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.
Furthermore I would gladly trade my energy extraction rights to 3 white dwarfs for your 2 black holes. And I would cede 1 neutron star in exchange for a toposophic transcendency upgrade and the right to transport 0.2 solar masses of matter through my wormhole.
I'll join Zeitgeist as soon as my robot vacuum cleaner stops falling down the steps.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
The problem is obviously the fact that you're not living in a nature commune (where there are no steps) yet. Silly consumer, conditioned by capitalist marketing to value your own selfish concerns over the greater good!
;p
I suggest one read "The Sovereign Individual" by Helio Beltrao. I quote something he said that I thought was brilliant.
"Tyranny ends where we cease to support voluntarily our own serfdom".
After reading Helio's essay I suggest you go to TZM site and look up the following six short articles:
Sociology, Technology, Sustainability, Spirituality, Psychology, and Synopsis.
These article, in my opinion, make for a very strong argument for a Resource Based Economy, and shed light on a viable solution
for our economic, energy, and environmental problems. I don' see more of the same as being viable.
Then if you have time watch both movies. You may just come away with a better solution on your own that you can share with us.
iouhc19: I don' see more of the same as being viable.
I don' see more of the same as being viable.
No one here is particularly happy with the status quo, but the reason why people are skeptical of the Venus Project, is that it seems to be based on unsound reasoning.
Some great replies. I wanted to point out that socialist transhumanism is radically different from classical socialism and needs different arguments, especially if you want to convice the other party. Compared to now, it could be pretty decent for the average human. I think this needs to be admitted if one is to be honest. Obviously, Libertarian transhumanism is strictly superior, because it has all the wonders, without the violence. Some clarifications on the calculation argument: Note that a AI would not need to calculate mathematically the perfect outcome to outperform humans. No "Supercomputers will run your life" advocate needs to enter the landmined territory of theoretical computability to prove his point. Remember that, maybe, singularity AIs can cheat by moving to another universe, then running ours from over there. However, that is not the point they need to make. Markets arent perfect (because markets are just humans cooperating) so with enough calculation power, one could outperform the markets. Of course, its technically impossible to calculate with personal value scales, so without property rights, economic calculation is impossible by definition. But if you assume a benelovent and powerfull intelligence, it could just ask everybody and make reasonable judgements. Remember, its super-smart, so it could figure out reliable heuristics to find out how much more you really like apples over oranges. If you cannot admit this, than you can simply not imagine a post-singularity AI, and the argument shifts to wether such an AI is possible or not - which is not an economic argument. Of course, when you can outperform the market drastically- why not just join it and dominate? It should be easy to convince everyone to sign up for your plan (free cure for cancer and a flying Ferrari with every purchase!) so advocates of coercion just admit that their supersmart computer isn't that great.
The example of the Luddite who wants to grow his own food is pretty good illustration - in our times, many people enjoy garden work for the sake of it. If your version of the future doesnt allow that, i dont want to live in it.
Its a waste of time to argue against the super AI - its better to show that its perfectly compatible with libertarianism. If you have something that bypasses the calculation argument, you no longer need coercion.
The problem, of course, is actually building that thing, without it just quoting back at us "we will recognize the rights of humans whenever they petition for them". On the topic of singularity: I think some here underestimate the singularity - if it is possible, it could happen fast - 30 years from now is realistic. Once the basic groundwork, the "seed AI" is ready, it could happen in days or even minutes. I think there needs to be more effort to point out that austrian economics apply to super AIs as well, and that a transhumanist future is best when following libertarian principles. While the chances for both are small, i'd say that singularity in our lifetime is more likely then anarchy by education.
So the ubercomputer doesn't "outperform the market", it becomes integrated into the market, replacing CEOs and stuff.... kind of the way any machinery makes certain human tasks obsolete. Imo is a less confrontational way of framing a non confrontational argument.
Leaving aside the preposterousness of the "better than the market" calculation assertion, who/what would own/run/control this "post-singularity AI resource allocator"? If it's owned/run/controlled "by itself" how do I ensure that its subjective valuations and motivations would align with mine before I "submit" myself to it?
Z.
Resource Based Economy
These articles, in my opinion, make for a very strong argument for a Resource Based Economy, and shed light on a viable solution for our economic, energy, and environmental problems. I don't see more of the same as being viable.
Then if you have time watch both movies, you may just come away with a better solution on your own that you can share with us.
Some great replies. I wanted to point out that socialist transhumanism is radically different from classical socialism and needs different arguments, especially if you want to convice the other party.
No it's not. The underlying assumptions and goals are identical. It promises superabundance, ignores calculation/coordination, the role of the entrepreneur, incentives, the function of money, et al. It wishes to "abolish greed," replace the market with "rational planning," and eliminate innate and acquired individual differences. It is socialism through and through.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
You already posted that exact same content. On this same page no less. If you have nothing new to add, there is no need to repeat yourself.
iouhc19:Resource Based Economy I suggest one read "The Sovereign Individual" by Helio Beltrao. I quote something he said that I thought was brilliant. "Tyranny ends where we cease to support voluntarily our own serfdom". After reading Helio's essay I suggest you go to TZM site and look up the following six short articles: Sociology, Technology, Sustainability, Spirituality, Psychology, and Synopsis. These articles, in my opinion, make for a very strong argument for a Resource Based Economy, and shed light on a viable solution for our economic, energy, and environmental problems. I don't see more of the same as being viable. Then if you have time watch both movies, you may just come away with a better solution on your own that you can share with us.
Note that a AI would not need to calculate mathematically the perfect outcome to outperform humans. No "Supercomputers will run your life" advocate needs to enter the landmined territory of theoretical computability to prove his point. Remember that, maybe, singularity AIs can cheat by moving to another universe, then running ours from over there.
Running our universe from another wouldn't work: As soon as it interacts with something, it interferes with the course it otherwise would have taken. Even running from another universe the best it can possibly do is "here's what will happen if I don't do something about it."
Of course, its technically impossible to calculate with personal value scales, so without property rights, economic calculation is impossible by definition. But if you assume a benelovent and powerfull intelligence, it could just ask everybody and make reasonable judgements. Remember, its super-smart, so it could figure out reliable heuristics to find out how much more you really like apples over oranges. If you cannot admit this, than you can simply not imagine a post-singularity AI, and the argument shifts to wether such an AI is possible or not - which is not an economic argument.
Any competent entrepreneur can do the same kinds of "heuristics." How do you think producers know whether they should grow more apples or oranges?
I think our argument here is the result of a miscommunication: Is your Transcendant providing for the economy in the role of an entrepreneur, or is it commanding it in the role of a socialist planner? If you're arguing for it to fill the shoes of the entrepreneurs then we have no discussion; However a post-singularity AI cannot successfully fulfill the role of a central planner no matter how smart it gets. So long as sentient beings purposefully act, the calculation argument still applies.
I had a virtual "discussion" with one of The Zeitgeist Movement in which they asserted (paraphrase) that the world economy is capitalist and therefore the worst economic system possible as evidenced by the poverty level of the world listing some statistics on such. What a ridiculous line of thinking.
Some of the members in this "movement," including those responding in this thread, assume a general disregard for logic and analysis that is almost unthinkable to a reasoning mind.
The following blog talk radio program by Zeitgeist founder Peter Joseph talks about a resource based economy. He has some good things to say about Von Mises but thinks economics is nothing more than a religion.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph
Peter Joseph the founder of TZM talks about a resource based system, has some kind words for Von Mises and claims Ecomomics is nothing more that Religion in the following: