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.
"If nothing is fixed (known) how to do you intend to engage in the scientific method, and how do you intend to reach scientific conclusions?"
I think the answer is pretty obvious: computers!
It is impossible to have a system that says you can / can not have property and not have a gun behind the decree. It is only with contract that it can be minimized. More over it is impssosible to have arbitrary catagorizations and then apply a system to cater to arbitrary catagorizations (society, human, value, elite, etc) and expect it to calculate what is best for whatever an indvidual or anything that is capabale of atomizing to a point of self awarness defines themselve as. You are truley having ghosts running a material world....of course what else can one expect from a name like Zeitgeist.
Leftism in every form fails miserably by almost any standard or any measurement you want to give it.
LOL... the Zeitgeist Movement has no 'economics' in it. It is based upon getting rid of the whole concept of 'economics' as an unnecessary conceptual system which has never worked. The wealth generated since machines became the method of production did not come from 'economics' but from technology, applied technology. If everything had to be made by hand, do you think we would have this level of wealth?
Pretty broad assertion with no backing behind it. Perhaps you honestly have no idea what economics is or what its purpose is, but are you willing to learn? Can you leave your own mental "box"? I hope so, else you really will find this forum useless (and I in turn you.)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
LOL... Finally, a system that will abolish scarcity!!!
Never heard this one before...
Perhaps I have an excellent grasp of economics, which is why I find it a naive and foolish paradigm. Can you honestly tell me that the wealth in real terms which has been generated in the last hundred years came from money? Or did it come from applied technology? Do you think we cannot have one without the other?
And since I am putting in question the very foundation of this forum, I'm not surprised you would find my words useless. But I didn't come here to argue about this stuff, so I am bowing out. I do not wish to step upon your 'religion'. (which is another conceptual system people mistake for reality...)
Goodbye.
And how will these computer algorithms measure purely ordinal, subjective, and individual value scales? Who will invent these computers and computer programs? And who will pay for their labor, capital, and time?
This is the question that really interests me, and unfortunately the ZM's don't really have an answer for it. I don't claim to be a representitive of their ideas, but here's my understanding of their solution for this:
When an individual wants something in Zeitgeist World, they'll just submit a request through "the next internet" or something like that. A giant supercomputer will take in all of these requests and, somehow, find a way to manage all the available resources in such a way as to satisfy every desire submitted. It will also be smart enough to anticipate consumer wants in advance, and have things produced and ready to ship before they're even asked for.
"Can you honestly tell me that the wealth in real terms which has been generated in the last hundred years came from money?"
Without being able to refer to money prices of relative production factors, how would the producers of this wealth have known what and how much to produce?
Economic calculation is impossible in a barter system. Just because you don't like economics, scarcity, money, and praxeological law doesn't make any of these concepts any less valid. Your fantasies of potential plenty derived from "computers" and "machines" is completely baseless and has no applicability to human society.
Azure:When an individual wants something in Zeitgeist World, they'll just submit a request through "the next internet" or something like that. A giant supercomputer will take in all of these requests and, somehow, find a way to manage all the available resources in such a way as to satisfy every desire submitted. It will also be smart enough to anticipate consumer wants in advance, and have things produced and ready to ship before they're even asked for.
I know I'm feeding the troll here and you probably won't read this anyway, but I'm gonna go ahead and respond anyway.
Yes, it was the work of people and the advancements in technology that made all of the wealth we enjoy today physically possible. Nobody here will deny this.
However, why is it that the producers made what was made? Why did entrepreneurs elect to build cars and planes instead of, say, massive amounts of rubber banana peels?
So whats stopping the ZM? They don't need the coopeartion of every human on earth, right? Sure the capitalists own all the technology now, but thankfully we can buy it. If all the ZMers pooled their money they'd be able to buy whatever machines they think will create utopia, buy one of Greece's islands, and have a suberabundant garden of eden, right?
The technology does not exist yet, and the ZMers believe the money system is preventing it from being so. The exploiters want to uphold their standard of living by making good artificially scarce. We have to get rid of the capitalists before we can have superabundance. When the incentive of greed is removed, mankind will be freed, as he will be able to produce for the good of humanity rather than for the good of a chosen few.
ZMers are basically Marxists with a futurist twist. They, like their transhumanist bretheren, blindly place all of their faith in the power of the enhancement of the material forces of production.
This thread reminds me of some mcdojo/bullshido kung-fu guy trying to mock muay thai and jiu-jitsu.
Roan Carratu,
Nobody arguing that wealth has been a product of money. Austrians hold that wealth is created through capital accumulation and the application of said capital through investment and entrepreneurship. Many times this investment is done through innovation, which includes the development of technology. This technology, then applied as capital-goods, leads to greater productivity.
You misunderstand the role of money in economics. Money is nothing but a common medium of exchange, which makes the distribution of resources much more efficient. It is a method by which multiple actors can partake in indirect exchange to make this entrepreneurship, innovation, and investment to take place.
Instead of insulting us, maybe you should just be more open minded to at least recognize what you are arguing against, instead of setting up a straw man.
Azure:I know I'm feeding the troll here
He is not a troll, and it is incredibly unproductive to call someone a troll, and then think you can lecture to them.
Address his ideas, not his person.
"He is not a troll, and it is incredibly unproductive to call someone a troll, and then think you can lecture to them.
Address his ideas, not his person."
That may have been intended as a compliment, since the alternative is that he actually believes what he's typing.
Mises Pieces:That may have been intended as a compliment, since the alternative is that he actually believes what he's typing.
Maybe he does. And maybe some people here lack the rhetorical and social skills to communicate effectively to him why his ideas may not be very good.
Addressing his person is very sloppy argumentation.