Do you think a resource based economy advocated by The Zeitgeist Movement is a viable solution to our economic, energy and environment problems? The elimination of money is a very radical idea. If Von Mises were alive today, what would he say?
Do you think a resource based economy advocated by The Zeitgeist Movement is a viable solution to our economic, energy and environment problems?
The Venus Project's "resource-based economy" works on the principle that modern technology can effectively bring about superabundance. The argument is if all the world's resources were made available to some type of central planning board then there would be no scarcity, as this board could decide exactly what to make and in how much quantity. Their website uses the following example,
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.
Yes, the United States built a very large amount of aircraft in a very short amount of time, and it was for the most part centrally planned. But, the construction of war material came at the cost of consumer goods and private capital goods (IIRC, the fall in private production was ~90%; I can't really remember the exact figure now), and so obviously there was not enough resources to distribute between both war material production and civilian production - otherwise, governments would already be implenting those techniques.
The elimination of money is a very radical idea. If Von Mises were alive today, what would he say?
Resources are scarce. Money is used as the best rationing system for scarce resources. Without money we are bound to use subpar rationing systems. I write about this in "A Primer on Austrian Economics",
There is no objection amongst economists that given the existence of scarcity, the market is in need of a rationing device. Most economists, except those in extreme favor of centralized rationing, will also agree with the notion that price is the best rationing device of the market. While price hardly acts as a measure of value, due to the fact that no object has an objective value, it nevertheless serves as a useful tool to coordinate production by serving as a conveyor of information between different market agents and a method by which an individual can decide whether or not a particular action is economical.
In a socialistic economy, where prices are absent, this coordination would simply not exist. There would be no host of individual agents communicating through the price mechanism and allocating resources by means of subjective ratiocination. As a result, all meaningful economic activity would come to a halt. Complex programs would be impossible to complete economically, since without a price mechanism there would be no way for a central planner to distribute resources according to their most economical use. Thus, socialist economies are bound to fail.
he would ridicule the idea mercilessly
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
The ZM claims our market system is based upon two fundamental flaws. 1. The assumption of infinite resources. 2. The idea that employment (labor for income) for each human being is an empirical possibility.
iouhc19: The ZM claims our market system is based upon two fundamental flaws. 1. The assumption of infinite resources. 2. The idea that employment (labor for income) for each human being is an empirical possibility.
The current system is not a true market system. It is a mixed system, with some elements of socialism, fascism and capitalism.
In a true market, both of those flaws are strawmen. I am pretty sure that the mixed system doesn't depend upon those two "flaws" being true.
"1. The assumption of infinite resources."
Who makes that assumption?
"2. The idea that employment (labor for income) for each human being is an empirical possibility."
I think most people accept that some people cannot work, comatose, severly handicapperd, etc., I'd like to know how it isn't a possibility for those able.
The ZM claims our market system is based upon two fundamental flaws. 1. The assumption of infinite resources.
Our current market system, which is one based on indirect exchange (or the use of money), does not assume infinite resources. In fact, it assumes scarcity. I think this is where the Venus Project's grand economic theory falls apart first. There is a lack of understanding in the purpose of money as a medium of exchange, and as such a transmitter of information, and the fact that resources are scarce. If there is anybody who believes that there are infinite resources it is the Venus Project (otherwise, how are they going to achieve superabundance?).
The Zeitgeist Movement is a pure socialist movement. Nothing less and nothing more. There is no need to address their fallacies separately.
It's more than the old time socialism. This time it has robots that do all the work.
If only Marx had thought of it. The old fashioned bastard.
Our current market system, which is one based on indirect exchange (or the use of money), does not assume infinite resources.
This isn't really what the Zeitgeisters mean when they say "assumption of infinite resources." They mean it in the environmentalist Peak-Oil-Will-Kill-Us-All way. The only "sustainable" way, the Zeitgeisters say, is to limit our consumption to only those things which do not interfere with nature. Tbh the only reason I know this is because I have a good friend who is unfortunately one of them, and no matter how many times I explain it he doesn't see the contradiction between "not interfering with nature" and "having infinite of whatever you want."
Edit: Oh, one more thing. You know that pesky thing called the calculation problem? The Zeitgeisters respond thusly: Supercomputers!
The same café which hosts our Mises monday meetings also hosts a Zeitgeist meeting (I'm not sure what day). I'm trying to persuade the owners to set up some type of debate. I mean, it's more about fun than about getting anything done. Two fringe groups are not likely to attract a lot of people.
I read a bit about the Zeitgeist movement earlier, but honestlyl dropped it when it started getting into the really silly anti-market stuff. Socialism by any other name would smell as putrid.
Since most of the problems are purely money oriented, I think the RBE idea as espoused by the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project is possibly the only workable answer at this time.
But it is not easy to understand, because we are so tightly conditioned by the money system most people tend to freak out a little when hearing about it, putting it in some pigeonhole in their minds which usually has nothing to do with the RBE concept.
The answer I read that led me to this site is completely wrong, for the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project does not advocate a 'central planning council' to control resources. It is not as simple as that, and not centralized as that responder thought. 'Pigeonhole' again, I think. Something new, some new concept, is always met with both dersion and pigeonholing, like those who think the Zeitgeist Movement vision is 'communist' or like some other 'ism.
His anti-socialist quote is also so determined by the existing paradigm of the money system that it is also rather worthless. I'm sure he is a fine person, but he doesn't understand anything about the Zeitgeist Movement at all, nor can he imagine it. No problem... if he is interested, he will study it and understand it, if he does not cling to old 'pigeonholes'. It is a natural human tendency, at least in our society, to think that everything has to fit in some category that is already known. Luckily, Universe is not so limited.
Peace and good health,
Roan Carratu (worldmind@yahoo.com)
Naevius, the Zeitgeist movement is not socialist. It is simply not capitalist, and you may fail to realize that everything does not fit in any of your categories . Do you think nothing can be new, unheard of, never thought about?
Roan Carratu,
Just a question about the movement. Does it advocate trying to convince people to not use money or to force people not to use money? What if some group of people want to continue using money?