http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w Your face when you realize a resource based economy might actually work.

File: 165 KB, 350x287, the venus project.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 22:55:21 2011 No.2433959 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Your face when you realize a resource based economy might actually work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 22:56:21 2011 No.2433962 >resource based economy If you don't have the balls to call it communism, go fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 22:58:21 2011 No.2433978 >>2433962 This. God damn, people. It's complete central control of the economy based on the plans of a bureaucracy. Just expressing and implementing that plan in the form of a computer algorithm doesn't make it any less centrally planned.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 22:59:21 2011 No.2433979 >>2433962 *Looks up definition of communism (again). They are not the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:01:21 2011 No.2433993 Communism is no different than Capitalism, it leaves all the wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:03:21 2011 No.2434001 >>2433979 >"free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.[1]" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism Sounds fairly similar.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:04:21 2011 No.2434007 >>2433978 lets say it is communism, if I use the term as simply not using money. Then it still doesn't change its feasibility.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:04:21 2011 No.2434010 >>2433979 If you need to look communism up, you are not properly informed enough to engage in this conversation. Since you are a Zeitgeist idiot, I already knew that, though.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:05:21 2011 No.2434011

The question is different from communism though. Communism said that there would be oppression and that people would rise up. (the oppression kinda did happen btw)
Here the situation is different. Its not opression of the middle and lower class. Its that the economy can't work anymore REGARDLESS of whether the low-middle class is being oppressed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:08:21 2011 No.2434022 >>2433993 The question is did those few take the risk of investment and gamble on the possibility of success? Capitalism, yeah. Communism, not so much.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:09:21 2011 No.2434027

>>2433979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
>Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.[1]
Check
>In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals
Check
>The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism.
OK
>In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run by Communist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over.
OK, so communism is the sociopolitical structure, and not necessarily the economic. But what do we have?
Classless, stateless, common ownership, no private property or wage labor. Yep. Fits so far.

And the Zeitgeist system is clearly a centrally planned economy, although it purports to listen to demand from the public. What's the best term for this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:11:21 2011 No.2434043 >>2434007 I was hoping that people would have a talk about how it could or could not work. Sadly I forget were I am.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:13:21 2011 No.2434054

Too many angsty teens and misinformed adults. News flash: capitalism is the atheism of economics--there doesn't need to be any powerful being giving commandments from on high or trying to make miracles happen. It's survival of the fittest and the weak get weeded out. It's sad so many /sci/ducks don't get this.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:13:21 2011 No.2434055

>>2434011
Zeitgeist is talking entirely about how much capitalism is evil. How money is evil. Saying the system is doomed to failure is just icing on the cake.

I'm not saying this just to discount the movie, but really: zeitgeist is proposing communism and a centrally planned economy. I've watched the movie, I took notes, and I did fact-checking when I found it appropriate.

And oh, is there plenty of bullshit in the movie. And even the good parts are generally unsupported.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:14:21 2011 No.2434063 File: 98 KB, 1155x664, 1293710983312.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] mfw

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:14:21 2011 No.2434065 >>2434054 But the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith is just an allusion to God! That one guy in the movie told me so!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:15:21 2011 No.2434068 >>2434043 Kinda sucks when people just should COMMUNISM instead of explaining why it can't work

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:15:21 2011 No.2434075

we could say its a modification of communism sure. Does that change whether or not its a good idea though? I mean, I don't see our current system working very well as things move forward. Ecology is fucked already. And the economy seems to be changing for the worse. Fewer and fewer jobs for people with no skills. Which is like, half the economy.
You could think of it as the communism that would work out, simply because we have the tech to take over all the work that would have ended up being forced. We would not need work camps, nor would we be pushing for industrialisation.
I like the idea. beats this system atleast.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:17:21 2011 No.2434085
File: 244 KB, 509x642, 1296016662865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yes, the Venus Project depicts a centrally organised, planned and controlled operation of a city.

But guess what does the planning and control....A FUCKING COMPUTER THAT IS DESIGNED AND PROGRAMMED TO DO JUST THAT!

Stop having the knee-jerk reaction to anything remotely contrary to your pathetic amerifaggot systems that you've been brainwashed into believing "is da bestest in da world simply cos we'z muurika".

A central computer using systems theory designed to efficiently manage an entire city can not lead to rampant corruption, back-scratching and cronyism that you see in all human-run political systems. The only way to fairly and successfully run a city is to take the running out of human hands.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:17:21 2011 No.2434088 >>2434068 Because people are greedy. We want the most possible utility for the least possible cost. The utopia that communists strive for is a fantasy land.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:18:21 2011 No.2434093

>>2434043
Oh, I'll happily talk about it.

My main problem isn't the communism, really. It's the central planning. I'm supposed to hand the keys to the planet over to a few guys who think they're so damn smart that they can just write a computer program that will take care of me? That will relieve me of the terrible burden of deciding what is important, and how to achieve it? And why should I trust these elites who think they're so damn smart? Central planning has never been a good idea. It is inflexible, inefficient, and prone to catastrophic failure when the guys on top make a mistake. China used to do this, and so did the Soviet Union. The results weren't so great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

Now they're both capitalist. Sure, China is a communist political structure, but their economy is even more capitalist than the United States.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:18:21 2011 No.2434094

>>2434043
It is easier to argue over a definition. It is easier to dismiss something that is an -ism than to just talk about the merits of an idea without labeling it.

I find it amazing how defensive people are about the current economic system when it is so obvious that it is going to implode and take a good chunk of humanity with it in the next 200 years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:18:21 2011 No.2434097 >>2434068 >when people just should COMMUNISM Did you mean shout? At any rate, there is ample evidence that centrally planned economies do not lead to better quality of life. This is why people view it as a delegitimizing tactic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:20:21 2011 No.2434104 >>2434054 >>2434065 Samefag.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:20:21 2011 No.2434108 >>2434097 ya sorry, I meant shout

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:20:21 2011 No.2434112 >>2434088 I was hoping that the people who post on the thread at least knew something about it. I mean they have explained why greed would hardly exist in tvp. I would understand if you said how greed could slip to the cracks or something but no.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:21:21 2011 No.2434116

>>2434043
Can't work for the same reason that communism can't work for the same reason that they didn't flesh out how this omniscient computer can plan this "economy". There is no way to distribute resources efficiently in the absence of real, meaningful prices. And you cannot have prices without a market. Also, eternal sustainability is an arbitrary restraint that will not end in us living in futuristic circular cities.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:21:21 2011 No.2434117 ITT: None of the commies elaborate on how the computer controlled economy would actually work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:21:21 2011 No.2434118 >>2434094 >Problems caused by unnecessary regulation >Blame free market capitalism >Hope for an even more regulated system wut

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:21:21 2011 No.2434121

well lads. Clearly quite a few of us are not impressed by zeitgeist. So, what would work? There was one thing brought up that is supported. Thats that aside from intellectual jobs, most jobs seem to be pretty easily replaced. Make the tech a bit cheaper and then it will be replaced. Thats obvious. What should we do about that?
And would this solve the other problems proposed in the film? (or if not, is the problem proposed an actual problem?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:21:21 2011 No.2434122

>>2434085
>take the running out of human hands.
You see, this is the great fallacy. You think that just because the plan of government is carried out by machines, that it somehow isn't a human plan.

Guess what? It's just the bureaucrats who wrote the algorithms who are in power. And who is to stop them from changing the algorithms? And what made them so damn smart?

No one is smart enough to centrally plan the global economy. We've tried it before. We're not smart enough, and by extension, any algorithm we can write is not smart enough. But we *can* organize a decentralized and self-correcting system that will automatically solve problems that no one person even understands. How? Because we're all constantly in the loop. It is the human hivemind. THAT is what the world economy is becoming. And guess what? The world is getting better, not worse.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:22:21 2011 No.2434130

>>2434093
Would you agree that there has to be some way to allocate resources that is less destructive than the system we have now?

Right now we pretty much dig things out of the ground so that we can sell a tiny fraction of the planet things they don't really need while millions of others starve even though there is plenty of food.

It isn't just. There has to be a better way and I do not think your objection should be "well, central planning is bad so lets just keep going the way we are."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:23:21 2011 No.2434137 >>2434093 You get it. Power behaves intelligently the more distributed it is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:24:21 2011 No.2434147 >>2434130 >things they don't really need To put into honest words: Stop liking what I don't like!

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:25:21 2011 No.2434153

>>2434122
AI actually has the potential to be far smarter than any human or group of humans could ever be.

In an ideal world run by an AI it would not be corruptible by human influence. It would have a system of checks and balances that would baffle any human attempt to sabotage it. Of course such a system is very dangerous if it isn't perfect, but its not impossible.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:25:21 2011 No.2434154

>>2434093
>I'm supposed to hand the keys to the planet over to a few guys who think they're so damn smart that they can just write a computer program that will take care of me?

so you think some how they will go all corrupt or that people cant write a program? we use many ways of telling supply and demand today. what makes you think it will get so hard?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:25:21 2011 No.2434156

I had a few questions for the authors of Zeitgeist on some issues they flat out ignored:

1. What do you do with the "cheaters". You know... the people who will try to exploit the system for their own benefit?
2. How do you plan to keep everyone entertained? Think about it. It is much harder than it may first appear... and its necessary for attenuating unrest.
3. What are you going to do to prevent humanity from reaching its carrying capacity? The only way to keep everyone comfortable is to keep the human population low enough so that there are enough resources to go around for everyone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:26:21 2011 No.2434158 >>2434121 Free markets and well-designed public programs. Best of both worlds.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:26:21 2011 No.2434160

>>2434121
Social democracy. Some European countries are doing this, and the results are stellar. A capitalistic economy, but with progressive taxes and very egalitarian governmental institutions. Universal healthcare, free education, and good unemployment benefits.

The results speak for themselves. And you can tune the system to sit anywhere on the scale between pure capitalism and pure socialism (both of which would be dumb ideas). The happy medium is, as usual, the moderate option in the middle.

I'll dump stats, but I think the posts are still live on /sci/. I'll see if I can find them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:26:21 2011 No.2434168 >>2434130 What's this tiny fraction? There's like a billion people with a first world standard of living.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:26:21 2011 No.2434171 ok so what zeitgeist said is communism. what is a post-scarcity technocracy?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:27:21 2011 No.2434173
File: 48 KB, 600x431, 1235989868431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2434122

>implying bureaucrats can write code

>also implying that Systems Theory is beholden to human demands.

>"And guess what? The world is getting better, not worse."

You ain't been paying much attention to rocket poverty rates, unemployment and escalation of tensions between large states have you? Also, how the fuck did you miss the 1.5 trillion dollar bailout of murrika's banks that came right out of your pocket? Still think the world is getting better?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:27:21 2011 No.2434175

One method in which sustainability could be increased is with further growth of food within the boundaries of the cities - manipulating recently developed technologies such as advanced hydroponics. This would make it possible for cities to strive without superfluous imports. Let's discuss methods with which proper distribution can be met....

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:27:21 2011 No.2434177 >>2434171 Define technocracy. As for post-scarcity, you can have anything on the spectrum between pure capitalism and pure socialism become "post-scarcity", but the extreme ends don't work very well.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:28:21 2011 No.2434178 >>2434118 not regulating is the bigger problem my friend. Remeber that recession that happened 2 years ago because of NOT regulating the economy? I do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:28:21 2011 No.2434183 >>2434104 >A person agrees with a viewpoint that isn't mine? Must be samefag. Sure is paranoid and wrong in here.

>>	OPisafag Fri Jan 28 23:28:21 2011 No.2434185 >>2434168 >Implying everyone even in the first world has a high quality of living

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:29:21 2011 No.2434189 >>2434118 When did anarchy more regulated? Yes tvp would be an anarchy since there would be no ruling class and if you say the computer is the ruler, well the computer would not make you do anything and would simply move resources around.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:29:21 2011 No.2434191 >>2434173 Show me stats indicating that in the past 20 years, absolute rates of poverty have increased, let alone "rocket"ed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:29:21 2011 No.2434193 >>2434173 >Still think the world is getting better? Yes. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg The statistics refute you. The world is improving at a massive pace.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:30:21 2011 No.2434200 >>2434189 >anarchy >central planning Can you even understand what you're typing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:30:21 2011 No.2434202 >>2434178 Yeah, it had nothing to do with the Federal Reserve or fractional reserve banking. Nothing at all. It was the Evil Capitalism! I won't explain what I mean by that but it was.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:30:21 2011 No.2434203 >>2434178 I don't "remeber" that shit happening because of the labor and product markets being able to freely decide on the prices of goods and optimum allocation of resources. Have you even had econ 101?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:31:21 2011 No.2434205 >>2434122 >implying bureaucrats can write code no but people who can write code can write code. also there would be no one in power

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:31:21 2011 No.2434212 >>2434178 >NOT regulating the economy no, the government was extremely active in setting the stage for a housing boom (and bust). >>2434171 >post scarcity does not exist

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:33:21 2011 No.2434220

>>2434200
>government refers to the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, who control a state at a given time, and the manner in which their governing organizations are structured
a computer would not force you to do anything so yes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:33:21 2011 No.2434222 >>2434147 That is not what I meant. My main problem is the constant drive by advertising for people to pile up crap that they soon throw away. If they "liked" it, why is it in the landfill now?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:33:21 2011 No.2434223

>>2434177
I dont really want to define it. What I wanted was to point out these zeitgeist guys didnt sit at a table and say "so, what kind of communism are we gonna make today", you guys are making communism out of their ideas (likely because its true to a large extent). So why doesn't /sci/ see this as the thing it loves, a Utopia, instead?
tl;dr SEMANTICS, FUCK NAME-CALLING YOU EITHER LIKE THE IDEA OR DON'T AND EXPLAIN WHY

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:33:21 2011 No.2434226 File: 79 KB, 361x358, butemperor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434203 Obvious economist who fears fr his job is obvious.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:33:21 2011 No.2434227

This shit is so fucking stupid. Uses a bunch of vague hand-waving to get over problems like depreciation or the fact that utility is a subjective, qualitative function that computers cannot comprehend. Even if you knew the ordinal utility rankings of every human being in the project (which is itself a near-impossibility because preferences stated are often different from preferences revealed by action), 100% of the time, with continuous upload to a computer, you CANNOT AGGREGATE UTILITY FUNCTIONS and thus this attempt at economic calculation would fail just like every other attempt at massive central planning.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:35:09 2011 No.2434238 File: 98 KB, 1199x1112, 1293119464688.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434054

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:35:21 2011 No.2434231 >>2434222 I think he is saying stuff like fashion. When he means useless

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:35:21 2011 No.2434236

>>2434205
>>2434173
You've got to be shitting me. You don't see that the guys writing the code have ALL the power?

They're either bureaucrats themselves or lackeys of the bureaucrats. The point is you have an oligarchy. The few who have control the central programming control EVERYTHING.

Adding a computer to the chain of command doesn't change the fact that it's a centralization of power that is ultimately in human hands. And don't tell me you're going to make the computer inaccessible. We don't have strong AI yet. It would be incredibly foolish to leave literally NOTHING intelligent at the helm of the world. What if the algorithm *must* be changed?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:37:17 2011 No.2434245 File: 98 KB, 1199x1112, 1293119464688.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434054 gotta love these Zeitgeist threads posted during the American hours.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:37:21 2011 No.2434246

>>2434222
That's monopolistic competition. Advertising is going to happen. Big deal. Surprise surprise: for most firms it hurts them more than helps. They only advertise because their competitors are doing it and they need to present themselves to the public as much as their competitors.

Do you know what happened when laws were passed against commercial advertisements for cigarettes? The tobacco companies went and threw a party because they didn't need to compete with million-dollar campaigns against each other anymore. Getting rid of ads altogether actually HELPS firms.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:39:21 2011 No.2434251

>>2434193
>>2434193
>>2434193
This. I especially recommend the second video. The sky isn't falling, and once the third world isn't scrounging for food and shoes, even population growth will stop.

Think the current system is abused by the rich? Pass more progressive taxes, and demand universal healthcare, free education, and decent unemployment benefits. You can do all of these things without switching to central planning and socialism, which already devastated two other major countries (the USSR and early communist China).

Now Russia and China both have pretty capitalist economies.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:39:21 2011 No.2434252
File: 80 KB, 400x300, 1296111484639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

the global economy wether it is communism or capitalism or anything in between is strictly based off of the amount of resources we have.

>a resource based economy might actually work

mfw

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:39:21 2011 No.2434255

>>2434236
Sure a person who writes code could write some shitty code that kills everyone. well if he was the only code writer, but why the fuck would he want to. If it has been shown that the venus project could make a better life for all and that money is useless in that system then why would he want to?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:39:21 2011 No.2434257

The computer system capable of running the planet in this way would be an incredibly powerful artificial intelligence.

It would have to understand human beings better than themselves.

Humans would not be able to outsmart it or game it anymore than a bunch of mice could game a researcher by running a maze especially well.

It would have to be very carefully programmed because it might come up with very strange ideas of how to carry out its programming if things went pair shaped.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:40:21 2011 No.2434262

>>2434223
You can call it semantics all you want, I ask why are they so afraid of their centrally planned economy being called such, or socialism, or communism to the extent that they make a fat shadow with a southern accent stand up in their movie so they can strawman and ad hominem their critics right away?

Adding renders of futuristic cities to socialism does not change the ideology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:40:21 2011 No.2434263 >>2434255 >If it has been shown that the venus project could make a better life for all Nope. It's just another rule by the elites.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:41:21 2011 No.2434265 >>2434226 Oh, so there is no argument? Cool. Thanks for playing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:41:21 2011 No.2434266 >>2434252 yea and? I know I don't have infinite amounts of energy so I use energy logically.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:41:21 2011 No.2434269 >>2434257 Yeah maybe this will never come about, but fuck it, lets all go to DC and throw our money in a big pile

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:42:21 2011 No.2434270 >>2434257 Further, anything less than this super human intelligence would simply not work.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Fri Jan 28 23:42:21 2011 No.2434272 >>2434263 Starters of the project =/= rulers of the project

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:42:21 2011 No.2434273 isnt the idea that when someone dies, the wealth flows back into a central "bank" and can then be redistributed throughout the populous? cause you cant take it with you when you die.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:42:21 2011 No.2434275

>>2434257
Absolutely. Seeing as Zeitgeist is planning to give total control of the world to the machine, I would only agree to it if it had sufficient intelligence to outperform a distributed free market. Basically, is it smarter than the aggregate information processing network formed by humanity and its machines today?

If so, fantastic. But last I checked, our AI couldn't even tie shoes.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:43:21 2011 No.2434277

>>2434156
the film did discuss your points though. They said A) why you cant cheat when there isnt a game. In essence. what would you be exploiting? You would have what you need. What would you do to cheat it in fact? borrow the community car too much? take long showers? be fat? those all seem to be minimal at worst. You want tech, go for it. I am pretty sure its offered for use. What is there to exploit?
B) They also adressed entertainment. In its more traditional forms, i can see entertainment feeding its self. Its amazing the number of talented people who also CRAVE attention. Think of all the homemade stuff on youtube and all that amature porn. If you mean entertained as in teh 6 hours not spent at work, well, we're smart people. I think we can figure out lots of things to do. Encourage volunteers from the intelligent people. For the others, encourage them to become intelligent. Lots of things to do in your day. Trust me.
C) I believe that one point of the film was that population was already a problem, but greatly because of 1-how we manage our resources (poorly) and 2-the places with the fastest growing pops happen to also be the ones that are develloping. If we were all develloped, then hopefully that trend will stay true, and pop growth will plateau.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:43:21 2011 No.2434278

A while ago I came up with an idea. What about a world in which there are multiple different systems, all working under the same anarchist golden rule? Like, lets' say, everybody agrees that murder, imprisonment, and an nonconsensual change of one's biology (to make sure rape and pollution are still B&) are things that should not be done. You may only kill a man in self-defense, and you may only imprison a person who has murdered or imprisoned another. On top of these basic, agreed-upon rules, people would build up such things as property rights (for the anarchocapitalists) and communes (for the anarchosyndicalists).

Stupid pretentious shit from an undergraduate of the year, or of the decade?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:43:21 2011 No.2434280 >>2434272 Go tell it to Comrade Lenin. It's the same story all over again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:43:21 2011 No.2434281 >>2434263 So you didn't watch the video. There is a reason a person would rule and a reason a person would be ruled. If you find out why they were then you would see that would not happen in the venus project.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:44:21 2011 No.2434285 >>2434257 Such a powerful AI would manifest itself as surely and unbreakably as if we had introduced new laws of nature.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:45:21 2011 No.2434293

i can't belive you're this stupid.
Marx idea of communism hadn't the technology we had and will have in the next decades (which it'll be tremendous). resource-based economy do work, socioeconomics applied with the scientific method do work. technology will sustain us, in all ways. we'll just do what difference us form machines, create shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:46:21 2011 No.2434295 >>2434272 So you're telling me that "the state will wither away"? I seem to recall hearing that somewhere before.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:46:21 2011 No.2434296 >>2434280 Good thing they are not the starts of the project then. That would be the people who have the ability to start it. also try to come up with a real reason instead of herping back to government ruled communism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:46:21 2011 No.2434298 >>2434285 Until then, I'll stick to social democracy. Capitalism, but with progressive taxes that go to universal healthcare, education, and unemployment benefits.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:47:21 2011 No.2434302 >>2434296 You can't ignore the past just by relabeling the movement. We. Have. Done. This. Before.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:47:21 2011 No.2434303 >>2434295 No the state would not because there would be no state. There would be no human ruler or any ruler for that matter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:48:21 2011 No.2434307 >>2434296 See >>2434227

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:49:21 2011 No.2434311 >>2434302 yea. except this time without the government and with my little friend science to help. could you please give a real reason?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:49:21 2011 No.2434312

>>2434275
The info system we have now is disorganised and not meant to run the computable variables for a city. its instead a whole bunch of small info systems made up of disorganised small machines. And they compete, each one with a different goal, for different people. Centralise it and scale it up. you lose the competition. and ya, the AI can outperform the original information system. Because this one is not fighting its self.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:49:21 2011 No.2434317 >>2434285 If God did not exist it would become necessary to invent Him.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:50:21 2011 No.2434319 >>2434293 >technology will sustain us Just because you have the technology to make such a system not instantly collapse doesn't mean it's a good idea. You can have technology in social democracies too, if you haven't noticed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:50:21 2011 No.2434320 >>2434303 The people putting together the new system would never relinquish control and would certainly manage to keep their hands on the levers of power. That being said, I'm all for giving you faggots Tasmania and seeing what you can come up with.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:50:21 2011 No.2434322 >>2434278 You're essentially describing Minarchism which is just minimal government (i.e. libertarianism).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:51:21 2011 No.2434323 >qualitative function that computers cannot comprehend explain. could computers not understand supply and demand? Because thats not true.

OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Fri Jan 28 23:51:21 2011 No.2434327
File: 13 KB, 438x499, 1295750200021.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What the fuck is going on with all of the god damn manic nitpicking here?

Is ANYONE prepared to argue that we couldn't do better than the system we have today?
Is anyone saying every ecological system isn't in decline?
Is anyone arguing that political structures aren't so corrupt is a fucking cultural expectation?
Is anyone proposing that we as a species don't need to grow the fuck up and start learning to work together?

Anyone?

>btw, this shit works better if people ask question, rather than making ideological assertions. just sayin

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:51:21 2011 No.2434328 >>2434312 You seem to think that decentralization and competition is bad. How the hell else do you find the optimum solution? Because no one is smart enough to just think and write down the perfect answer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:52:21 2011 No.2434329 >>2434327 Scan the thread for "social democracy".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:52:21 2011 No.2434331 >>2434319 not when the reason technology is created is profit. we should be so far advance right know, it's like the dark ages with internet and porn

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:52:21 2011 No.2434333 >>2434320 why? there is no money and enough resources to go around. also we arnt giving a few individuals control over the whole system. They cant just order people to kill someone or something

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:52:21 2011 No.2434334 >>2434327 Consider actually laying out a solution instead of getting angsty.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:53:21 2011 No.2434337

>>2434312
Lose the competition and you lose all the information. Humans express their values through action. Computers don't know what I want. The difference between the Venusfags and the Econfags in this thread is that the econfags have read about the "resource based economy" while the Venusfags appear to be entirely ignorant of the body of economic knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:54:21 2011 No.2434338 >>2434328 That is why you build a machine that can come up with the best answer. There is no fundamental reason why such a machine could not be built.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:54:21 2011 No.2434340

>>2434312
Free market capitalism works precisely because the world isn't just flowers and unicorns and everybody working together under some united ideal; people are greedy and competitive, if you couldn't tell, and they don't need any help learning how to trade in their mutual best interests.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:54:21 2011 No.2434342

>>2434323
Computers cannot understand human value-judgments. We would have to constantly tell them what is important, and how important. When I watchted Zeitgeist, they just said the computer would "take polls" or some shit. LOL

A free and decentralized system where I can vote with my wallet is better. And you don't need massive income inequality either - you can have progressive taxes that support all the free health care, education, and unemployment benefits that Zeitgeist pretends you can't have otherwise.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:55:21 2011 No.2434345

>>2434328
competition is not necessarily bad. But what is is when the competition is destructive. All these systems are working for themselves. And when they come into conflict, they dont just make a stronger system. Instead they weaken eachother like a wave crest hitting a wave pit. If they compete for a better solution then its a good thing. But theyre instead competing for different problems.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:55:21 2011 No.2434347 File: 67 KB, 783x561, innovation.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434328 >You seem to think that decentralization and competition is bad also studies show that money takes away creativity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:55:21 2011 No.2434350 >>2434337 Imagine a system where proposals are made to the central system the same way we make business proposals and research grant requests now. People would still compete.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Fri Jan 28 23:55:21 2011 No.2434352
File: 262 KB, 3060x1493, TRSpicture4chan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2434320
The only way I'd want a dictatorship is if I was 100% sure it could keep corruption from turning it to shit. That said, I would really, really rather find another way as I do not like the idea of being El Presidente for the next 200 years.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:56:21 2011 No.2434355
File: 284 KB, 381x475, jac1516792976_488d029b85_o.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This bitching is pointess. Jacque Fresco summed it up well.

"A resource based economy is not perfect, no-one will ever achieve perfection.

Its just a lot better than what we currently have."

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:57:21 2011 No.2434361

>>2434338
Your ignorance is showing. Ultimately, guess what? The free market *is that machine*. It is composed of billions of people and millions of machines, all trying to make things work out for themselves, and by extension, or everyone. It is a cooperative, distributed decision-making machine. And it is more flexible, adaptible, and efficient than any machine which can fit within the confines of a single human mind to design it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:57:21 2011 No.2434362

>>2434323
Correct, specifically demand. Computers cannot understand it because it is not a numerical thing and cannot be revealed except through action. Also, because the supply functions rely on the demand for the factors of production, without humans the whole system breaks down and the computer just starts making arbitrary decisions like every centrally planned economy that has ever existed before.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:57:21 2011 No.2434364 >>2434342 Yes. because clearly wallets give everyone equal vote. Glad to know we live in a world where everyone is born and lives with equal monetary funds. paradise on earth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:58:21 2011 No.2434373 >>2434347 Sure. Income inequality stifles creativity. That's why you implement a progressive tax. You'll note that the highest-scoring countries are social democracies.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 23:59:21 2011 No.2434375

>>2434342
>A free and decentralized system where I can vote with my wallet is better
lol libertarian
but really a computer can tell that when people are using up a resource up pretty fast it should put in more resources. Or if some how that doesnt work I think people asking for resources would also tip it off that people want resources. I mean we do junk like this in todays economy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:00:21 2011 No.2434378 File: 51 KB, 571x570, 1287936612053.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2433959 >Your face when you realize a resource based economy might actually work

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:00:21 2011 No.2434380 >>2434364 Income inequality is a problem in the US. That points is absolutely true. But you know what? It's not a problem in Sweden, or Denmark, or Finland. We need to adopt a system more like theirs. Not communism.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:00:21 2011 No.2434382

>>2434361
BS, the *free market* is most definitely not that machine and to claim it is, is to beg the question. The very premise we are arguing over is that the free market is less than optimal and what would be better.

The free market sucks at making sure that everybody's basic needs are met. Some people starve while a small group of people have enough wealth to buy everything on the planet multiple times!

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:01:21 2011 No.2434388

>>2434361
YOU ARE IGNORING REALITY. the fact is A) the free market is not fair at all. Its easy to be screwed from the get go. B) its not cooperative. Its a computationnal engine sure. But its compeditive. Often the kind where if one system can't be on top, itll take others with it. And its not computing what everyone wants. Its computing what a few want, and even then, its really computing what each competing system wants.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:01:21 2011 No.2434390 .>>2434364 poor people don't deserve to vote.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:01:21 2011 No.2434391 >>2434375 >I mean we do junk like this in todays economy. Exactly. Considering firms will react to surpluses/shortages on their own, what's the point of getting a computer to do it for them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:01:21 2011 No.2434394 wtf man, it's fucking mathematics. you can't look for infinite profit with finite resources, you gotta ECONOMIZE. the sooner we have all humankind directed to create shit better than make useless money we'll get VR and play real fucking call of duty.

>>	снайпер Sat Jan 29 00:02:21 2011 No.2434397 >>2434352 All we need for a successful dictatorship is a benevolent and omnipotent ruler whom is impossible to corrupt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:02:21 2011 No.2434399 >>2434380 Sure its better but not by that much.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:02:21 2011 No.2434400

>>2434355
No, I don't think he's been all that convincing that it will be, all centrally planned economies of the past have failed. Jacques Fresco becomes Pol Pot in a matter of months when faced with the realities of human nature and the necessities of human labor.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:03:21 2011 No.2434402

>>2434375
No, no we don't. Supply and demand is communicated through the mechanism of money. How do you know when resource X is becoming strained? All the stuff based on it becomes expensive. Most people don't even need to understand what's going on to respond appropriately.

The role of government would be to supply education, health care, and unemployment benefits (tied to helping them get jobs again as well). Another role is to define the limits of the market by imposing monetary values on resources with long-term significance. National parks, environmental regulation, pollution limits, etc.

The mechanisms needed to fix the corruption you abhor are *here*. USE them. Demand a more progressive tax, for starters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:03:21 2011 No.2434403 I would say about less then a 3rd of the people here watched the movie. it explains all the hur its communism statements.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:04:21 2011 No.2434406 >>2434399 Stop talking out of your ass. If I had to be "poor", I would do it in Sweden. Hands down. It's not just a little better than the US in that regard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:05:21 2011 No.2434410 >>2434403 I've watched the movie. I've though about it quite a lot. Guess what? It's communism. With a centrally-planned economy, to boot. >>2434027

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:05:21 2011 No.2434411 >>2434402 A computer can understand that if people are getting something quickly it will run out soon.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sat Jan 29 00:06:21 2011 No.2434414 >>2434397 I nominate myself, but I know there would be a lot of people that would not want that, and I can understand that, as they cannot read my mind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:06:21 2011 No.2434419 >>2434406 You have not explained that even though those countries are run better then America how there system will completely stop greed and how this system will fail.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:06:21 2011 No.2434422
File: 229 KB, 580x480, 1296110481574.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qlgzTlAvOo

How can you not like this guy? He's 94 and he designed cars looking like modern ones OVER SIXTY YEARS AGO.
Will you be trying to change the world when you are 94?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:06:21 2011 No.2434423

Really, this system is not "centralized" any more than the internet is. It would really be a distributed system with independent parts each making decisions about resource availability and allocation and from the system, we hope, the optimal answer emerges.

The intelligence in the system would have to be better than human, and it would also have to understand humans, but no reason to also assume it is some giant computer in the arctic. It almost certainly would be decentralized.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:06:21 2011 No.2434424

>>2434391
cause a company does it for themselves, and only takes themselves into account. The centralised computer takes into account things that the company does not give a shit about.
When it comes down to it, look at where someone's loyalty is SUPPOSED to be. In a company, its to the company. nothing else. In the computer, its to what its programed to do. In this case, make sure that we live sustainably, peacefully and comfortably. Something that is not too far out of reach.
EVEN if the computer tech is not there yet, we can guess how long it will be before we CAN. Assuming we can keep MOORE's law going, Its reasonable to say taht we could have a supercomputer doing this in the mid 2030s.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:06:21 2011 No.2434425

>>2434382
You know lots of poverty in the U.S. is the cause of minimum wage being an effective price floor that creates a surplus of workers, a government-given regulation, which the government must then add onto with more regulations to make sure those left unemployed don't starve, right? You know monopolies are GIVEN by the government and are actually broken up when there aren't government-issued barriers to entry, right? You realize most legislative actions of the state are done to fix problems that earlier actions caused, right?

Do you actually know what you're talking about, or are you just spouting bogus rumors about how wicked you heard free market capitalism is?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:07:21 2011 No.2434426

>>2434397
Hell, satisfy just the benevolent and incorruptible traits, and as long as he's also one of the smartest guys around (so he can't be tricked), I would vote for him for dictator-for-life.

Too bad we can't be sure to find someone who satisfies those requirements.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:08:21 2011 No.2434433 >>2434411 Oh god I am fucking raging right now. Computers are made by us. Computers implement whatever the fuck we want and are limited by what we know or can compute. They are not magical boxes.

снайпер Sat Jan 29 00:08:21 2011 No.2434434

There's going to be huge changes to the current capitalist economic system whether people want it or not.

Simple progression of technology. We're on the cusp of manufacturing units within the home, and the replacement of most physical labor by robots and a lot of service sector jobs by artificial intelligence.

This isn't pie in the sky stuff. This is happening right now in prototypes and test laboratories around the world.

It means the only people working are the creative types, most of the population won't have a job, and yet GDP will be higher than its ever been before.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:10:21 2011 No.2434444

>>2434424
Processing speed is not the limitation. We are not intelligent enough to manually design such a program. Not even close.

If I started talking about how incredibly complex and fast-changing the global economy is, you'd just tell me that it's only because of money. Bullshit.

No one is smart enough to write down a competent program for controlling the entire world.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:10:21 2011 No.2434445

>>2434423
actually, the internet is a good example. Look at how it give info. Its big, and its completely a free info system. (unlike a free market however, here everyone has equal vote).
On the internet, if your goal were to learn, Its actually pretty shitty. Sites can be fake, and there's alot of misinformation. There's no reason for each party to keep its info clean. An encyclopedia however has all its info checked, and they can be pretty big.
Immagine an electric encyclopedia just 1/100000 the size of the info on the internet. And eddited. Thats all the info needed and this time, because of its centralisation, its now verified, and for the reader, not the speaker.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:11:21 2011 No.2434448

>>2434394
It's not mathematics at least until you can get your hands on true human values, which, surprise surprise only appear when people make choices in the face of scarce resources.
Profits come in the market, from providing people with (at least perceived) VALUE. The search for "infinite profit" is the search to provide maximum VALUE for minimum COST. Resources are a COST, thus firms seek to minimize use of Resources.
>>2434403
They didn't explain shit, they hand waved away a legit criticism by making a fat southerner say it. "Hey! You can't call our centrally planned economy socialist, we claim we're going to plan it slightly differently and we're showing you renders of future cities!"

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:11:21 2011 No.2434450

>>2434424
>In a company, its to the company. nothing else.
Actually, it's still just to themselves. I assume you know why supply curves are positive in both markets. People want to work for more, but businesses want to higher skilled workers for less. The equilibrium reached is best for both. Workers for a company don't care "only about the company;" they care about their paycheck.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:12:21 2011 No.2434451
File: 30 KB, 200x250, agent-smith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2434424
We lack the language to describe our perfect world.

To be serious, what I mean is that the computer power to do this exists today. We just don't know how to program it. More computer power just makes it easier to make something that works but is actually wrong.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:12:21 2011 No.2434454

>>2434445
You've just described the Encyclopedia Britannica. Which is quickly becoming irrelevant, in favor of the much more extensive, up-to-date, and often actually *more accurate* Wikipedia. Central planning is just as bad as the old encyclopedia model. We know, we've tried it before.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:13:21 2011 No.2434458 File: 62 KB, 480x623, 1290025511632.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434445 >>2434444 >>2434434 >>2434433 Neurons in a brain firing and responding. woah dude. The internet is the world brain...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:14:21 2011 No.2434466 >>2434444 see city is running out of hot dogs. supply more hotdogs. Holy fuck I must be smart

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:14:21 2011 No.2434468

>>2434425
LOL. thats what you'd hope. But its not the case. governaments are not evil things trying to hurt you. The reality is that without regulation, we regress to the economies without workers unions or worker's rights. Its REALLY easy to get fucked over. No one helps pay for your education, so if you're born poor, you're going to stay poor. And then because there's no minimum wage, you get payed next to nothing. Because there's no worker's rights, or union rights, your wages stay low. Fun times.
I honestly see no way that goveernament regulations in this way KEEP people poor directly like that. Do you think that removing the minimum wage would make the average low end wage go up?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:15:21 2011 No.2434475 >>2434444 The moment we make something smart enough to improve itself this won't be a problem anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:15:21 2011 No.2434478 >>2434466 Which the market ALREADY deals with. Putting up some mystical program to make the decision instead is adding a trivial middle-man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:16:21 2011 No.2434480 >>2434448 that's not happening in our current system. companies create seeking the profit, they do not create the best they can with the lowest resources, they create what gives them greater profit. and guess what, there isn't a limit for their profit.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:17:21 2011 No.2434489

>>2434448
time is also a cost. It usually userps other costs. There is no magic hand that keeps people in line guys. No magic hand that keeps the higher ups in a company from trying to screw those lower. Gov regulations try to do that atleast. Without that, there's no standards. Dont live in an immaginary world where goveernaments are just screwing you by making sure that the lower class has some rights atleast.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:19:21 2011 No.2434494

>>2434478
The market is like a greedy algorithm that optimizes locally while failing to optimize globally.

There are many cases were greedily increasing hotdog production will cause massive costs to the system as a whole but it will not raise the cost of hotdogs until it is way too late.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:19:21 2011 No.2434496 >>2434478 yes, but when a computer does it, it does not do so with the intention of making hot dogs more expensive, so that those providing the hotdogs get a great deal and those buying can barely afford to buy them

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:20:21 2011 No.2434497 >>2434478 First I dont see how a computer could not do this but sure if you want a middle man and there was no othere way then fine.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:21:21 2011 No.2434504

>>2434468
You're entirely ignorant of the subject you're talking about.
For example:
>No one helps pay for your education
I'm sure you'll agree that an education is human capital that will make one's efforts in the future more productive. Thus a bank would be willing to loan people money for educations just like they loan people money to develop real estate. This mechanism would provide structure to education prices as well, as when the tuition ceased to be a good investment, banks would stop lending to students. Go crack open an econ text before you post again.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:21:21 2011 No.2434506

>>2434468
Yes, actually, since more people are able to get jobs. Let's say I want two workers, and there are two people who would gladly work for me at the equilibrium wage but, because of the price floor, I can only hire one of them. Instead of two people each getting four dollars we're left with one guy getting six and one person unemployed. It could've worked out if the regulation wasn't stopping us BOTH from getting what we wanted.

Workers' unions are cartels, by the way, and the only thing helping us through their garbage is he incentive to cheat, like people who keep working during a strike. The U.S. government is being idiotic in putting anti-trust laws against it in one market while leaving it perfectly legal in the other.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:23:21 2011 No.2434516 >>2434504 Yay! Now we can start getting student loans at age 5! This is the new way to create slavery in the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:25:21 2011 No.2434522 File: 32 KB, 260x226, monsanto-no-food.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If you want to solve world's hunger, first you have to kill Monsanto

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:25:21 2011 No.2434523

Still don't see how capitalisation is going to cope with the loss of its lower and middle class. I mean, only a small portion of people get undergrads. lets say 25% go do post secondary. (not far off from here in canada at 24%) What happens when 90% of the jobs that went to that 75% not post secondaried are gone? they cant clean houses. We have roombas that do that cheaper then a house cleaner.
Cant work at mcdonalds. We have a computer screen to do that.
Cant work in a factory. Hell, we can't do that now anyways.
Can't work in construction. Construction robots do the majority of this kind of work now.

Thats alot of unemployment guys. How could a capitalist system deal with this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:25:21 2011 No.2434525 >>2434506 Now who is ignorant? Do you have any idea who companies treated workers before laws were passed to make things more fair? It is staggering the exploitation that took place.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:25:21 2011 No.2434527

>>2434496
>with the intention of making hot dogs more expensive
Do you know what equilibrium is? Companies can't just charge whatever they want and still expect to turn a profit. They have COMPETITION to deal with, unlike in your system. Competition allocates the resources to keep the proper goods going to the proper places; for example, more scarce things being more expensive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:25:21 2011 No.2434528 File: 19 KB, 310x279, sweatshop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434506 Welcome to China

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:26:21 2011 No.2434533

>>2434489
You're right about that. Time is also a cost, that is, people prefer things now to things later.
>There's no invisible hand that has been described by economists for 300 years guys, the government is made up of perfect human beings only trying to help the little guy
Delusional.
>>2434480
>they do not create the best they can with the lowest resources, they create what gives them greater profit
I guess you won't understand why I laughed my ass off at this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:27:21 2011 No.2434541 >>2434506 OH GOOD. we can hire both, and pay them both a fraction of what they normally get. In fact why not pay them less than half of minimum wage while we're at it. just to save a bit on cost. Both people are desperate. We can do that to them.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:28:21 2011 No.2434546

ITT faggots

There is no way to make a good system, and anarchy is even shittier than having a system.

There will never be peace. Forget the promise of progress for the only thing that progresses is our ability to slaughter. Forget the promise of science for all the power in the world will only make use stronger, never kinder. Forget the power of hope for it is a delusion of the soft hearted. Forget the the empty phase of equality for men are not born equal in body, mind, or stature. Forget the promise of an easy life, for even with no physical labor there will be only endless toil. Forget the promise of brotherhood and shared wealth, for greed has burned a hole in our hearts that cannot be filled. Forget empathy, kindness, love for they are merely errant programs. There will be no remorse, no respite, no pity, no rest; only never ending conquest. There will be no peace found among the stars, only and eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the the laughter of thirsting Gods.

But take heart for through it all humanity will endure, because it is what we do. We are indefatigable, we will suffer forever and never stop. Man will witness the last stars burn dim, then fade into darkness with them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:28:21 2011 No.2434547 >>2434527 competition also forces people to pay there workers as little as possible to have an edge. also if you watched the movie it explains how so many resources would be saved without this system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:29:21 2011 No.2434548 >>2434546 wat?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:30:21 2011 No.2434550

>>2434533
you misunderstand me comrad. The gov. is not made up of perfect people. dont be stupid. Its made of people. But they have an interest in you. even if they can betray that loyalty, their loyalty is to their public. A company has no loyalty to anyone but themselves. So you see why I am skeptical to believe that someone with NO interest in your well being is going to try to help you more than someone who's OFFICIAL responsibility is to helping you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:31:21 2011 No.2434557 >>2434548 He started with a very good point, which turned into the 40k tagline. >IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:31:21 2011 No.2434560

>>2434527
Competition only really works when the products are pretty much identical between competitors, there is a well regulated marketplace to maintain the similarities, and customers have good access to information, and all other things are pretty much equal.

This pretty much only describes commodities. In all other cases competition is less than perfect. Worse, in many cases there is collusion to fix prices.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:32:21 2011 No.2434563

>>2434523
People have been saying this since the invention of the spinning frame, I'm fairly certain there will be things for people to do. Also
>implying people who get undergrad degrees are much more creative or intelligent than those that don't
Nice elitism, go to the real world some time. I'm an EE and I work with a lot of skilled and bright folks who just didn't think that a BSc was worth the time.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:32:21 2011 No.2434566

>>2434506
We can pay them half. Because we can. We can also have them work double time, with no protective gear. When they get hurt from the lack of protective gear, we replace them, at no cost to us. They were expendable and tehre were 10 more people like tehm to be hired. we can do this as much as we want.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:33:21 2011 No.2434573

>>2434541
So what's worse? Both getting paid four, or one getting six while the other gets none? You should realize if I charge TOO low, no one will work for me. Price controls can be ineffective--as in literally having no influence.

If there was a price ceiling on gum saying that it couldn't be sold for more than $80, that wouldn't affect anything since nobody's trying to sell it for that much anyway. Same goes for a price floor set below equilibrium being ineffective. Wage is just the price of a different market, and it has an equilibrium that people are willing to work at.

If people don't want to work for me, they'll go elsewhere. That's competition. If I drop my wages to the absurd, my competitors see this and respond.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:33:21 2011 No.2434575

Guys, really. Social democracy solves all the problems of pure capitalism without the bullshit of the Zeitgeist "solution", which IS communism, BTW.

Strongly progressive taxes go to pay for universal health care, education, and unemployment benefits. Income inequality is drastically limited, you still have the right to do what you want with your own property, and you don't lose the efficiency and adaptability of free markets. Because we're tried central planning, and that doesn't work.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:35:21 2011 No.2434585

>>2434560
Perfect competition is the creation of misguided mathematicians trying to describe a world they'd never been involved in (business). Despite what Paul Samuelson would tell you, there were suitable non-mathematical definitions of competition before neoclassicism.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:37:21 2011 No.2434599

>>2434566
Woah, looks like nobody knows what competition is. People will go to the better choice. If I have shitty conditions, people will go work in a safer factory. The hellish conditions that people talk about in sweatshops are ignoring the fact that those people have no CHOICES. There's literally nowhere else for them to work apart from selling their bodies. Competition doesn't exist in that situation so the quality and wage can't be fought over.

I'm done, you guys. Try to take a class and consider the mathematics behind what you're talking about instead of just perpetuating rumors.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:40:21 2011 No.2434612

>>2434563
Its a sample. a way to make the numbers simpler. In short, we can say that 25% of the population has some skills to bring to the table. (also, this was all post secondary, including community college, so I'm including quite a few fields that even now dont' need to exist, lets assume that there are some who graduate and dont do anything, and some who do and do something)
And people have NOT been saying this since the spinning wheel. People have been saying it since the pattern began reversing its self. Tech like that has up until now just made it easyer to have teh work go smoothly. Now its making it so that no one has to be there. Those fields of employment are going away quickly. It happened with factory work. It actually happened slowly enoguh not to be noticed, but it caused alot of unemployment. Especially in rural areas that used to have just one factory to support a town. Now that its moved and been automated, its a town unemployed. Going to die quickly. This was partly absorbed into service industry. But that wont last either. Where will service, and its factory refugees go to now? dont' say we'll think of something. thats like saying my project will finish its self.
We're running out of places to put unskilled people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:41:21 2011 No.2434628 >>2434599 AND WITH NO REGULATION ALL SHOPS WILL OPT TO GO SWEATSHOP. Its not that there will be people going to the better choice, because without the regulation, there WILL be no better option.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:41:21 2011 No.2434629 >>2434573 And thats why I want to promote the venus project

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:42:21 2011 No.2434635 >>2434599 I dunno. china seems to have lots of "choice" on the matter, and its pretty uniformly sweaty.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:42:21 2011 No.2434637 >>2434573 I'd argue that minimum wage is about making it unprofitable to offer jobs are unproductive. If you can only afford to offer half minimum wage is the job really worth getting done?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:42:21 2011 No.2434638

>>2434612
>We're running out of places to put unskilled people.
And it really shouldn't be a problem. If a technological advance really does put some people out of a job, all the same work is still being done. Surely the world is not less wealthy as a result. Increased socialization makes the concern of unemployment a non-factor. And that, I think, is the solution going forward. It's already working very well in many parts of Europe. In the ones where it isn't working, they've become *too* socialized - lots of benefits, but not enough real work being done.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:44:21 2011 No.2434654 Guys, really, both sides have made their point very well. Pure capitalism and pure socialism are both retarded. Do something in the middle instead.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:44:21 2011 No.2434656

>>2434599

Ah I see the problem. You seem to be under the impression that people have a choice where they get jobs after they have been laid off and can't pay the bills.... much like what has been happening the last two years. People want to work, but there is no work for them, so they take whatever shitty job is thrown their way to make ends meet. That is exactly why the floor is necessary - to make sure people aren't forced into absolutely hazardous jobs that they don't have much of a choice but to take.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:45:21 2011 No.2434662

Minimum wage is a way of saying "If you are going to offer a job to somebody that will take most of there vital energy and time for a work week then you must also provide them with a wage that will support their needs."

If you make a person work 40 hours a week for less than it takes to buy food and shelter then you are ruining that person and treating them like an animal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:46:21 2011 No.2434673 >>2434654 >>2434654 >>2434654 This. Guys. Srsly. Guys. Srsly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:47:21 2011 No.2434684 >>2434638 Well if unemployment is a non factor, then it seems to get pretty zeitgeisty in here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:49:21 2011 No.2434690 >>2434684 Not really. Look at the social democracies in Scandinavia. They're doing great, in just about every metric I know of that relates to human welfare.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:50:21 2011 No.2434696

>>2433959
>>2434112
>>2434171
>>2434293
>>2434338
>>2434394
>>2434411
>>2434424
>>2434468
>>2434480
>>2434489
>>2434494
>>2434516
>>2434525
>>2434547
>>2434550
>>2434560
>>2434628
>>2434656
>>2434662
ITT: Venusfags have no economic understanding whatsoever

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:51:21 2011 No.2434704

Checking if the thread exists: >>2433959.html
The thread has been found, continue processing.

Thanks for your request.
It has been added to our database and the thread will be archived as soon as enough request for that thread have been made.
This thread has been requested 1 times now.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:52:21 2011 No.2434708

>>2434628
>because without the regulation, there WILL be no better option.
Firms are incentivized to improve their conditions so more people will work for them. If you own a firm on level ground with everyone else, you'll realize making machines that don't tear people's arms off tends to get more people coming to work for you than the other guys. You have very good reasons to improve conditions in a free market. China is capitalistic economically but their market isn't free.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:52:21 2011 No.2434712

Its a pity we have never placed societies in parallel and tested this. Have one part of the country dedicated to a true social democracy, another to no holds barred libertarianism. Another to Venus project like state. And then record the results in parallel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:54:21 2011 No.2434721 >>2434654 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:55:21 2011 No.2434725 >>2434704 OH NO YOU DIDN'T YOU FUCKER WE'VE ALREADY HAD THIS THREAD LIKE SIX TIMES

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:55:21 2011 No.2434726 >>2434696 >> People view the world differently from me so they must not have even thought about economics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:55:21 2011 No.2434729 >>2434712 It's called history and everybody always complains that their ideology hasn't been given a fair shake (mostly utopian lefties)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:55:21 2011 No.2434730 >>2434708 True, unless of course the standard is to work in poor conditions. Then it becomes a choice of working for the shitty guy for shitty pay or working for the really shitty guy for slightly less shitty pay.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:56:21 2011 No.2434735

>>2434696
that assumes that no one else has those conditions, or that you have way more work than people. What if the opposite happens to be true. Without regulation, everyone regresses to late 1800s quality of employment. Every factory floor is dangerous more or less equally. And tehre are lots of people who want a job, and are willing to deal with the shitty work. They need to feed their family, so they'll deal with it. And the company knows that there are 10 people at the door waiting for the job.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:56:21 2011 No.2434736 >>2434696 I was fully expecting to be proven wrong. sadly you failed. It seems you dont have any idea of how capitalism works if you dont think a company will try to pay its workers as little as possible.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:56:21 2011 No.2434739

>>2434721
I know what you're saying. But I'm basing the argument on what actually works in the real world, i.e., the social democracies of the world that have been doing fantastic lately. And how pure capitalism and pure socialism have also shown themselves to be terrible mistakes.

It would be a fallacy to conclude that just because two extremes are bad, the compromise is good. But in this case, it happens to be true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 00:57:21 2011 No.2434740 >>2434708 Why do free marketards always assume that all bad things are automatically taken care of by their consequences? People with power have a tendency to make consequences go away!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:00:21 2011 No.2434761 >>2434704 Im the op and even I think this is a bad idea.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:01:21 2011 No.2434767

>>2434729
Thats not at all scientific though. Thats the problem. Its just hey, the way things panned out in a VERY complicated system with HUNDREDS of unchecked variables is a good indication of what is better given a general situation.
A fair comarison. Give all the societies equal starting ground. None of that bullshit, communism was bad in russia thus its bad everywhere. Russia started out poor, and so it industrialised in a brutal way. Dont you think that MIGHT have had something to do with how they turned out? History is not a scientific way to look at civilisation. Its unfortunate that we dont perform this kind of social experimentation on a large scale in a scientific manner.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:05:21 2011 No.2434783

>It seems you dont have any idea of how capitalism works if you dont think a company will try to pay its workers as little as possible.

Let's imagine this scenario for a second.

Due to automation and the application of A.I., there are only two million jobs for people who are not geniuses left in a country of three million. Pretty much everybody competes for those two million jobs. Now, what reason would a company have NOT to pay their workers in dirt?

If you say something like "but the additional productivity would free people up to do other things, so the rest would find jobs in other, less menial fields" - these other less menial fields often require a certain level of talent or skill that most people simply don't have.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:07:21 2011 No.2434796 File: 843 KB, 320x219, 1296100645001.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434729 >empirical examination of history >bad for lefties >European social democracies are doing the best by pretty much every metric there is, right now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:09:21 2011 No.2434806 >>2434796 This. Center-left socioeconomic policy is best economic policy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:11:21 2011 No.2434812 >>2434783 In a tvp people don't care to get payed so it would not matter. Also when people can go to college for free and science is the Center of are culture then we can expect many knowledgeable people

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:13:21 2011 No.2434824

>>2434796
Compared to what? USA, Japan, and Korea aren't a social democracy and beat the shit out of most European social democracies. Also, there are social democracies outside of Europe and they don't do so hot. Do only European Social democracies "count"?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:14:21 2011 No.2434828

>>2434783
If there is only so much human labor needed, there is clearly enough to go around. Moderate socialization means that no one is forced to work to survive. Those who don't want the job can do something else, those who do want it and get it have extra money for luxuries or starting their own businesses, those who want the job and don't get it at least won't go hungry.

A purely capitalist system always has this "work for me or starve" problem. That's why it's a bad idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:15:21 2011 No.2434833 >>2434824 >Compared to what? USA, Japan, and Korea aren't a social democracy and beat the shit out of most European social democracies. On which metrics? I think you'll find you're leaving out some very important ones.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:16:21 2011 No.2434836 File: 9 KB, 467x302, healthincome.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434824 >USA >beat the shit out of most European social democracies >Japan >Not a social democracy

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:17:21 2011 No.2434844 >>2434828 This. If there is such a thing as too little motivation to work then you should also be open to the idea that there could be too much as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:23:21 2011 No.2434885 File: 9 KB, 277x182, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434833 >On which metrics? GDP Growth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:24:21 2011 No.2434897 File: 13 KB, 547x332, Capture2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434833 >>On which metrics? GDP per capita, median household income

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:25:21 2011 No.2434899 File: 35 KB, 517x373, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434885 GDP is a horrible measure of increases in the quality of life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:25:21 2011 No.2434907 >>2433959 >resource based economy shut the fuck up

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:26:21 2011 No.2434908 >>2434885 When did that become more important then health?

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sat Jan 29 01:26:21 2011 No.2434915 >>2434907 IT'S NOT LUDDISM WHEN WE DO IT

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:28:21 2011 No.2434921

>>2434885
Zeitgeist is bullshit, but even they understood that it's a terrible metric.

I'd post some pics, but they're already up on /sci/. What about Gini coefficient? Mobility? Self-evaluation of quality of life? Life expectancy? Freedom of the press? Lack of corruption? Size of prison population? Scientific literacy? Quality of health care? Infant mortality rate?

If you haven't guessed, the US isn't doing so hot in any of those.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:28:21 2011 No.2434922 File: 110 KB, 1329x848, Capture3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434885 Sorry, that one's not readable. Here's a better one:

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:29:21 2011 No.2434928 File: 435 KB, 1512x2092, incomeshares.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >A rising tide lifts all boats. Oh, would you look at that? No, it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:29:21 2011 No.2434929 >>2434897 also this thread is about a movie that states several times that GDP so putting it in a thread like this is the worst thing you can do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:31:21 2011 No.2434940 File: 44 KB, 519x362, happiness-map.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2434899 >GDP is a horrible measure of increases in the quality of life. OK, if you don't like objective measures in happiness, how about subjective ones?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:31:21 2011 No.2434943 communism is just an idea. one that has never actually existed, and never will. but you have to be delusional if you think humanity will ever advance under the system of capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:32:21 2011 No.2434945 >>2434915 So now Zeitgeist's techno-Marxism is the only society with technology now? To oppose it is to oppose technology?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:33:21 2011 No.2434953 >>2434929 >also this thread is about a movie that states several times that GDP so putting it in a thread like this is the worst thing you can do. Zeitgeist movies also state that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't really care to humor their insanity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:34:21 2011 No.2434968 >>2434940 Scandinavia and the US rate the same? Apparently nothing can be concluded from this data as to whether one is better than another. I want to post my pics, but they're already on /sci/ and I don't know where.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sat Jan 29 01:35:21 2011 No.2434975 File: 30 KB, 265x265, 0000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This shit's got to go.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:36:21 2011 No.2434979

>>2434943
>but you have to be delusional if you think humanity will ever advance under the system of capitalism.
>cursory review of the western world over the past 100 years
Yeah, you're retarded.

But pure capitalism is just as stupid as pure socialism. We're somewhere in the middle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:37:21 2011 No.2434986 >>2434975 Social democracies. All of your concerns, negated. All of your complaints, solved. How? Progressive taxes, which limit income inequality, and go to fund universal healthcare, education, and unemployment benefits. No need to be a Marxist.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:38:21 2011 No.2434994
File: 241 KB, 590x969, spending life expectancy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2434940
>>GDP is a horrible measure of increases in the quality of life.

>OK, if you don't like objective measures in happiness, how about subjective ones?

>GDP
>Objective measure of happiness
>measure of happiness at all

WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING? MORE COMMERCE IS GOING THROUGH MY HOME COUNTRY, THEREFORE I PERSONALLY AM HAPPIER. YEP. TOTALLY WORKS THAT WAY.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:38:21 2011 No.2434995 >>2434953 I dont believe in conspiracies and either does the film maker any more. The venus project idea was not made by the film maker either. This has nothing to do with the venus project or if it will work or not.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:39:21 2011 No.2435000

>>2434968
>Scandinavia and the US rate the same? Apparently nothing can be concluded from this data as to whether one is better than another.

Scandanavia is only one social democracy. If you compare the US to France, UK, Italy, and Germany, the US has higher subjective happiness.

My general point is that if you compare the US to the few social democracies who do better and ignore all the social democracies who do worse, you are cherry picking your results.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sat Jan 29 01:40:21 2011 No.2435007
File: 204 KB, 726x833, 1294552696037.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2434986
To be honest I do prefer something closer to the Venus Project's resource-based economy and automated workforce. I'm just not going to try and attempt it until it requires virtually zero human help.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:40:21 2011 No.2435015 >>2434994 What, amount of money is proportional to, happiness, at least for me. A higher GDP means more happy people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:40:21 2011 No.2435016 >>2434995 >This has nothing to do with the venus project or if it will work or not. Then don't bring up what the movie says about gdp if it has nothing to do with the venus project.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:41:21 2011 No.2435018

>>2434979
i'm retarded because you have terrible reading comprehension? i never said humanity hasn't advanced with capitalism in the past. i asked whether you think humanity is going to advance (from where we are now, genius) by continuing with a system that rewards profit over usefulness.

why is it that /sci/ claims to be the most intelligent board, but is absolutely terrible with plain language? first thing you should have asked is what i mean by advance, rather than just calling me retarded. but then again, /sci/ is filled with people full of themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:41:21 2011 No.2435021 >>2435000 I want to post my stats so damn hard. But I keep getting duplicate file entries, and I don't know where they are, to link them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:42:21 2011 No.2435026 >>2435000 Yeah, and the happiest states are also the most religious states. Anyway this is offtopic, not sure what your point is..

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:42:21 2011 No.2435027 >>2435016 Its a different movie so ti has a different message but whatever

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:42:21 2011 No.2435028 >>2435018 Historical trends are the best indication of future trends. Surely YOU, who feel competent to throw such insults around, can understand this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:43:21 2011 No.2435035 thisiswhereilive.com Enjoy that, also I'm pretty sure the only way to un-fuck our world economy is to start over on another one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:43:21 2011 No.2435036 >>2435026 That the US is just peachy, and becoming a little more socialized wouldn't be good.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:43:21 2011 No.2435039

>>2434986

'Marxist' is a vague term.

Marx never really went into detail about how a worker's state would be run. Social democrats have as much claim to be carrying the torch as Leninists do, and indeed, social democracy originated as a current of Marxism.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:43:21 2011 No.2435042

>>2434994

Graphs like that are so ignorant it makes me laugh. You take a sample of two non-universal healthcare countries, one of which has very good life expectancy for spending and one of which has very bad, and try and draw some conclusions.

I shudder to think what your t statistic would be if you ran a statistical test.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:44:21 2011 No.2435043

>>2435028
which insult did i throw? that /sci/ is full of people who are full of themselves? you new to this board?

also, historical trends are irrelevant to the future, they only represent the past as it is related to the present. surely you, who is full of himself, can understand that?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:44:21 2011 No.2435045
File: 24 KB, 590x442, half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2435015
>The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.

Doesn't mean that each individual is getting a decent slice of it, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's being distributed evenly.

You can be dirt poor in a country with a really high GDP. *Most* people can be dirt poor in a country with a really high GDP, if the vast majority of the profits go to 10% of the population.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:44:21 2011 No.2435049

>>2435035
Pessimistic AND totally out of touch with reality. Nice.

"Start over" is not a helpful suggestion. You might as well say "let's all go live on the moon".

But more socialization will solve all the "evils of capitalism" in the US. Don't get your panties in a knot, guys. Marxism has NEVER been the answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:46:21 2011 No.2435058 >>2435039 >Social democrats have as much claim to be carrying the torch as Leninists do, and indeed, social democracy originated as a current of Marxism. >Social democrats = marxism >personal property and a free market Yeah, no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:46:21 2011 No.2435061 >>2435042 you think that the US has "very good" life expectancy for spending? go back and re-read that chart.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:46:21 2011 No.2435064 >>2435035 Disregard that, it's the wrong URL. The right one is uhhh... ifitweremyhome.com Fuck my memory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:47:21 2011 No.2435066 >>2435043 >historical trends are irrelevant to the future What the fuck am I reading. Are you basing your predictions on something OTHER than data on the past?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:48:21 2011 No.2435072 >>2435026 >Anyway this is offtopic, not sure what your point is.. Um, well that's the direction the thread has turned. We're comparing social democracy to a US capitalist model.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:50:21 2011 No.2435080

>>2435072
The inherent difficulty is that we can't perform controlled tests. We can't BOTH make the US more socialized AND know what would have happened otherwise.

All we can do is look at trends in history, and the current state of the world.

And you know what? I'd rather live in a social democracy.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:50:21 2011 No.2435082

>>2435058
>personal property and a free market

Marxism has never strictly forbidden these things. I could also argue all property is common property under the (worker's) state because the people have access to it through taxes which are used to fund social programs.

Marxism is an abstract school of thought. Marxism-Leninism is a strict doctrinal system. Learn the difference; it could save your life.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:51:21 2011 No.2435088

>>2435066
what predictions? that humanity as a species won't be advancing very much further as long as pure capitalism is the dominant force in politics and philosophy? that isn't based on the past, it's based on how humanity is fairing NOW.

that, in fact, is the whole point of our little disagreement. the "advances" in the past, under a restrained capitalism, don't inherently mean that advances in the future will be as significant or as useful. if we have this form of capitalism, in which any type of restraint on the richest and wealthiest is considered tyranny and worthy of "second amendment" solutions.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:52:21 2011 No.2435092

>>2435082
>Marxism has never strictly forbidden these things.
ORLY? Then I'll back off of using that label. But "Communism" certainly fits what Zeitgeist is proposing. And in that model, there most certainly isn't any personal property OR a free market.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:54:21 2011 No.2435097

>>2435088
>that isn't based on the past, it's based on how humanity is fairing NOW.
Technology is progressing at the fastest pace in history. Don't be asinine.

>. if we have this form of capitalism, in which any type of restraint on the richest and wealthiest is considered tyranny
Hey, I'm the guy advocating heavily progressive taxes and egalitarian social institutions (universal health care, education, and unemployment benefits). A social democracy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:54:21 2011 No.2435102 >>2435092 Sure and?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:55:21 2011 No.2435105

>>2435061
>you think that the US has "very good" life expectancy for spending?

Reread what I said:
I didn't say that. But you can't attribute it to Universal Health Care, as opposed to rampant obesity, based on one data point. There is no statistical significance.

>>2435045
Wealth is not income, it is savings. GDP is income. The median American does much better than the median European for income.
See
>>2434897

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:56:21 2011 No.2435111 http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NO

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:56:21 2011 No.2435116

>>2435097
technology is progressing at the fastest pace in history. that's kinda how science works. it advances and advances, but to think that science will automatically keep advancing because it is now is asinine. go take a look at the dark ages. while not entirely dark, science took a long, extended break.

so you agree that humanity as a species needs to be more egalitarian and less capitalistic? did you insert yourself into this conversation, because when i first stated this as a precursor for humanity advancing beyond where we are, i was called "fucking retarded".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:58:21 2011 No.2435126 >>2435080 >All we can do is look at trends in history, and the current state of the world. >And you know what? I'd rather live in a social democracy. You're free to do so, but such a judgment is based on opinion, not statistics.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:58:21 2011 No.2435127

>>2435102
And communism is a terrible idea, as proven time and time again in history. Did I lose the thread of what we were talking about?

>looks at posts
Yeah, maybe I have, since I can't tell who you are going back more than a post or two.

So anyway, tl;dr my posts ITT:
Zeitgeist is communism
Communism is stupid
Pure capitalism is also stupid
Social democracies (capitalism plus some socialism) are better

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 01:59:21 2011 No.2435131 >>2435126 >You're free to do so, but such a judgment is based on opinion, not statistics. I am raging SO hard about not being able to post my pics because of the no-duplicates restriction. arrhgh It IS based on statistics, dammit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:00:21 2011 No.2435134 >>2435116 IIRC, you said that technology would not advance unless we abandoned capitalism.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:00:21 2011 No.2435136

>>2435105
one data point is just that. it certainly doesn't prove causation. but the data does show some correlation. also, i didn't post that graph.

remember that while just one data point, universal health care may very well have a causal relationship with obesity. which is why the graph is just one piece of evidence to look at.

but just disregarding it is foolish.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:01:21 2011 No.2435143 >>2435127 Oh I get it. you want to group the venus project with communism because it makes it easier to just not think about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:02:21 2011 No.2435149 >>2435131 Is it the innovation one? If not then its a weird problem

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:03:21 2011 No.2435151 >>2435143 I'm much more familiar with the new Zeitgeist movie than the Venus project specifically. But what Zeitgeist is proposing is most definitely communism with a centrally planned economy. >>2434027

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:05:21 2011 No.2435161

>>2435136
>which is why the graph is just one piece of evidence to look at.
>but just disregarding it is foolish.

Oh, don't get me wrong there is other evidence to look at, but none of it has been posted here. And I'm sure the graphs this anon is raging about being posted are just more inter-country comparisons which don't help either: it doesn't disentangle all the "fixed effects" of the US: obeseity, racial diversity, or non-universal healthcare.

But if you take those things into account and look at the results, it's not going to be favorable for social democracy. For example, the US has higher infant mortality, but the difference is all in accidents and other types of incidents that universal healthcare wouldn't prevent anyway.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:07:21 2011 No.2435166

>>2435149
I've got Gini coefficient (income inequality), self-evaluation of overall life, mobility, global innovation index, Legatum prosperity index table rankings, corruption perception index from Transparency International, and press freedom index from Reporters Without Borders.

I also have reason to believe that life expectancy, prison population, educational effectiveness, scientific literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, and quality of health care are also in favor of more socialized societies than the US.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:07:21 2011 No.2435168

>>2435134
so you're going to quibble. again, you should have asked me what i meant by advance, rather than just calling me a retard.

by "advance", i mean technologically advance and advance as a peaceful, knowledgeable, somewhat egalitarian species. notice i didn't specifically mention technology. you assumed i meant only technology.

again, asking what i mean by advance is a lot more useful than classifying me as retarded because you misinterpreted what i meant. this seems to be a semantic difference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:08:21 2011 No.2435173 >>2435151 Sure lets say its communism but with better technology and no government. now explain why it will not work.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:09:21 2011 No.2435175

>>2435161
>But if you take those things into account and look at the results, it's not going to be favorable for social democracy.
An extremely bold claim.
>For example, the US has higher infant mortality, but the difference is all in accidents and other types of incidents that universal healthcare wouldn't prevent anyway.
"accidents"? And why does the US get a pass on this one?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:12:21 2011 No.2435186

>>2435173
First off, the "no government" clause was always a fantasy. Someone has to write the control algorithms proposed in Zeitgeist, and that person (or group of people) has complete power. The "no government" clause is not possible to implement, as it is so prone to abuse.

As for the idea of central planning at all, they are horribly inefficient, unresponsive, and prone to disaster. The US had the Great Depression, sure, but they never suffered anything like China's Great Leap Forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

Now you tell me why communism, with technology, is a better idea than a social democracy, with technology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:13:21 2011 No.2435188 >>2435126 lol statistics. If not the god it's at least a major diety of economics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:14:21 2011 No.2435196 >>2435111 That is some sad shit right there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:14:21 2011 No.2435197 >>2435168 Then I apologize for calling you a retard. But I still consider it foolish to choose the extreme of communism, which has failed catastrophically every time is has been tried, when we have social democracy right in front of us.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:15:21 2011 No.2435201

>>2435186
well yes a person has to write a program for the computer to work and that program can be updated.
why do you think this will lead to someone taking all the power for himself when there is enough resources for everyone to live. also the program will be checked for to make sure there isnt an inslave every human part on it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:15:21 2011 No.2435202 >>2435111 >>2435111 >>2435111 This is what I'm talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:17:21 2011 No.2435208 >>2435197 Because the venus project isnt something that has been tried before. You= grouping all non money systems together is like me grouping all money systems together and treating them all the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:18:21 2011 No.2435212 >>2435202 New Zealand - another social democracy. Not as rich, but they're happy. http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NZ

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:19:21 2011 No.2435219

>>2435197
i never chose communism. i simply said capitalism isn't how our species is going to advance.

>>2434943

my personal view, which i haven't really stated as of yet, is that socialism is the best economic system, as it allows individuals to rise to the top through merit, but also diminishes the class inequalities so that the society can function.

any society where there is large income/class inequalities tends to stop functioning.

see: US politics 1970-Present

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:19:21 2011 No.2435221

>>2435208
OK, here we go again. I've already explained that Zeitgeist is proposing communism. Is the Venus Project different?

Explain to me how the Venus Project is not communism (I'm not saying it is). Is there private property? What about a free market? Because Zeitgeist says no to both.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:20:21 2011 No.2435227 >>2435208 don't hijack my conversation. socialism works, communism doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:20:21 2011 No.2435230 >>2435219 Personally, I think going to pure socialism is extremist (dangerous), and doesn't have a good history. Social democracy seems to have the best of both worlds.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:21:21 2011 No.2435235

# How does The Venus Project Compare with Communism?

Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:23:21 2011 No.2435247 >>2435221 I dotn care if it is communism or if it is not. all that matters is if it can work or not and if you cant explain why it will not work then your posts are useless

OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Sat Jan 29 02:23:21 2011 No.2435250
File: 17 KB, 568x533, 1293009930180.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Hmm.

While it's taken almost 300 posts to get there, it seems this thread has moved on from a reactionary shitstorm to actual discussion. The kind where people occasionally may learn something, remarkably.

I'd like to see threads in the future that don't take a hundred posts of "hurr durr zeitgeist" to get to the heart of the issues, which, fundamentally, appear to be sustainability, egalitarianism, automation, and the wide-spread application of the scientific method to societal concerns.

Too much to hope for?
>nah, it'll happen

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:23:21 2011 No.2435253

>>2435235
Thanks. But it didn't answer my question.

Is. There. Private. Property. Or. Not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
>Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.
>In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run by Communist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over.

You seem to think that communism implies a specific economic system. It does not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:23:21 2011 No.2435254 >>2435235 oh and this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:25:21 2011 No.2435260 >>2435253 A person will have the ability to have something and take it to there house and keep it yes. No one would try to take it because they could get the same thing.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:25:21 2011 No.2435263

>>2435175
>"accidents"? And why does the US get a pass on this one?

Well, do you think universal healthcare makes it more or less likely for your kid to fall out of a tree or get hit by a car? You can't be denied emergency care in the US, which accidents are.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:25:21 2011 No.2435264

>>2435247
>I dotn care if it is communism or if it is not.
>all that matters is if it can work or not
Do you need a history lesson? Centrally-planned economies with no private property have a *terrible* history in the past century. Do I really need to list them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:26:21 2011 No.2435268 >>2435260 If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:28:21 2011 No.2435279 >>2435260 So, a stateless and classless society with no private property? Yeah, that's communism. Why are you afraid to own it? Just because you think people misunderstand it? You've already got that problem. Why not be honest?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:32:21 2011 No.2435297 >>2434422 >>2434422 >>2434422 >>2434422 Link to Fresco's car designs?

OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Sat Jan 29 02:32:21 2011 No.2435299

>>2435279
Im sorry, butting in here, but have you actually read Marx? Have you read any of Fresco's shit?

The difference are not merely a matter of description and semantic. If you answered yes to the previous questions, this would be blindingly apparent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:34:21 2011 No.2435308 >>2435299 I'm not referring to Marx directly. And no, I am not familiar with Fresco's "shit". Just the Zeitgeist movie. But really, guys. This is communism. With a centrally planned economy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:35:21 2011 No.2435314 >>2435308 Did you even watch the film?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:37:21 2011 No.2435327 >>2435314 Yes. Did you remember to use critical thinking? If you'd like to contradict something I've said and give support as to why it's not an accurate representation of the views put forth in Zeitgeist, by all means, do so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:39:21 2011 No.2435333 >>2435264 thats not a real point and you know it. It has no money sure but there are many differences between the venus project and things tried before. not to mention technology has improved much better since then

OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Sat Jan 29 02:39:21 2011 No.2435334
File: 17 KB, 200x179, 1292456133209.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2435308
really? really guys? is it guys?

Im sorry, I'd expect this, and allow a pass without comment on any other board, but this is /sci/.
If you're going to make criticism, comparisons, and establish parallels, then you damn sure better be familiar with the topic at hand, right?
Pretty common premise here. I really don't feel Im being out of line, and as an aside, thank you for being honest about it.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:40:21 2011 No.2435340

the problem is that the "resource-based economy" would be wonderful, but is impossible in a global environment, due mostly to human nature. it is communism, but it escapes the BS of the communism term.

the only communism that has ever been practiced was done so when societies were small and tribal. the "communism" that everyone and their sister vomits in the direction of, was socialist statism, which was supposed to come before communism, creating the foundation of communism.

oh, and the zeitgeist is just a longer version of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xB4dbdNSXY

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:41:21 2011 No.2435348
File: 1.06 MB, 1578x890, 1296110679001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I wonder if a set of simple societal rules could be constructed, and a set of memes disseminated, so that the resource-based economy described in that movie could be run in a distributed fashion, without central planning?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:43:21 2011 No.2435361 >>2435340 >human nature someone didnt watch the movie

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:43:21 2011 No.2435362

>>2435334
>>2435333
>>2435314
>>2435299
All of you fail.
>>2434027

Does Zeitgeist say that private property is bad, and propose a society without it? Yes, it does.
Does Zeitgeist propose a society without classes and without a state (government)? Yes, it does.
Does Zeitgeist propose joint ownership of all goods, with equal access? Yes, it does.
On this basis alone, it is communism.

Now for the economics:
Does Zeitgeist propose a centrally planned and controlled economy? Most definitely. They even give the key principles on which the planning will be conducted, and describe it being carried out in the form of computational control algorithms.

So, what do we have? Communism with a centrally planned economy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:44:21 2011 No.2435366 >>2435361 Or didn't swallow the bullshit hook, line and sinker. He's not allowed to disagree with the movie?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:45:21 2011 No.2435368

>the problem is that the "resource-based economy" would be wonderful, but is impossible in a global environment, due mostly to human nature

Not really human nature so much as just the nature of centrally-managed systems: No accountability. That's the grand flaw.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:45:21 2011 No.2435376 >>2435348 Sure. Socialism, but with a free market. Everyone spends their fixed income however they want.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:46:21 2011 No.2435382 >>2435348 Short answer: No. Long answer: No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:46:21 2011 No.2435379 >>2435362 Thats a nice way of posting nothing. Ok you said its communism now explain how this system will not work and dont say hur other non money systems did not work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:48:21 2011 No.2435391 zeitgeistpov.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-this-is-not-socialism.html

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:51:21 2011 No.2435402

>>2435366
>>2435361
i watched the first movie. and i found the idea to be absolutely beautiful.

why own a car, when a repository full of cars is available?

why own a house or apartment, when all i have to do is find one that is empty, move into it, and have possession until i decide to move?

don't feel like working, and want to watch television, play video games, and play with myself? well, since everyone is equal, that's not a problem.

the idea is beautiful, but the problem is getting there. if you can never get there, it is impossible.

my personal feeling is that even if we had the technology and resources to all live like zeitgeist says we can. where people can sit around, do nothing, and live happily, human nature (read: rich and powerful people) would not allow this to happen.

happiness is often relative. ever find yourself rooting against the good guy in a movie? ever take pleasure in someone you find annoying having something bad happen to them?

happiness is relative, and the people who would lose the most in a zeitgeist society would be the richest and most powerful people, who ALREADY control THIS society.

that is my "beef" with the first movie. i haven't watched the second one yet, but i have it Favorited and i will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:53:21 2011 No.2435412 >>2435297 >>2435297 >>2435297 >>2435297 >>2435297 >>2435297 >>2435297 >>2435297 >>2435297 >>2435297 Anyone?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:53:21 2011 No.2435413

>>2435379
The burden of proof is on all of you to show why it *would* work. We've already tried communism with centrally planned economies. The two huge examples are the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China. They quickly devolved into dictatorship with centrally planned economies. Then you get fantastic stuff like the Great Purge (USSR), or the Great Leap Forward (China). How was this resolved? The USSR finally collapsed under its own inefficiency, and became generally capitalist. China also has became capitalist in its economics.

I'm not interested in doing this again. And why would I, when all the concerns brought up by Zeitgeist are answered by progressive taxes and socialized medicine, education, and unemployment?

And don't say that Zeigeist wouldn't turn into a dictatorship. I've already brought up the single concentration of power, and how humans control it. Someone has to write the control algorithms, and that person or someone else will have access to the algorithms thereafter. That kind of control doesn't disappear. Just look at the history of it.

OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Sat Jan 29 02:55:21 2011 No.2435416

>>2435362

Does zeitgeist advocate advancement of technology? yes
Does zeitgeist propose an unmatched model of production? yes
Does zeitgeist concern itself with personal freedom above near all else? yes

Oh look, I can cherry pick too and associate it with capitalism if I like. Correlation and similarity do not an end result make.

Now onto economy- Your equating an establishment of a central bank, people still the modus operandi of production, with an established system of monetary exchange, with a system that incorporates none of these things.
Honestly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:55:21 2011 No.2435417 >>2435402 Then watch the new one that disproves human nature in the op. also no one will be greedy when there is enough resources to go around.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:55:21 2011 No.2435421 >>2435391 Bad link.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:58:21 2011 No.2435427

>>2435416
So, you accept that the Zeitgeist model is communism with a centrally planned economy?

And don't try to say that what we have now is even more centrally planned than what Zeitgeist proposes. That's just false. Just ask China and the US. They sure as hell aren't on the same plan - but they're working on cooperation and compromise.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 02:59:21 2011 No.2435432

>>2435413
those weren't communist. they were statist socialism. the GOVERNMENT owned everything and centrally planned the economy.

communism implies that there is no government, no private property, and no central planning of the economy. EVERYONE owns EVERYTHING (unlike China and the USSR where the STATE owned EVERYTHING).

Communism worked well in tribal societies throughout the beginning of human history, and up to the tribal stage of "society" as we know it.

but once you introduce non-tribal players, a zero-sum relationship pops up in regards to control.

i think the only way true communism could ever return is if humanity dropped all religion and adopted a universal language and culture.

guess how likely that is.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:00:21 2011 No.2435438

>>2435416
>Does zeitgeist advocate advancement of technology? yes
So do I. Zeitgeist is not the only option that advocates technological advancement.
>Does zeitgeist propose an unmatched model of production? yes
You mean the centrally planned economy? This has already been answered - it is inefficient. As for the increasing automation and use of technology, we're already doing that at a rapid pace.
>personal freedom
But no right to property?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:00:21 2011 No.2435439

Remember that big part of communism where people work like crazy to produce 'x' amount of things to give to the government so that they can then give it out to everyone?

Who does that in the film? Robots.

Right there is a huge difference that solves alot of problems (and probably makes new ones)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:02:21 2011 No.2435447 >>2435432 Semantics, IMO. We seem to agree on the facts. The fact that every time communism has been advocated it has turned into, as you said, statist socialism, is why Zeitgeist would be a terrible mistake.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:04:21 2011 No.2435453

>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
>>2435412
I wanna see dem cars ;_;

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:04:21 2011 No.2435454 >>2435439 Yeah, so let's talk about this Zeitgeist thing once the need for human labor has been eliminated, and not before. Until then, as automation and technology advance, social democracies would be stable and no one would starve.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:04:21 2011 No.2435455

>>2435447
right. and while it can be difficult to follow my specific conversation here since i don't use tripcode, you'll find in the rest of my posts that while i admire the idea behind zeitgeist, and the communist philosophy, i don't consider it to be possible.

it is a nice thinking exercise though. the same way the song imagine is a nice thinking exercise set to music.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:05:21 2011 No.2435456 >>2435453 Have you even been googling at ALL, or just expecting someone else to do the work? If so, I think you'd be right at home in the world Zeitgeist is proposing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:07:21 2011 No.2435462 >>2435456 >>2435456 >>2435456 Yes I googled a lot!! I can't find anything. It all links to general information about TVP etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:08:21 2011 No.2435467 >>2435462 Well, then I'll give it a shot too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:09:21 2011 No.2435471 >>2435462 http://www.thevenusproject.com/ you've found it then. took me 10 seconds looking at the site to find the: technology photogallery transportation

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:10:21 2011 No.2435475 >>2435462 This page claims it is 1982 footage of Franco, but I doubt it. http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/rare-1928-footage-of-jacque-frescos-flying-car-invention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vltliIknfg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:10:21 2011 No.2435477 >>2435462 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgORKTp_0ME

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:11:21 2011 No.2435484 >>2435471 I didn't think they'd put his stuff on the VP site. >>2435475 Yeah saw that, seems irrelevant to what the guy said. Thankies

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:11:21 2011 No.2435485 >>2435421 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:13:21 2011 No.2435491 >>2435471 >>2435477 But the guy said they look like modern cars. What gives?

OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Sat Jan 29 03:14:21 2011 No.2435498

>>2435427
For the final time-
An RBE and Communism do. not. mesh.
Yes, there are superficial similarities, you could say that same about objectivism if you really reached for it.
Having already admitted you have not read Marx, or Fresco, Im stunned you're still pressing this point (if you're the same anon, sorry if you're not).

Further, I suggest you re-examine the parameters you're using to define "economy". The kind we know and functions around us, albeit badly, is a function of exchange of labor for goods. The E in RBE refers to a system of an entirely different scale, as a matter of evaluation to production to distribution, on the foundations of human well being and environmental sustainability.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:14:21 2011 No.2435500 >>2435491 hell if i know. i think he might have meant that what he designed back then is what designers are kinda designing now as "advanced" cars.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:21:21 2011 No.2435529 >>2435498 All you've given are flat refusals to concede the point, with no argument. And you expect me to believe you? You're a waste of time if you're not even going to form arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:22:21 2011 No.2435532 >>2435498 >Yes, there are superficial similarities Have you ever stated any differences?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:27:21 2011 No.2435554 >>2435498 >given detailed description of how Zeitgeist is communism >deny it but can't say how it is different from communism LOL Stay classy, man.

OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Sat Jan 29 03:32:21 2011 No.2435577

>>2435529

Communism-

Dependent on human labor
Monetary system of exchange
Central Bank
Military forces
Limited personal mobility (debatable, i know)
Stratified class system
Political bodies

RBE-

no
no
no
no
no
no
no

This is just an appraisal from the proposed tenets of both systems.
I have to admit its a bit ironic that you would complain about forming an argument when, again, you are admittedly arguing without having bothered to actually read up on either system for yourself.

>>2435532
actually I had, here
>>2435416
lower portion

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:33:21 2011 No.2435582

>>2435554
How about I say like communism it doesnt use money. well thats not true russia still used banks. but unlike communism that has been tried no one is forced to do anything. now can you please stop going hur dur its communism and give a real reason why it will not work?

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:35:21 2011 No.2435587

>>2435582
>>2435577
You're redefining "communism". The term itself does not imply an economic system. I said this before.
Can you even give a definition of communism?

I get the feeling you're just refusing the term because you don't like facing the implications.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:36:21 2011 No.2435592 >>2435582 It's been done in this thread. Over and over. And no, not just saying "it's communism". I feel like I'm trying to debunk perpetual motion here.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:38:21 2011 No.2435600

>>2435587
No I understand by definition it could be called communism but Im saying its not like any communist system before it and saying because It didnt work for some crazy guy with a power trips means that it wont ever no matter what you change is stupid.

OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Sat Jan 29 03:41:21 2011 No.2435612

>>2435587
>The term itself does not imply an economic system

Has ANYBODy else ITT read Marx? ffs
Hint- Das Kapital, three fucking tedious VOLUMES of economic theorems.

Guys... we're going in circles here, to absolutely no avail. Im calling it a night. Hopefully we can pick up later.
Have a good Saturday anons.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:42:21 2011 No.2435618

>>2435600
Fine. But all of the specific arguments have been ignored. I'm getting really fucking tired of this. I'll tl;dr a few:

The centralized power is ripe for abuse.

Central planning is only as intelligent as the central planner. No one is intelligent enough to beat a decentralized system of many participants.

There is no stable path to transition - even the movie relies on revolution. The danger is getting stuck in the middle - no capitalism, but no techno-utopian cities either. Going from capitalism to social democracy, on the other hand can be as gradual as needed.

We don't have the technology yet, because we still need almost everyone working to maintain an industrial standard of living.

There are more, but as I'm the last non-Zeigeister ITT, I think I'll take a lesson from the others.

Peruse the thread if you want more. There is certainly a lot that you have left uncontested. Pretend I'm reposting them.

Anonymous Sat Jan 29 03:52:21 2011 No.2435671

>>2435618
1 Last thing before I go to sleep. This thread got much bigger then I thought. Explain how a moneyless system with no one being able to have a position of power would be ripe for someone to take it over because without money you cant really get people to just fallow you for no reason and 2nd they wouldnt want to get power since they could get every resource they already wanted.
2 the venus project will use a lot less resources as well for many reasons. they are explained in the movie and to tired to explain my self and 3 I will agree that the transition will be hard. Thats why we want to get a lot of people aboard this because the more people who like it the easier it will be.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math