Sunday, June 26, 2011

Response to JacobSpinney's Response

To give a quick recap, in response to The Venus Project Challenge, JacobSpinney delivered a series of critiques regarding the Resource Based Economic model. I gave a series of replies, and here is his additional response to those, which I am finally getting around to addressing:

Jacob's Response (April 2011):

Please note that I am already buried in videos that I had planned on making, which ironically, could have and probably would have addressed at least some of the arguments and misconceptions that I've been going back and forth with in responses. So rather than get too continuously caught up, I'll try to cover here what I feel are the major points, and hopefully move on with the more recently broadened aims of The Zeitgeist Movement. =)

The first point I want to address is our miscommunication on fiat currency vs. the market system itself.
Peter tried to explain how the points made against fiat currency in defense of the market system are irrelevant to the arguments put forth in Zeitgeist Moving Forward. Jacob says "this is simply untrue," and continues to explain how governments and fiat currency are the enemy. I understand, and agree on many levels. However, there is one entirely separate fundamental point that I believe we are continuously talking passed each other on, that still makes the issues of fiat currency irrelevant. With regard to the market itself, Jacob maintains the position of:

1) There is no coercion in a
true free market, that is, one without fiat currency and government regulations. Essentially, "everybody wins," or else the exchange(s) would NOT have taken place. It is completely voluntary.

While I agree that this is sometimes the case, I
fundamentally disagree with the oversimplified notion that it is always the case, from the position of:

2) Of course the exchange "voluntarily" took place, if that person's choice was to either exchange (labor, sex, etc.) or
starve! That doesn't make the exchange "fair," which brings us to exploitation, and thus coercion. In other words, simply stating that "both parties turned out better off," does not address the fact that "better off," in many cases, simply means... "not dead." Sure, everybody wins, if you want to consider that "winning." To argue that "this simply wouldn't happen in a free market because wealth would be distributed more equally," is again, irrelevant because there is nothing in the market system that guarantees anyone an equal opportunity to acquire such wealth, so members of society are still ultimately gambling for their necessities of life.

Jacob only looks at one side of the story in his example. He carves the branch into a statue and trades with you. He asks, "just because I traded my statue for something I value
more than it, does that make it coercion?" No, I agree with this. "Instead," he says, "if you simply take my statue, without contributing or giving anything in return, then it is you who are coercing me." Granted. However, these cookie-cutter examples of "voluntary exchanges" between the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker simply do not pan out in the real world! At least not anymore. So it is NOT okay for me to take his statue, and give him nothing in return. Agreed. But it IS okay for people who are born into this world, without a choice, to be denied access to resources, until they have proven that they are valuable to those who are already in control of resources?
So then at what point is it coercion? Is it considered voluntary as long as "something" is given in return, even if it's just one penny - and that person accepts it because they are in a position where they simply have no choice but to accept whatever they can get? No, you're not holding a gun to anyone's head to make that trade, at least not literally. In the real world, the "gun" is simply the lack of food and shelter. I've never advocated a system where anyone just mooches off of the fruits of anyone or everyone else's labor, and I'll admit that in the past, the free market was the best way to avoid that scenario. But the world is changing, and in still trying to avoid that scenario, we have resorted to the opposite extreme. Where people who can very easily own property or the means of production required for one's survival and/or standard of living, can coerce people into making exchanges that they otherwise would not reasonably make. The fact of the matter is, we have reached a state of technology where we can provide those basic needs to every man, woman, and child on earth without the need for human labor, and if that means that such a person could, instead of wasting his life away working at McDonald's to survive, be provided with food, shelter, and education, and spend all day reading, learning, exploring, and maybe even become an expert in a field that finds a solution to one of our current or future problems, such as a disease, then I'm all for it. Even if it means he'll be a musician, or an artist... if it means that he has no reason to steal from or hurt someone else, including me, and no one had to "pay out of pocket" to provide him with those things, then I'm all for it. At the end of the day, we are all safer and more secure in our endeavors when everyone is taken care of. I realize that this has not always been an economic possibility, but it is now. For information on how this is possible, please visit: http://www.adciv.org

No, the solution - I agree - is not to "coerce" people into changing their values and/or joining the Resource Based Economy, but to continue making people
aware of these possibilities, as such awareness gives people the choice of being willing to participate and work towards it. That's it. This is not to say that market interactions, people and communities voluntarily exchanging with each other, becoming self-sufficient and digging ourselves out of this hole, could not pave the way to a Resource Based Economy, whilst contributing to commonly held knowledge and resources. But I do think that to ignore that the RBE is even a possibility, to just conclude that the free market is optimum efficiency, and that currency is the ultimate crown achievement of mankind, would be kidding ourselves.

In terms of all values being subjective, it was a verbal error on my part to say that there are "objective values," which is almost an oxymoron. What I mean to say, is that not all values are
equal, as some values are, in fact, dependent on other values. In other words, if you value spending time with your Mom, then you cannot claim that you don't value your Mom's life. If you value playing with your dog, then you cannot claim that you don't at all value your dog's health, or his ability to play. So yes, one can certainly choose not to value subsistence, so long as they admittedly renounce all other supposed values for which subsistence is required. However, a value must be chosen, and acknowledged as such, in order for any voluntary action towards it to occur, thus if one denies, or is unaware of, the relationship between their supposed values, and the life that makes those values possible, then it is only a matter of time before neither can be satisfied. It's that simple -- and verbally masturbating over the difference between an 'is' and an 'ought' doesn't change that. Of course, philosophically speaking, an 'is' does not equal an 'ought,' and an 'ought' cannot be derived from an 'is' in and of itself. However, I would think that the goal of these discussions regarding a new social system, whether it be the free market or a Resource Based Economy, is to continue human life on this planet at all, let alone in an optimal way. In that, I assume we value life, and am therefore speaking in terms of those who value life. Otherwise, if all values are equally subjective, and the world "is the way it is," not necessarily meaning that we "ought" to do anything about it, then why are we even having this discussion? In that case, I'll have to put a disclaimer on my Channel, and on my videos, explaining that they are geared towards those who are interested in continuing life on this planet, and not intended for those who are suicidal. So let's ask ourselves: What kind of society do we want to live in?

A) The water is boiling. The man is observing the boiling water. Although I cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' in and of itself, I value life, and the life of that other person, so I will use the tools I am given to determine the most optimal path of meeting those values. By using science to determine the fact that boiling water would indeed cause significant injury or death to a living, conscious being, I arrive at the notion that I "ought not" to pour the boiling water on him or on myself. See Sam Harris' presentation on how Science Can Answer Moral Questions.

B) The water is boiling. The man is observing the boiling water. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is," and therefore, whether or not I "ought to" scald the hell out of that innocent man who is observing the boiling water, is merely a toss-up of various possibilities. Whether or not I value his life is irrelevant, as science cannot answer moral questions.

I'm going to go with A, but good luck with B if you decide to go that route.

When Peter says "
it has nothing to do with anything on a physical or tangible level," he is talking about the
use of prices for supposed efficient resource allocation; he is not referring to "resource allocation" in general, which obviously does have very much to do with things on a physical, tangible level. When he says "the market and its sense of efficiency
assumes that the public knows what the hell they're doing," Jacob responds "it makes no such assumption." I rest my case. Peter was pointing out that our relying on the free market system for all decisions is giving it the benefit of the doubt, assuming that it accounts for scientific efficiency, as in the state of ecology, sustainability, the well-being of plant and animal life, etc. - since no one would dare rely on an economic system that doesn't take that into account. Right? No, apparently not. Jacob argues that "economics says nothing of values. It merely shines light on how to best achieve whatever those values might be." This is forfeiting the benefit of the doubt, and blatantly admitting that the free market system may very well ignore the aforementioned factors, and does not assume scientific efficiency, or sustainability, but simply that it is the most economically efficient way to satisfy individual consumer preferences - regardless of how sustainable or scientifically efficient those preferences may be. So in essence, this says that our values are independent, and the economic system is simply what we use, or rather, the interactions we engage in, to efficiently meet those values; therefore, it's the values that need to change, not the economic system. This completely ignores the fact that the values themselves are indeed influenced by the conditions of the economic system in question, due to adaptive preferences, and valuation neglect. So we do, in fact, need to change the economic system, if we expect to successfully change the values.

When I am talking about production costs, I am (obviously) not referring to "cost" in terms of price. I am referring to the total cost in terms of outlay or expenditure of time, energy, raw materials, etc. required to produce a given product. I understand that without prices, the "total resource cost" of 500 liters of oil is figuratively the same as 500L of water, or 500L of apple juice, in terms of marginal utility, because 'how much of which' should actually be used, and what it should actually be used
for, is ultimately determined by the subjective valuations of the consumers, taking all of that into account. What this argument ignores, again, is that as I stated in the 3rd video, this is not how "costs" would be ultimately calculated in the RBE - as the free market admittedly measures such costs solely on the subjective utility of the consumers, which cannot, in and of itself, serve as an accurate prognosis for sustainability or well-being. For this, we need to look at the capabilities approach that challenges utilitarianism, on the grounds that although people want to be happy, it may overlook the things we truly value, as well as fundamental inequalities. In fact, according to a Human Development Report nearly 20 years ago, "the basic objective of development to create an enabling environment for people to live long, healthy, and creative lives is often lost in the immediate concern for the accumulation of commodities and financial wealth." This groundbreaking approach was overlooked in the entire ~54 minute response, which instead heavily reiterated "marginal utility," in more detail.

As we know, the RBE does not use monetary prices to measure the costs of resources, but that
does not mean that oil, water, and apple juice therefore have, figuratively, the same "cost." Why? Because in a dynamic system like the RBE we would have a global database of information on all available resources, and accurate calculations as to what various products or services those resources can possibly be used for, both alone, and in combination with each other, so that we are able to determine how to most efficiently (scientifically) produce a variety of goods and services that do indeed meet the expressed individual preferences of consumers, while still taking into account the opportunities that may be gained or lost in the process. We would be able to accurately consider all available parameters and compare the various possibilities of what can be done, to what people actually want and need. In other words, we would not simply produce "the most scientifically efficient widget" using whatever possible combination of resources we have, without taking the production of anything else into account, and then say "oops, we didn't leave enough over for the other widget(s)." Determining which, or how many, resources to use for one product or service versus another, would factor in the intended functionality of the item, how many people would need it, how long it needs to last, etc. As peoples' needs and preferences change, their inputs change, consumption changes, information changes, and we adjust accordingly. It's not really that complicated - once we consider the current state of technology. In other words, it combines scientific efficiency WITH economic efficiency; it does not sacrifice economic efficiency, in favor of scientific fascism. Even though, at the end of the day, we would be consuming goods at a figurative cost of "zero" to the consumer, it is possible to continue efficiently satisfying individual needs AND preferences because we are maximizing the fruits of the aforementioned scientific efficiency, allowing us to create a relative state of abundance. Meaning, if we produce things in a more scientifically efficient and less wasteful manner, we can then afford to actually produce more of what people actually want and need, and reach true economic efficiency.

In response to the claim that producing the most efficient and sustainable products would be either too expensive for the company to make, or too expensive for the customer to buy, Jacob gives the example of a dent-proof, water-proof, shock resistant iPod that would cost $200 instead of $100. In other words, it's the customer's choice. Yes, well, I'm not talking about an ipod that would cost "$200.00." As cute as that sounds, I'm talking about one that might cost TWO THOUSAND dollars, or more. Now apply that to every product a person uses. When we're talking about a wide range of appliances and electronics that serve multiple functions, boast the
most advanced features that are technologically possible to-date (usually unheard of by us common-folk), are extremely durable, customizable, easily upgradeable, and sustainable... it's not going to cost $200.00. Period. Of course, one might ask why we should make "two thousand dollar" iPods for everyone when we don't need to, and people might prefer to be able to choose where such efficiency is applied. Perhaps on a TV, or a vehicle, or... some other device. The answer is, because we can! In the Resource Based Economy, it's not about having to choose where you want efficiency and where you don't. We can produce everything efficiently because we no longer have to produce various "affordable" models, ranging from "cheap" to "expensive," and this means much less redundancy and waste. Less redundancy and waste means we have more resources available, that would otherwise be sitting in a landfill, to continue to produce things efficiently. People only need to choose a less efficient or sustainable product when they are taking their own finances into account, and the fact that purchasing an efficient iPod would mean a less efficient something else, or vice versa.

Jacob tries to argue that if we relied solely on scientific efficiency, such as the bare biological requirements for human survival, then "the computer" would produce, for example, a mostly-potato diet, and rotating bunk-beds to "efficiently" provide sleeping quarters. (Perhaps. If we were using
Windows '98 to allocate resources...) This is either a ludicrous exaggeration to make a point, meaning he doesn't actually think that, or it is a clear and dangerous sign that society has become so far detached from genuine science for social concern, that we cannot even fathom "scientific efficiency" co-existing with personal preferences. First, I need to clarify that far too much emphasis is being placed on "the central computer," as if there is only one "i-Robot" computer arbitrarily making all decisions. No. While a network of systems and various infrastructures such as the routing of energy, water, sewage, etc. would be automated, as in many ways they are now, the "central" database of information and decision-making processes is merely a tool. In terms of production and distribution, we, the members of society, are the ones inputting ideas, inventions, design improvements, requests, etc. As such, "the computer" does not just arbitrarily "decide" to produce potatoes based on biological dietary needs, simply "keeping humans alive" as if on a feeding tube. As I also mentioned in my 3rd video, which was either ignored, or completely misconstrued, we would use the scientific method to determine the most efficient way to meet peoples' needs AND PREFERENCES. The "potato and bunk-bed" example conveniently glosses over the "preferences" part of that statement. If we would like to eat certain foods (strawberries, bread, corn, fish, etc.), we can still use the scientific method to determine the most "scientifically efficient" way (vertical farm, flat farm, where to build, etc.) to produce the food(s) in question, and thus still satisfy consumer preferences "efficiently" in an economic sense. If one would like to live in a certain kind of house, or sleep in a certain kind of bed, we can use the scientific method to determine how to most efficiently produce such a house, or such a bed, and out of what materials. Bear in mind that "engineering" and "biology" are not the only fields of "science" that we have to go by. It is probably not mentally (or physically) healthy to gag on mostly potatoes and/or sleep on rotating bunk-beds like Marines in barracks with minimal comfort, privacy, etc. All of these things need to be, and would be, taken into account. The RBE is applying the scientific method for social concern, not the scientific method for "only biological survival concern." The scientific method simply helps us figure out the most optimal ways to meet individual preferences, and simultaneously helps to ensure that our survival needs are not in short or long-term jeopardy.

While Jacob does re-explain how monopolies and cartels could not form, or at least could not last, the point that is ultimately still left unaddressed is: The fact that they won't "last" does not solve the conditions endured during the time of their existence, however long that may be, which could be completely avoided in a Resource Based Economy - to which the only response still seems to be "it can't possibly last long." Thus, the fundamental difference between what Jacob advocates, and what I advocate can theoretically be summed up in just one passive statement: "Of course there will always be fly-by-night fraudsters that are more than happy to steal your money, which is why it's a good idea to only do business with reputable companies..." Since when did this become an acceptable reality? The free market apparently has all of these long and drawn out "safeguards" against abuse. Granted, there is still an incentive for abuse, but don't worry; there are safeguards. "Don't worry. Competition will be looking over each other's shoulder." "Don't worry, their incentive to generate future profits, or their fear of a class-action lawsuit, will discourage them from continuing to sell a faulty product." "Don't worry. The transportation systems could be built, maintained, and profit shared by community members to prevent price gouging." Don't worry, without governmental regulation to enforce intellectual property, someone will eventually figure out the secret to the ever-lasting gadget... eventually." Screw that. We're done with so-called safeguards. I say, instead of "competition looking over each other's shoulders," let's look out for each other from the get-go, and have each other's back, removing the need for any such safeguards, and eliminating one of the primary causes of stress and anxiety. (Funny how we do the exact opposite, and then wonder why there's so much crime and mayhem.) Instead of relying on the pursuit of profit, or one's "fear" of a class-action lawsuit, let's all do right by each other because there is no incentive to do otherwise. Instead of relying on the notion that someone will eventually "figure out" the everlasting gadget and market it, let's just share the everlasting gadget with each other to begin with, now that we have the technological ability to design an infrastructure that allows us to do so. The game was fun while it lasted, but life's too short for the burden of relying on the rules of the game, and the supposed safeguards against abuse, especially when such reliance is no longer even necessary. It's time to move on. How one cannot see the logic in voluntarily moving towards a system where one simply does not have the incentive to BE a "fly-by-night fraudster," I'll admit, is positively beyond me, short of attributing it to a fascination or "thrill" of the game itself, regardless of its consequences. I will end with a reminder that despite our fundamental disagreements, The Venus Project is not based on force or coercion, but is an open invitation for those who are ready to proactively cooperate in using the scientific method for social concern, rather than using a free enterprise system where we all compete with each other for access to the necessities of life... for social concern...? O.o
----------------

Jacob's original criticisms (Feb-Mar 2011):
Voluntaryist Thoughts on Zeitgeist Moving Forward
Why Central Planning CANNOT Work
Economics 101 for The Venus Project: Marginal Utility

My first Responses (Mar 2011):
[1.1] Response to Jacob Spinney - Zeitgeist Moving Forward
[1.2] Response to Jacob Spinney - Zeitgeist Moving Forward
[2.1] Response to Jacob Spinney - Objective Human Needs
[2.2] Response to Jacob Spinney - Objective Human Needs
[3] RBE 101 - A New Value System


Share

26 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very good, Brandy! Y'all might also want to check out the article I wrote on my own blog: Will a Resource Based Economy Work? and the comments on that.

    To me, it looks like the praisers of capitalism and the free market doesn't have all that many good arguments against RBE in the end. They tend to fall apart when weighted against the intrinsic value of Life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your patience with the proles at a time where their activities are most likely leading us to our deaths ought to be legendary.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is there a Brandy fan club? There aught to be:) Seriously though, very good. A well written, articulate post. I wish I had the ability to be so. I have a hard time explaining these concepts to people, there is so much to cover, and your fighting biases all the way in some cases. Personally, I think Jacob is in over his head. And I don't mean that as an insult to Jacob, he's trying to defend what he knows.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brandy, are you really trying to hold to this concept that if you have no money you die? You really can't think of senerio which people can live without using money?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Jim Jesus - On the contrary, you are the one who can't seem to imagine a scenario in which people can live without using money. lol

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you want people in TVP to actually be able to fallow the guidelines on living within societal constraints, you still need prices. Either you tell everyone how much steel, aluminum, apples, etc, that they can consume a year, and then you list, on each item, how much steal, aluminum, etc. (all of the individual resources that are in the item) and a consumer has to measure all his budget's for all of those resources, and see if his share can buy that item. Or you can create a standardized value system that allows you to measure that item's total share in the economy, with a numerical value, and see if your claim on the economy is big enough, that you can afford to trade that much claim, for that much share. This is done through the price system. Now, if it was possible for everyone to basically have the purchasing power of a millionaire in enough areas of consumption to keep us happy, then the prices and incomes of everyone would reflect that. But because they aren't there yet, we don't have enough. And because the only way to get people to work harder, and risk resources is through the price system, then there will be a need for an upper class, because why else should you risk your savings, and work much harder, if you are just going to get the same amount of money as the next guy? The upper class shouldn't be as bloated as it is of course, a hefty pile of cash and the promise of never having to work should be plenty of incentive, they don't need gargantuan pile of cash and a promise of never working again. And if it is possible to one day emerge a society that is so rich that everyone can receive a standard income that will buy them anything they need and want (in a reasonable zeitgeist) without the need to work, then that can be done through the price system, because then everyone would just have the purchasing power of millionaires. If you woke up tomorrow, and you were living in a society where every single human being made $1,000,000 a year, and the prices were the same as they were now, would you care that there was still a price system? No. And this will emerge only after society has advanced enough and society will only really advance if there are individual incentives to advance it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Malgoroth

    Yeah, because there would still be pointless labor knocking about and people would be fannying with currency creating pointless extra hassle.

    OK, this is an over simplified example of TVP in action:

    Machines dig up rocks, machines process rocks turning them into goods, machines take the goods to distribution centers, people 'order' the good's they need, the goods then get sent by machines and then sent back when whoever is done with the goods. The network that oversees all the machines knows what needs to be produced and sent to wherever because of the frequency of orders that are made by people and the automated processes themselves. There are machines that fix broken machines and recycle anything that's FUBAR. The duty of overseeing all the crack and tinkering to improve it is open source. In other words people will be like: *Yawn* 'whats GOD-2 doing?' *click* *click* 'bloody retard...' *more clicks* 'sorted'. Engineers invent better gizmos in their permanent spare time simply because that's the crack they get off to.

    Question: Who needs to be paid in that sequence?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brandy if you eliminate money then the resources themselves become the money. All those greedy evil people that you blame for societies ills will just turn their attention to the accumulation of resources instead of money.

    All you have done by eliminating money is introduce inefficiency due to the fact that goods are heterogeneous which will make your resource based economic system operate like a barter economy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @John - The people who oversee the machines still have to be paid. Now, maybe one day the demand for overseers will be so low that it can be met by people who take pleasure in overseeing labor. But we are evolved with an incentive structure (this is nature, not nurture) where we are stressed if we have to work for others, and get the same or less compensation than them, so most people won't want these jobs, which is why there has to be far more elimination for demand of this skilled labor, through technology, than there is now. You seem to think that we are there (but that the technology has yet to be applied properly). I not only think that we aren't there yet, but that you shoulder an immense burden of proof, when you say that we are there, because before you can actually rebuild a society from the ground up, you have to be ABSOLUTELY SURE (and so does the [social, and physical] scientific community) that we have the resources, and technology, and plans available to accomplish such a task, otherwise it would be a travesty. Moving Forward didn't present anything but bare assertion that the techno-utopia presented within, is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Malgoroth

    (1/2) "If you want people in TVP to actually be able to fallow the guidelines on living within societal constraints, you still need prices. Either you tell everyone how much steel, aluminum, apples, etc, that they can consume a year, and then you list, on each item, how much steal, aluminum, etc. (all of the individual resources that are in the item) and a consumer has to measure all his budget's for all of those resources, and see if his share can buy that item."

    Once again, it's not about "calculating" an equal "share." That doesn't even make any sense bc people will not even want or use an equal or static share of any certain resources. The whole point is to just COMBINE them all from the get-go and apply them as efficiently as possible. (Not to "divide" them into figurative shares.) Hence, I repeat from above:

    "Even though, at the end of the day, we would be consuming goods at a figurative cost of "zero" [...] we can then afford to actually produce more of what people actually want and need, and reach true economic efficiency."

    i.e. Even if someone uses a public gps car 10x more than the average person, and someone else uses a car 10x less than the average person, it doesn't matter because they are *using* the car, not watefully "owning" one while it sits in the parking lot/driveway all day/night. To give an example using random figures... It is still far more efficient & resourceful to:

    A) produce only, say, 200 gps cars for 1000 people to alternate/share, even if 100 of those cars sit idle most of the time bc we've produced more than enough for people not to have to wait, and only approx. 100 are in use at a time

    - than it is to

    B) produce 1000 (or more!) cars for 1000 people to OWN, and then *900* (or more!) CARS... materials that could be used elsewhere.. sit IDLE, as only 100 are in use at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. (2/2) "If you woke up tomorrow, and you were living in a society where every single human being made $1,000,000 a year, and the prices were the same as they were now, would you care that there was still a price system? No."

    Yes, because the price system which is based soley on (once again) the SUBJECTIVE utility of consumers cannot account for long-term sustainability and well-being. So regardless of the "cost of living" we need to make sure that such costs are being applied sensibly. Just because everything is cheap and affordable, does not make it "good" for people or for Earth.

    "The people who oversee the machines still have to be paid." - Paid with what, and FOR what (to purchase what?) Why do they need to be paid if they have access to anything they would need without paying anything?
    "Now, maybe one day the demand for overseers will be so low that it can be met by people who take pleasure in overseeing labor."

    Yes, that "one day" would be the day we develop sustainable city systems. That "one day" won't magically arrive on its own, so we have to start sharing the ideas now so that people and institutions can help work towards it, if they so choose. This is not a question of technological possiblity, as what we are proposing was possible decades ago.

    "You seem to think that we are there (but that the technology has yet to be applied properly). I not only think that we aren't there yet..."

    From adciv.org re: advanced automation - "These self-repairing systems are based on technologies and knowledge that we ALREADY POSSESS. NO FICTIONAL CONCEPTS OR UNATTAINABLE artificial intelligence are required to make this happen. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TODAY to create systems that provide for the global population's basic needs and far beyond, while minimising our impact on the environment – these two aspects are not mutually exclusive. [...] It is a matter of spreading the knowledge that this is possible, and enough people being willing to work towards it."

    Moving Forward was already 3 hrs long. If you need information on advanced automation and how this is possible, there are plenty of other places to look, including the link I gave, which is a good start. (Also see my FAQ blog here for other videos (i.e. our technical reality) and other sources.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hmm, I see that some free market musketeers found this blog in a hurry. About Jacob Spinney, I think he's an articulate guy and presents his arguments well and in a civil manner. On the other hand he doesn't stray one step out of the economy manual nor does he do that in philosophical sense.

    Like some commentators here, there's even an aspect of denial since the downside of monetary mechanics is hardly discussed and rather replaced with a belief that with small or no government - low tax, the free market will magically create a peaceful society. But with a system based on competition and acquiring money and wealth in order to survive, what are the chances of that?

    I see that Justin made a reasonable comment yet intellectually leads you to his original position. And yes, people have been fighting over resources for hundreds of years. Colonialism anyone? If one person or group accumulates vital resources that others are deprived of - it's only a matter of time before they will find ways to acquire it. If you take money out of the equation the process will remain the same.

    And what does the Venus Project or a resource based economy suggest? Sharing those resources so that you in essence eliminate the competition where people are in survival mode. Still, I think that people like Jacob Spinney are in love with the idea of what money can do for them strictly on a personal level. People need to grow up rather sooner then later and realize that they are not the only persons on the planet and that everything is connected.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @TVPchallenge On the contrary, you can't believe people can't live without money today. You can go out and set up a self sustaining farm and live for free. However people enjoy the convenience of the division of labor (i.e. we all do one thing we're good at, instead of everything ourselves) so we migrate to cities and communities where it's possible. Even still you don't need money to live in cities and Freegans are willing and able to prove it.

    So no, you're dead wrong here. You can live without money. You just can't have convenience.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brandy if your shared car program is such a wonderful idea, there is nothing stopping you from implementing it yourself right now. Just think, you can start sharing the costs of ownership, insurance and maintenance right now, no need to wait for an RBE.

    You might save some money but you'll soon find the drawbacks. Cars wear out. The more you drive them, the faster they wear out and the more maintenance they require. You'll also find out that if you have to share a car that there will be times that a car will not be available when you need it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Ed V. - I think that a lot of RBE advocates are in denial, since they think that we have reached post scarcity (if that is even possible) and that there are enough resources to lace the earth with their magical circular cities. Both RBErs and Anarcho-Capitalists have the right idea when it comes to, well, the zeitgeist. Both Jacob and Joseph acknowledge that for either of their system's to work properly, the nurture that everyone receives, must make them intelligent, and altruistic, and accepting of collective agreements for the betterment of mankind, such as living sustainably. But that nurture can be obtained through the free market, as well as TVP. We are in a corporatized market and that is why we receive such an inferior culture and education. Because it breeds a nation of subservient drones that are easily controlled by the government and upper class. But in an actual free market, there is more incentive to give your children a good education, and to teach them to be smart consumers, who consume much more of what they need, and to give charitably if they can get most of their wants. To organize plans for sustainable consumption, and boycott all companies who don't fallow that plan, into the ground. In a society with a working zeitgeist, the free market works because people are nurtured to make sustainable companies, providing only the best, and necessary services, the most profitable. But the difference is that the free market still has prices, so that when there is still scarcity, even after people are nurtured to be frugal, they will be able to know how much they can afford to take from society, as well as how much society can afford to give them (which is one of the key things TVP needs to figure out, but can't do so without prices).

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Malgoroth I don't think we've reached post-scarcity, although with some resources (oil) the end is getting in sight. And to be honest even oil can be replaced by hydrogen or bio-fuel since these materials are readily available and the technology is there.

    While I can understand why you would promote a "pure" free market I also see severe shortcomings with that idea and I fear that in the end it will solve nothing because I'm of the opinion that a free market run by a corporate elite is an inevitable result of a free market by its very design. You're engaged in a competition. Even if you would start tomorrow with a pure free market, over time dominant corporations establish themselves (again) through that competition. Just like in nature, those best adapted to survival will be dominant. Dominant corporations in a free market will protect their own self interest and that is what you basically see today.

    There's also a fundamental flaw in economical thinking which is so abundant in the U.S. today and it started with the likes of Milton Friedman. There's this idea that low taxation, small government and deregulation of the market will produce an open and fair free market and a stable society where everyone makes their living. These ideas have been implemented since the Reagan administration. But here's the sad truth. If you deregulate the market - the market is going to regulate itself, and that is what you see today. If you don't regulate, the greedy will take what's there. Large corporations and financial institutions have become so powerful by this "we must not regulate the market" that they have basically taken over. No offense, but I regard the whole notion of laissez faire or anarcho-capitalism as fundamentally flawed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Ed V.

    The idea that you think hydrogen or bio-fuels can replace oil is almost laughable. Where are these sources of hydrogen or bio-fuel? Oh that's right they don't exist. They have to manufactured using OTHER sources of energy/fuel. Your technology has it's own resource and energy costs with its own manufacturing infrastructure that will take decades to build.

    You also have no understanding of what a corporation in a free market looks like. In a truly free market there is no limited liability protection and there is no patent or copyright protected monopoly. Take away those government granted privileges and protections, then you might have something approaching a free market.

    The idea that anything that followed Reagan is an example of what a deregulated free market would look like is a straw man. (You wouldn't want me comparing what followed Marx as an example of what an abolition of all private property future would look like, right?)

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Justintempler

    What seems to be standard practice with you is that you argue about every little detail yet turn a complete blind eye to the drawbacks of the system you promote. (The free market being a competition and an economic survival of the fittest.) Don't recall one single comment about that. Very reminiscent of the discussion we had about lithium (batteries) where you argued about the availability of resources. You direct me to a website where it is mentioned that lithium can be recycled from existing batteries. Not one word from you about that fact.

    Don't play games Justin. Come to think of it, shouldn't you present your case to government officials or corporations? That's where your beef actually seems to be, yet I see you comment on Zeitgeist related websites and YouTube videos quite frequently - boring the snot out of people with argumentation that there aren't enough resources for a RBE but in a truly free market it will work out just fine. Please.

    When I hint towards hydrogen being used in car engines of course it will be a major adjustment but the technology is there. My point being is that substitutes are available for some oil-related products. I'm not denying it will be a difficult process.

    You know who mentioned that the Soviet Union was still a capitalist state? Milton Friedman! And he was right, so take out your comparisons to Marx because in essence - they have never been put into practice. Capitalism is and has been global. How "communist" is China these days?

    In China, the state controls the banks and the corporations. In the USA, the corporations and the banks control the state. That's the only difference. Oh yeah, you have this belief that a true free market magically creates a peaceful society and without some type of control.

    Yeah, right.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @justintempler (1/2)

    "All you have done by eliminating money is introduce inefficiency[...]"

    For the 100th time, in a market economy you would be 100% correct. Obviously without some medium to calculate resources and consumer values efficiently, simply "removing money" from the equation would be drastically *inefficient.* However, the RBE is not simply about removing money, as if we're going to simply burn it all, or just take it upon ourselves to prematurely declare it valueless; it's about developing sustainable systems and reaching a relative state of abundance that will eventually render it obsolete. In fact, considering that that is the plan (to use money until we don't need it any more) I don't know why everyone's getting so bent out of shape. After all, as long as you guys are right, we will be using money, so what's the problem? If we are wrong, then money isn't going anywhere.

    "You can go out and set up a self sustaining farm and live for free."

    It's not the 1500's. You can't just go out and stick a flag on a plot of land and claim it's yours, start cutting down trees, and building houses and farms wherever you please. That sh*t costs money and even if you wanted to argue that you could "find" an unoccupied/un-owned space and claim it, not everyone on Earth can do that. You're acting like you've never seen a poor/homeless person get sick or die of starvation or illness, because they all just go 'somewhere over the rainbow' and build a farm. Give me a f*ing break. These arguments are getting so weak, one could take them as a forfeit.

    "However people enjoy the convenience of the division of labor (i.e. we all do one thing we're good at, instead of everything ourselves) so we migrate to cities and communities where it's possible."

    Ah, the butcher, baker, candlestick maker scenario. Beautiful. What's even more beautiful is that we don't have to rely on "division of labor" for convenience any more.

    "Even still you don't need money to live in cities and Freegans are willing and able to prove it."

    Good for them. Your argument that people could simply "survive" and live minimally is moot, because the system we are advocating means that no one HAS TO live minimally whether they want to or not. You're basically saying, "well, brandy, people without money don't necessarily DIE (oh good, I feel better now) they just live with little to no education, no decent medical care, and no protection from natural disasters, and are potentially a threat to other people who do have those things..." Okay... you got me. Sounds way better than the RBE. Let's do it.

    "So no, you're dead wrong here. You can live without money. You just can't have convenience."

    Granting you the benefit of the doubt and ignoring the fact that it's harder for people to live and live HEALTHY w/no money in a monetary system... Again, the "convenience" is an issue of the past. It's no longer a matter of "convenience," (or at least, it doesn't have to be, bc it can easily be attained via automation) and is more-so about the intelligent management and tracking of our resources for sustainability, and for human & environmental welfare. Your whole "some people can be freegans and primitivists" argument does not solve the environmental problem(s) caused by those who are not, which is a whole 'nother aspect of the RBE besides just the "providing for all."

    ReplyDelete
  21. (2/2) "Brandy if your shared car program is such a wonderful idea, there is nothing stopping you from implementing it yourself right now."

    Right... except the fact that we don't live in strategically planned cities/communities in which such a shared transportation model would be fast and/or practical, we don't have a large number of self-driving/navigating cars on-hand, they still run on gas... should I go on? I'm not even sure if this is worth responding to in further detail, so I'm just going to assume you understand the difference between this:

    http://thecoolgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ULTra-Shuttle-Canopy.jpg

    http://www.ecohustler.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/venus_project.jpg

    and this:

    http://www.vinniesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/carpool_image.jpg

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NKJVFg3kF_8/Suc6e74-snI/AAAAAAAAEPE/BdbZjCFgEd8/s320/carpooling.jpg

    "You might save some money but you'll soon find the drawbacks."

    It's got nothing whatsoever to do with saving money, and this proves that you don't even understand the points made in favor of the RBE transportation model.

    "Cars wear out. The more you drive them, the faster they wear out and the more maintenance they require."

    Precisely. You say there's "nothing stopping you," and then you name all the things yourself. In the RBE, not only would the cars be built to last, for their intended frequency of use, as well as maintained/repaired my machines, but the gps cars would only be necessary for traveling to remote areas, outside the cities, or as emergency vehicles. Otherwise the monorails would be the primary method.

    "You'll also find out that if you have to share a car that there will be times that a car will not be available when you need it."

    In the example I gave, I specifically said we would produce "more than enough for people not to have to wait," so minus a cool point, but I like how you tried to sneak that in. The amount of times we see someone pulling up (parking) just as we are leaving is staggering. If we did not insist on *owning* our own vehicle, those arriving would get out, and those leaving would get in. You might think that this could only work sometimes, and not when large amounts of people need to come and go at once... but in the RBE, we also wouldn't have your typical M-F 9-5 work schedule so there would be no clusterf*ck of sheople all wanting/needing to go someplace at exactly the same time, whether it's work, leisure, weekday, or weekend - and if they did, then mass transport like the maglevs, with detachable segments, would actually make more sense to avoid traffic.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Ed V.

    "What seems to be standard practice with you is..." That most of my arguments are on YouTube where comments are limited to 500 characters so I don't feel the need to debunk your entire argument when I can zero in the basic flaws at the foundation of your worldview.

    Funny how we reminisce different things, In your response to the Muertos video where this lithium conversation happened, I posted a link to a pdf entitled: The Trouble With Lithium published by Meridian International Research. There is a single paragraph in the pdf that mentions an EU recycling "goal" of 45% and how the level of recycling is going down and that there is widespread concern that the goal can not be met. That's it. (If you had made some further comments to me in our discussion on that subject, then I guess it would of helped that you had not deleted the video that those comments were on?)

    1st you say: " with some resources (oil) the end is getting in sight. And to be honest even oil can be replaced by hydrogen or bio-fuel since these materials are readily available and the technology is there."

    Next you say: "...of course it will be a major adjustment but the technology is there. My point being is that substitutes are available for some oil-related products. I'm not denying it will be a difficult process."

    So in the first post, the end of oil is near, but no worries you have a replacemnt and it's readily available.
    By the second post it's a major adjustment and a difficult process and it morphs from "oil can be replaced" to "some oil-related products." Some?
    Which is it?

    See Ed if you are going to champion a RBE and make claims about the availability of RESOURCES that lie at the foundation of your system and those resources are not readily available your whole worldview collapses. You keep talking about availability of resources in the abstract but when it comes down to knowing which resources will be needed, which will be available, and if the supplies will be sufficient. You haven't done even the most basic elementery calculations to have enough knowledge to propose if what you are promoting to do is even possible. You're still living in the fantasy stage of what you would like to happen without a roadmap to get there.

    I only mentioned Marx because you made the straw man of comparing what followed Reagan as the free market. But since you decided to expound further by bringing in the Soviet Union and China. I'll indulge your mention that their systems used limited capitalism. You know why they did that? It's called a transition plan Ed. Communism, Marxism, Leninism,... were transition plans. Any transition from a system with money to a system without money will require the use of money until you can eliminate the scarcity. Pointing to the use of money within those systems is only an indication that either; they are still in transition, or that their attempt to transition has failed. Your very own transisition plan (if you ever develop one) will require the use of money also. There is no way to get from here to there without it, unless of course your plan is to start an anarcho-primitivist RBE.


    The fact that you point to what followed Reagan as an example of the failures of the free market system,
    The fact that you would suggest that I "present your case to government officials or corporations"
    Or that you think I'm claiming that "in a truly free market it will work out just fine" or have a "belief that a true free market magically creates a peaceful society",
    Then you are rationally ignorant when it comes to understanding what a free market is and what it proposes to do.

    But then this blog doesn't exist to promote free market capitalism now does it? We already have mises . org for that. So I'll spare you another 4,000 characters. :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Justintempler

    Do your business through mises.org, instead of bothering people with vague generalizations like "this is not the free market." Which basically is a cheap parlor trick as far as I'm concerned because what you see today IS the free market. It simply evolves in this manner, the winners in a free market simply become dominant institutions who will protect their self interest.

    Do you realize who sponsors organizations such as the John Birch Society, Center for Freedom and Prosperity and maybe even the Tea Party? They receive much of their funds (and are guided by) rich industrialists such as the Koch brothers. Who do you think actually benefits from "low tax/small government?" Right, it's the wealthy business owners themselves, and you're here as some sort of economic commissar peddling the theme that will help these people the most.

    And lets be honest here. A RBE is about sharing resources so that everyone will benefit. The system you promote doesn't do that in the slightest and will 100% guarantee that many will be deprived of (vital) resources. But you can't say that of course so you focus obsessively on any possible shortage of resources in a RBE.

    The lithium (battery) discussion we had is one example and it shows your agenda. Tons of that mineral is still available and it can be recycled from existing batteries. But do you bring that up? No, you put the focus on scarcity and that not every car in the world can be fitted with that kind of technology.
    Yes, oil is going to run out but can a car run on hydrogen? Sure it can, the technology is there and hydrogen can work in an internal combustion engine. Type in "hydrogen economy" on Wikipedia, ideas have been floating around since the 70s. Hydrogen fuel cells are very close to completion that can power a house. Oh Justin, is water a resource that will run out in a RBE? Sh*t, you can put vegetable oil in a diesel engine and it will run. That's what I mean by substitutes are available.

    That is the whole mindset of us advocates of a RBE - meeting the needs off all of humanity, yours is apparently the acquisition of money, property and wealth strictly for private use at the expense of everything else. Oh wait, you call that a true free market.

    What you are experiencing Justin is an involuntary reflex action. Someone stands to jeopardize your monopoly game and here you are (and in other places) trying to convince people that they should play your game, while it is pretty evident (at least to the intelligent) that your game also produces losers.

    But if you want to continue to argue about matters such as 'will there be enough toilet paper in a RBE' or 'will there be enough viagra?' Go right ahead. Personally, I find it quite disturbing when people get a hard on from playing monopoly. But that seems to be the current cult(ure), I mean Zeitgeist.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I was thinking about you the other day wondering how you've been. I'm so relieved to see that you're staying on top of things. People are stupid BTW, they really need to stop being Sheeple. Monetary system is bad! Oh well what can you do? I hope you're doing well. I know the last time we spoke it wasn't exactly the best and not how it should have been. Nevertheless. Great articles, great info,and if you didnt know you've always been brilliant. Take Care

    ReplyDelete
  25. Brandy, I love what you to to promote The Venus Project. Keep it up!
    Also, please take a look at my blog regarding the fact that the elimination of money is not only necessary, but also an inevitable step in our evolution. I argue that money was once a necessary system back when bartering was becoming less practical.
    http://tofufriedsushi.blogspot.com/2011/11/elimination-of-monetary-system-is.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jacob. Justin and that Jim Jesus guy have been debunked successfully once again. Good going guys. RBE for the world.

    ReplyDelete