluclator you used a machine for descion making so chillax.
I will ask again: can you proof it to me? I am someone who is academically involved on the writing of Adam Smith. I would like some academic resources.
Some sources dont exist on the internet or i dont know how to find them but i showed you a video of The history of scotland and what scottish historians who researched his life,books and events of the time.
If that is not enough for you maybe you should take a look at the emotional reaction blocking you from taking in new information, Remember in our male culture nothing is more shameful then being WRONG. It takes time and pain to grow out of these programins.
When i listen to the some of the stuff you guys write i remember how i used to conceive the world around me, Obviously thats a piss poor thing say because everyone use it for everything. But hey in the last years i learned more stuff than i ever did before but the craziest part is i dont feel this shame or anger when im wrong and you dont know you ever had that until its gone.
Some sources dont exist on the internet or i dont know how to find them but i showed you a video of The history of scotland and what scottish historians who researched his life,books and events of the time.
The video does not say what you say it says, this has been pointed out already.
If that is not enough for you maybe you should take a look at the emotional reaction blocking you from taking in new information, Remember in our male culture nothing is more shameful then being WRONG. It takes time and pain to grow out of these programins.
Projection is a fascinating psychological defense mechanism.
What's the role of money in our economy and how will it disappear/what will replace it in your future society?
Money serves as a sort of replacement today as the middle man to resources or more commenly known as a represanttive of goods and services, There wont be no labour for income and no goods for services so no need for income.
I hear many of you guys wondering who makes the descion in a RBE? Not who but what and that what is The scientific method. And yes we will surrender part of our descion making to machines that have the capability to absorb alot more data then a human faster and more efficient. And before you go screaming sci fi and post terminator pics.
Know this if you ever used a caluclator you used a machine for descion making so chillax.
I understand that you do not understand the role of money, the function of prices and economic calculation; the back bone of our economy. You (sort of) understand the primary role of money (medium of indirect exchange). However; you do not understand the secondary role of prices that are caused by money: monetary calculation.
However; I do understand you want to get rit of it.
The scientific method is a method of finding generalized theories that are true. Tell me how that is applicable to help us decide _what_ to produce, how much capital to allocate to different sectors in the economy?
Furthermore; a calculator has never made a decision for me. A calculator has helped me making decisions. Notice the important difference?
A wise man said this:
If that is not enough for you maybe you should take a look at the emotional reaction blocking you from taking in new information, Remember in our male culture nothing is more shameful then being WRONG. It takes time and pain to grow out of these programins.
The video does not say what you say it says, this has been pointed out already.
from 7:20
If you read all of adam smith it differs from first to last, When he started he was young and naive as he grew older and wiser he started seeing the true colours.
Im not an expert on Adam smith or the scottish enlightment but it shocks me that my general knowledge trumps people who specialized in the subject. My advice is learn more about how the world works. And as far as i know basic litterature teach you to analyze the book by its author and the enviorment he was in.
I understand that you do not understand the role of money, the function of prices and economic calculation; the back bone of our economy.
Maybe you dont understand how the world works? maybe you just understand how some parts of the economy is supposed to work? maybe the role of money is obsolete and should be changed. Why do you assume that we live in a perfect system that works perfectly? Dont you have a TV or a newspapper or the internet. What makes you think that what we have now is the best we can do?
Why are you so desperate to show what you have learned and why do you need everything you learned to be right? Do you assume that any person in the world havent learned something that was wrong myself included? and a ask yourself the question.
Do we have the technology and resources to do it? if we do ask yourself what is stoping us?
An economy is not a technological decision making process. It is deciding between alternative possibilities to know what is the most economic way of doing something. That is why you need prices.
If you abolish that, you destroy economic calculation. That means you are basically blind to know what is the relevant opportunity cost when employing resources. You are literally in the dark.
Of course; if you don't care about people actual preferences, than it is (theoretically) possible. But then you are just a totalitarian dictator, trying to substitute people's preferences for your own.
That is what you are advocating, if you analyze the core of the project.
If you read all of adam smith it differs from first to last, When he started he was young and naive as he grew older and wiser he started seeing the true colours.
Im not an expert on Adam smith or the scottish enlightment but it shocks me that my general knowledge trumps people who specialized in the subject. My advice is learn more about how the world works. And as far as i know basic litterature teach you to analyze the book by its author and the enviorment he was in.
You are not an expert, yet claim with grand authority that there are major differences?
Oke, tell me; what 'earlier' work should I compare to what 'latter work' to know the major differences you talk about? Can you actually quote stuf?
It is easy to claim things without actual proof.
Edit: None of what is said in that video actually proofs what you are saying. What is true, is that the video doesn't use academic resources either and combines truth with lies.
The only reason a calculator does something is because I tell it to. It does not just randomly add 2+2, it does so because I give it the signal via pressing a button that is tied into a preset function. It is not making any kind of decision, it is merely carrying out my commands.
Edit: None of what is said in that video actually proofs what you are saying. What is true, is that the video doesn't use academic resources either and combines truth with lies.
Haha now the scottish historians are liars because what was being said didnt fit your world view? Suprise suprise
That you showed is relevant and a problem in a monetary system. If a system does not use money the problem dont appear like this. Coupled with a diffrent set of values and abundance for the nessceties of life.
The only reason a calculator does something is because I tell it to. It does not just randomly add 2+2, it does so because I give it the signal via pressing a button that is tied into a preset function. It is not making any kind of decision, it is merely carrying out my commands.
The machines are our slaves they do as we wish fill the purpose we designed for them, Just like you gave an example of there that will be the same in the future it will just be more advanced.
Maybe you dont understand how the world works? maybe you just understand how some parts of the economy is supposed to work? maybe the role of money is obsolete and should be changed. Why do you assume that we live in a perfect system that works perfectly? Dont you have a TV or a newspapper or the internet. What makes you think that what we have now is the best we can do?
Why are you so desperate to show what you have learned and why do you need everything you learned to be right? Do you assume that any person in the world havent learned something that was wrong myself included? and a ask yourself the question.
Do we have the technology and resources to do it? if we do ask yourself what is stoping us?
Well; it is also a possibility that I do not understand how the world works. That is very possible.
However; here is my criterium. I do not trust anyone who wants to completely change everything that all experts of the field (+- 400 years of inquiry in to sociology and economics) agree that is the back bone of our society without him even being able to explain the intellectual academic status quo. If you want to criticize stuf; sure! (I do it all the time.) But if you can not coherently explain what you are criticizing, then I have a prima facie mistrust in you. Seems like an not to unreasonable criterium.
All economist see that money and economic calculation is a necessary tool for an advanced economy with widespread division of labour. If you want to abolish money, you need to explain what is wrong with the theory. Explaining what is wrong with the theory, requires to be able to accurately state what the theory _is_ and then go and criticize it.
Where I am assuming that we live in a 'perfect system'? My personal 'ideology' is classical liberalism; we live far and far between from such a world. I want to change many things. I disagree with many vision of the status quo. However; I do not want to change the very foundations our society is build on. I think there is a better way; just not the way that will abolish society as we know it.
Now; we do not have 'the technology' and 'resources' to create utopia today. We might have them, if we have a process that can optimize their use. That process is not centralizing decision making processes into 'machines'.
That you showed is relevant and a problem in a monetary system. If a system does not use money the problem dont appear like this. Coupled with a diffrent set of values and abundance for the nessceties of life.
No, you still need to do economic calculations - valuing resources by some means. It is absolutely necessary to be able to do economic calculations to run an economy. I posted this question to you back on page 60 and you have yet to come up with an answer. It is simple, and you must be able to do economic calculations to solve it.
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.
Edit: None of what is said in that video actually proofs what you are saying. What is true, is that the video doesn't use academic resources either and combines truth with lies.
Haha now the scottish historians are liars because what was being said didnt fit your world view? Suprise suprise
Well... No.
That video is lying. The historians are not.
I am sorry, but posting youtube movies that do not cite resources but is just a narrative is not an (academic) source.
That you showed is relevant and a problem in a monetary system. If a system does not use money the problem dont appear like this. Coupled with a diffrent set of values and abundance for the nessceties of life.
Well... No. That problem is relevant over and above any economy that is beyond autarky and (very, very) small villages. Even in an advanced economy. A system that does not use money will not be able to engage into economic calculation. That is, however, a necessary condition for any economic level above pure autarky and very, very small villages.
Do you see where the abolition of money will get us?
It is NOT about 'changing values'.
The machines are our slaves they do as we wish fill the purpose we designed for them, Just like you gave an example of there that will be the same in the future it will just be more advanced.
We are saying that it is not 'just more advanced'. We are saying that you want to replace human decision making that can not be replaced without making as de facto slaves of those who control the machines.
Do you realize you are advocating a totalitarian planned economy? (Totalitarian in the sense of: all relevant economic decisions will be made for you.)
All decisions will be made by 'machines'. So those who control (program) the machines; what will they use? How will they evaluate everyon's preferences and assign marginal value to it?
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/optimus_prime.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/527018_390011151022522_1963314908_n.jpg)
