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.
Economics is a religion? Haha. That was a good one.
Pleas check out the following by Peter Joseph on a resource based system:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph
Please read this article which I just read:
http://mises.org/daily/4700
TVP is like, caveman meets technology. Completely ignorant of how it came about, he now has the answer to shift from the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) to an environment of super abundance without changing his fallacious and instinctive economics.
I will listen to the blog and try to answer something of value to you.
Well its a pretty bad intro at the very least, I started transcribing for all to see (doubt many would listen through the whole thing) but I got to stop now, I'll continue later
What is an economical model? In the most simplistic terms you can say an economical model shows variables and the dynamic processing or interactions of said variables to meet production and distribution demands and anything else generally related to economic functionality. That's obviously a very loose categorization and definition I've just given, especially if you go back and research the various economic models that have been produced, you know, by economists, monetary economists of the past 200 years, you'll enter into just a mind-blowing world of risk assessment, stochastic behavior models, interest rates, exchange rate protocols, arbitrage conditions service [wat], vector evaluations, rational choice theories, price equilibrium, attributes, and so on and so forth. It's uh... fascinating. It's truly fascinating. However, as a point of consistency, since I'm on the subject, no where in these highly intellectualized, sophisticated, novel, creative - and often internally sound, structurally - logical expressions, will you find anything about planetary resources, will you find anything about the science of creating proper goods. Nowhere will you find anything about longevity, efficiency of production in the sense of conservation, or created anything that will reflect true economic efficiency, which is of course, the intelligent management of all of our resources, and the methods of mining, [comunally?] producing, and distributing those resources. Zero. Virtually all economic monetary models simply revolve around various [pretty?] notions of labor, value - which an absolutely convoluted concept [LOL] - savings, interest rates, and again, a long string of previously aforementioned variables which, utterly decoupled from every kind of natural resource and processes in this planet, or anything tangible. And the processes, the economic matrices are nonsensical and absolutely unrelated; they are abstractions of thought, using classic linear equations to depict variables in close, finite systems, that have numerous presumptions about what they represent, when there's absolutely no linear direction, no linear reference to anything truly tangible, at all. You know, if you go to the work of the high priests of modern market theory, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith; you find some wonderfully articulate and perfectly sound reasoning, you know, but that reasoning exists within, within, a close set of variables, and a series of presumptions are always evident, and again, those presumptions have nothing to do with anything that is provably tangible, no physical reference. These huge conjections [conjectures?], speculations on human behavior... economists, when you break them down, all the individuals that I've just mentioned, they're not scientists, they're not basing anything on actual scientific evaluation, they are simply philosophers, and that's all every monetary economic theorist has ever been, a philosopher of the means of production and distribution, not scientists in the sense that they have a physical reference to balance and test their models. In fact, if you look at the criticisms that Hayek, and Mises, and Keynes, and all of the others, when they're criticized, they tend to fall back on the same basic set of defenses which are more or less comparison-oriented, for example, uh, they'll say - and I've heard this countless times - when anything is brought up about problems of the market sistem, such as rampant poverty, abuse, and slave labor, they say 'Well you know what? Say what you want about poverty and conflict, but history has proven that capitalism and the monetary structure has created more wealth and efficiency, and high-quality goods, and quality of life than any system we've ever known, so THERE'. No. The only thing that's created prosperity in the human population, the only thing that's responsible for human development and growing population, which has been going exponentionally, the only thing that's created a higher standard of living on this planet, are in fact two things: the advent of technology, and the discovery of cheap, hydrocarbon energy. That's it. That is what has driven this seemingly advanced society, which is actually quite in reverse, when you look at it. The quality of life of most human beings is actually in reverse right now because of this exact same system, for the exact same reasons that gave the illusion of prosperity to begin with. The system has in fact run its course. What you're seeing has been a cosmic delusion, has been a complete coincidence[...]
What is an economical model? In the most simplistic terms you can say an economical model shows variables and the dynamic processing or interactions of said variables to meet production and distribution demands and anything else generally related to economic functionality. That's obviously a very loose categorization and definition I've just given, especially if you go back and research the various economic models that have been produced, you know, by economists, monetary economists of the past 200 years, you'll enter into just a mind-blowing world of risk assessment, stochastic behavior models, interest rates, exchange rate protocols, arbitrage conditions service [wat], vector evaluations, rational choice theories, price equilibrium, attributes, and so on and so forth. It's uh... fascinating. It's truly fascinating.
However, as a point of consistency, since I'm on the subject, no where in these highly intellectualized, sophisticated, novel, creative - and often internally sound, structurally - logical expressions, will you find anything about planetary resources, will you find anything about the science of creating proper goods. Nowhere will you find anything about longevity, efficiency of production in the sense of conservation, or created anything that will reflect true economic efficiency, which is of course, the intelligent management of all of our resources, and the methods of mining, [comunally?] producing, and distributing those resources. Zero.
Virtually all economic monetary models simply revolve around various [pretty?] notions of labor, value - which an absolutely convoluted concept [LOL] - savings, interest rates, and again, a long string of previously aforementioned variables which, utterly decoupled from every kind of natural resource and processes in this planet, or anything tangible. And the processes, the economic matrices are nonsensical and absolutely unrelated; they are abstractions of thought, using classic linear equations to depict variables in close, finite systems, that have numerous presumptions about what they represent, when there's absolutely no linear direction, no linear reference to anything truly tangible, at all.
You know, if you go to the work of the high priests of modern market theory, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith; you find some wonderfully articulate and perfectly sound reasoning, you know, but that reasoning exists within, within, a close set of variables, and a series of presumptions are always evident, and again, those presumptions have nothing to do with anything that is provably tangible, no physical reference. These huge conjections [conjectures?], speculations on human behavior... economists, when you break them down, all the individuals that I've just mentioned, they're not scientists, they're not basing anything on actual scientific evaluation, they are simply philosophers, and that's all every monetary economic theorist has ever been, a philosopher of the means of production and distribution, not scientists in the sense that they have a physical reference to balance and test their models.
In fact, if you look at the criticisms that Hayek, and Mises, and Keynes, and all of the others, when they're criticized, they tend to fall back on the same basic set of defenses which are more or less comparison-oriented, for example, uh, they'll say - and I've heard this countless times - when anything is brought up about problems of the market sistem, such as rampant poverty, abuse, and slave labor, they say 'Well you know what? Say what you want about poverty and conflict, but history has proven that capitalism and the monetary structure has created more wealth and efficiency, and high-quality goods, and quality of life than any system we've ever known, so THERE'.
No.
The only thing that's created prosperity in the human population, the only thing that's responsible for human development and growing population, which has been going exponentionally, the only thing that's created a higher standard of living on this planet, are in fact two things: the advent of technology, and the discovery of cheap, hydrocarbon energy. That's it. That is what has driven this seemingly advanced society, which is actually quite in reverse, when you look at it. The quality of life of most human beings is actually in reverse right now because of this exact same system, for the exact same reasons that gave the illusion of prosperity to begin with. The system has in fact run its course. What you're seeing has been a cosmic delusion, has been a complete coincidence[...]
To say the least, the man knows nothing about austrian economics.
You know, if you go to the work of the high priests of modern market theory, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith; you find some wonderfully articulate and perfectly sound reasoning, you know, but that reasoning exists within, within, a close set of variables, and a series of presumptions are always evident, and again, those presumptions have nothing to do with anything that is provably tangible, no physical reference.
Can I have a pet unicorn in this utopia?
Okay continuing the transcript
a complete coincidence, that technologicalization, coupled with the emergence of an abundance of energy thats cheap all over the planet, has coupled with the advent of this economic system called the market system. Now, I know right now all the monetary [indocnitive?] individuals that support this system are chomping at the bit right now, at the edge of their seats, going 'But wait a minute, the reason we've had progress in technology is because competition has motivated that progress!' Well, is that really true? Is there any evidence for that really? Have any of the major contributions of technology come from people that have been outspoken about their interest to make money off of it? I don't think so. If you research Daniel Pink and his work on motivation which is basically a compilation of numerous psychological studies about what it means to be creative versus what it means to be mechanical, we tend to find that creativity, hence technological inovation, is actually driven not by competition whatsoever. On the other side of the spectrum, it's very very clear at this point, that technological inovation is currently being hindered by the market system, and the values, and the processes therein; with the need for scarcity, with the need to maintain the establishment. We have such profound technology today sitting on the sidelines that will not come to fruition because it will override existing establishments, and it is simply not profitable to create the type of sustainability that these new technological advents create. So, three points: A- The greatest contributors of scientific innovation have not done it for money - and you can research that thoroughly. B- Psychological motivation is not driven by competition for creative invention And C- Right now we live in a state of social evolution within market theory that is actually hindering technological process, because of the very dynamics of the system itself. Monetary economics exists in the same form it has always existed, as nothing more but a religion. It' s based on closed presuppositions which are essentially immutable in the eyes of those who practice it. Going back to Adam Smith and the quote "Invisible Hand". What the hell is that? The invisible hand? That... that's it? Pf, I mean, you gotta be kidding me. Is there any way to test this invisible hand? No, not at all. It's a presupposition of some type of monetary god, and it's absolutely insane, it operates with circular reasoning in a closed kind of [mind-logged?], just like any other religion. And it's absolute blasphemy of course when you choose to articulate anything out of the presuppositions of that belief system. Now please note that I don't mean to be insulting towards those minds - I mentioned Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Friedman - they're very brilliant individuals, within the confines of the variables they choose to acknowledge. Just like there can be very brilliant individuals within any religion, within the confines of the philosophy that they choose to accept, while they blinker out everything else. But the bias is so transparent! I have a book by Ludwig von Mises called "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality". Now, just the name of that, just, reeks of outrageous presuppositions and arrogance, does it not? The very statement, "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" presupposes, that anyone who's against of the capitalist system, or the market system, must of a particular form of preconditioned "mentality". And therefore, any objective and tangible open conversation is imediately void, because it's just a mentality. If that isn't religous stigma, I don't know what is. Now, I wanna be clear here because, if you read the Mises work, and the defense of the capitalist system by many different economists, they actually support it very well... within the confines of the arguments that they choose to recognize. I wanna clearly point out that the Zeitgeist movement, and the resource-based economy, what our angles are, what our problems are, are in fact very very different from any other objections to the economic theories put forward. While there are certainly overlaps, ours is explicitly different, and I have yet to hear any economic rebuke of anything we say that isn't simply a projection of earlier arguments which they feel have already been previously debunked. It is nothing more than a religion and I wanna make sure everyone thoroughly understands that, and when you approach people that believe in these ideas, you have to understand that, very often, your logic will be cut off, because they will blinker out information in their own schemata, whether they're even conscient of it or not. That's the power of belief, and unfortunately some people really will never understand rational associations because of their prior conditioning in life. But that's for another conversation. Okay, that's enough of that, I apologize for that tangent, let's uh.. let me get back on track here and talk about a resource-based economy, because once you understand the ground-up approach of a resource-based economy, it immediately makes void all notions of prior economic monetary theory, because it simply doesn't make any sense otherwise. [...]
a complete coincidence, that technologicalization, coupled with the emergence of an abundance of energy thats cheap all over the planet, has coupled with the advent of this economic system called the market system. Now, I know right now all the monetary [indocnitive?] individuals that support this system are chomping at the bit right now, at the edge of their seats, going 'But wait a minute, the reason we've had progress in technology is because competition has motivated that progress!' Well, is that really true? Is there any evidence for that really? Have any of the major contributions of technology come from people that have been outspoken about their interest to make money off of it? I don't think so. If you research Daniel Pink and his work on motivation which is basically a compilation of numerous psychological studies about what it means to be creative versus what it means to be mechanical, we tend to find that creativity, hence technological inovation, is actually driven not by competition whatsoever.
On the other side of the spectrum, it's very very clear at this point, that technological inovation is currently being hindered by the market system, and the values, and the processes therein; with the need for scarcity, with the need to maintain the establishment. We have such profound technology today sitting on the sidelines that will not come to fruition because it will override existing establishments, and it is simply not profitable to create the type of sustainability that these new technological advents create.
So, three points:
A- The greatest contributors of scientific innovation have not done it for money - and you can research that thoroughly.
B- Psychological motivation is not driven by competition for creative invention
And C- Right now we live in a state of social evolution within market theory that is actually hindering technological process, because of the very dynamics of the system itself.
Monetary economics exists in the same form it has always existed, as nothing more but a religion. It' s based on closed presuppositions which are essentially immutable in the eyes of those who practice it. Going back to Adam Smith and the quote "Invisible Hand". What the hell is that? The invisible hand? That... that's it? Pf, I mean, you gotta be kidding me. Is there any way to test this invisible hand? No, not at all. It's a presupposition of some type of monetary god, and it's absolutely insane, it operates with circular reasoning in a closed kind of [mind-logged?], just like any other religion. And it's absolute blasphemy of course when you choose to articulate anything out of the presuppositions of that belief system.
Now please note that I don't mean to be insulting towards those minds - I mentioned Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Friedman - they're very brilliant individuals, within the confines of the variables they choose to acknowledge. Just like there can be very brilliant individuals within any religion, within the confines of the philosophy that they choose to accept, while they blinker out everything else. But the bias is so transparent! I have a book by Ludwig von Mises called "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality". Now, just the name of that, just, reeks of outrageous presuppositions and arrogance, does it not? The very statement, "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" presupposes, that anyone who's against of the capitalist system, or the market system, must of a particular form of preconditioned "mentality". And therefore, any objective and tangible open conversation is imediately void, because it's just a mentality. If that isn't religous stigma, I don't know what is.
Now, I wanna be clear here because, if you read the Mises work, and the defense of the capitalist system by many different economists, they actually support it very well... within the confines of the arguments that they choose to recognize. I wanna clearly point out that the Zeitgeist movement, and the resource-based economy, what our angles are, what our problems are, are in fact very very different from any other objections to the economic theories put forward. While there are certainly overlaps, ours is explicitly different, and I have yet to hear any economic rebuke of anything we say that isn't simply a projection of earlier arguments which they feel have already been previously debunked.
It is nothing more than a religion and I wanna make sure everyone thoroughly understands that, and when you approach people that believe in these ideas, you have to understand that, very often, your logic will be cut off, because they will blinker out information in their own schemata, whether they're even conscient of it or not. That's the power of belief, and unfortunately some people really will never understand rational associations because of their prior conditioning in life. But that's for another conversation.
Okay, that's enough of that, I apologize for that tangent, let's uh.. let me get back on track here and talk about a resource-based economy, because once you understand the ground-up approach of a resource-based economy, it immediately makes void all notions of prior economic monetary theory, because it simply doesn't make any sense otherwise. [...]
Thats just 18:26 of 56:44, and man, I feel bad already :(. The guy tries to be the victim so hard that it's sad. Then he goes on and does what he accuses "monetarists" of doing... eh.
In the rest of this he explains how the central plan works, basically, 1- global resource (supply) evaluation, 2- global demand evaluation, and 3- distribution means. I think the biggest problem is that he has no methodological approach to evaluate demand, nor to really determine the infrastructure. He just says "well just look at inventory like a supermarket does", no sir, it's much harder than that w\o prices, and I think he's just not looked into the calculation problem (or he pretends he hasn't at least).
There's one point in this lecture where he says that he tries to defend centrally planned economies in like 3 sentences, saying like "cars are centrally planned too!" and "we never had a properly centrally planned economy!"... kiiiind of weak.
Meh
LibertarianCowboy: Can I have a pet unicorn in this utopia?
Peter also hints that the kind of abundance that capitalists wish, won't be available to them, like having multiple cars, because it's just inefficient and "irresponsible".
What the criteria for "irresponsibility" is, well, I guess it would be up to the computers to determine and manage everything
(and consequently, the central planners who write the A.I. at the very least)
I won't be transcribing past the introduction, the rest is just "we could do this! oh but wait, we could do that! amazing!" (does having good ideas entitle you to plan the universe lol?)
If you want to imagine it will be a utopia, you can certainly imagine that you have a unicorn there also. lol
Sounds lovely and all but... and this may come as a shocker... I like to work and I like the things I acquire from working. I like "MY" land, my horses, my guns, my vehicles. I like what is "mine" and I want more!
How much am I allowed to have in this utopia?
No more than anyone else (zero)!
"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."
He who controls the robots wins...
LibertarianCowboy:Sounds lovely and all but... and this may come as a shocker... I like to work and I like the things I acquire from working. I like "MY" land, my horses, my guns, my vehicles. I like what is "mine" and I want more!
Comrade, you will have to be re-educated!
After reading this: The Menace of the Space Cult
I can't help but think of the Zeitgeist Movement as the same thing.
Eleminating money, while perhaps 'radical' is not a new idea, socalists have been advocating that for over a century.
Mises would say the same thing to the Venus project people as he did to the socalists of his time....