So what are the odds that Stefan rebutts this? In his original critique he did gloss over some stuff, which allowed Peter to criticize him for simplicity. He also got into the "I've worked in the free market" stuff, which also allowed Peter to spend about half the video ranting about that. I'd love to see Stefan really focus on this and demolish the TZM position. His (stefan's) critique was obviously meant for a somewhat sympathetic audience. So when he states that "this is marxism with robots", we know what he's talking about and all the implications that flow from it. However, for someone unaware of the problems with central planning, it just sounds like a cheap attack akin to Tea Partiers crying SOCIALISM at everything. I think a proper debunking is in order, unless he already has one up.
LogisticEarth: So what are the odds that Stefan rebutts this? In his original critique he did gloss over some stuff, which allowed Peter to criticize him for simplicity. He also got into the "I've worked in the free market" stuff, which also allowed Peter to spend about half the video ranting about that. I'd love to see Stefan really focus on this and demolish the TZM position. His (stefan's) critique was obviously meant for a somewhat sympathetic audience. So when he states that "this is marxism with robots", we know what he's talking about and all the implications that flow from it. However, for someone unaware of the problems with central planning, it just sounds like a cheap attack akin to Tea Partiers crying SOCIALISM at everything. I think a proper debunking is in order, unless he already has one up.
The issue comes up on page 4 of:
http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/t/29306.aspx
Hmm, so he's aware of it but we know nothing more right now.
Whatever he does, if he does make a counter arguement, he should scale back on any sarcasm or flair and focus on the brass tacks of the debate. Peter seems to love to jump on any of that stuff and distract from the main issues.
Really, I've never seen this guy before the video you posted earlier. And he scares me a bit. I've known people like him back in college, and they always seem like the ones that would throw you into a gas chamber to achieve thier vision. Not saying that he would personally, just that that's the vibe I get off of people like that. An air of narssicism and very emotional (not reasoned or half-reasoned) reactions to things, while trying to appear aloof and rational.
Actually as I'm writing this, I'm finding it's VERY easy to give into temptation and make ad homs against this guy. He just reminds me of every arrogant pseudo-intellectual I've known since high school.
Stefan's latest response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9WEWcbfnHg
Stef recently debated the radio host of the Venus Project (not Peter Joseph, unfortunately). I thought it was fantastic, and Stef did an excellent job of pushing the calculation argument.
Stefan is way too generous with the venus project. He debates it as if it's a serious idea. Those people think they can abolish scarcity by abolishing the need to pay for stuff. It's based on a very simple misunderstanding of market pricing. It's not just that they would run into a calculation problem. It's like they say that people can fly by flapping their arms and your response is "wouldn't people bump into each others in the air?". Stefan doesn't address the core fallacy.
I'm still trying to figure out how the pursuit of monetary profits causes scarcity. If a manufacturer could find a way to make the product it sells non-scarce (through "automation" or whatever) then it could capture an enormous market share a reap huge profits. Wouldn't the suppression of this technology require a massive secret cartel to stop any one firm from doing this? Does TZM have any coherent theory on this or do they just consider it "obvious"?
I find it amusing that the Communist Manifesto started by mentioning a ghost or spectre (Gespenst) while Zeitgeist movement uses spirit (Geist) as part of its name - in some languages these two words may conflate.
It's way simpler than that. We all experience scarcity through prices. The stores are always full of goods, but we don't have the money to pay for them. So people start to believe that stores are just naturally full of goods, and scarcity is created by the requirement to pay for stuff. So if we abolish money there will be super-abundance.
EmperorNero:Stefan is way too generous with the venus project. He debates it as if it's a serious idea. Those people think they can abolish scarcity by abolishing the need to pay for stuff. It's based on a very simple misunderstanding of market pricing. It's not just that they would run into a calculation problem. It's like they say that people can fly by flapping their arms and your response is "wouldn't people bump into each others in the air?". Stefan doesn't address the core fallacy.
Yet Stef still ran circles around all three of the Venus Project advocates that were part of the show. Having a sharp tongue works sometimes, but ultimately I think being respectful does more for both communities than actively engaging in hostility.
Speaking of hostility, I wonder how the debate would've went if Peter Joseph himself showed up. I can't imagine P.J. being very nice, if his reply to Stef's review of Z3 is any indication of his ability to be so.
That radio host from the Venus Project is assuming that believing in the free market automatically means that one becomes materialistic... Well I am not materialistic and I believe in the market
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Nero, I think Stef is just trying to win their fans over. He's not going to do it by insulting their intelligence, so he acts as if he admires their intelligence. Stef's audience is mainly built up by people who think outside of the box and are disenfranchised.
Zeitgeist is nonsense from beginning to end.