Search the Community

TZM is offering a 1000 word or less essay challenge of a Resource Based Economy. The authors will be invited onto their radio talk show for discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gagFoqkepRs

TZM tzm tzm. you say we should get rid of money.let's say we achieve an RBE (resource based economy).are people free to do what they want? what if they create a cryptocurrency like bitcoin? supercomputers is not a magical answer to infinite everything. scarcity will still exist, whether it be in the form of gold, bottlenecks on production capabilities, inflexibility of capital goods, or limited living space in 3d.When the supercomputer cannot create the things people want in time, people will want to exchange among themselves. But how do you trade a car for some bread? how much is worth what? And lots of goods don't last very long, how will save up to trade those? They also need to barter, because there is no medium of exchange.People will naturally start instituting money in one form or another - (again, stop with the delusion that suptercomputers will put an end to scarcity. if it's not infinite, it's scarce. It just means the world will be able to support a lot more people, but once that limit is reached, scarcity will apply once again).So once a currency is instituted, there will be so many advantages to it, that it will stick around. TZM ppl like Peter Joseph say states are a natural result of freedom of action and wanting better for yourself in competition with others. Well, that's questionable. What's more solid is that media of exchange will arise naturally in an RBE.Now My big question is this: Will the people in charge of the central RBE system forcibly outlaw and ban money, in order to maintain the RBE? Or will people be free to do what they want, and use whatever media of exchange they want (or not) under an RBE? Will they be "cut off" from receiving resources from the RBE supercomputer, or in reduced amounts (I know you will say "no", but scarcity will hit, so that is not a legitimate answer). Will you support the RBE system to the point of disallowing the monetary system that was so reviled by TZM-ers? Will you engage in force to stop monetary systems from coming back alive? Will money be the new 'sin" of the new "state"?And while we're at it, when scarcity hits, and everything is free, how do "runs" or flocking to deplete the resource about to become in shortage get prevented? In a market system, prices go up, and you have a nautrally self-regulating feedback mechanism, which also sends signals to tell people to produce more of it and increase the supply. if you can push a button and just get it, you've essentially engaged in price-fixing, so you will get the same results as rent-control: no additional housing development, and massive shortage of housing (or the particular good). *edit: tries really hard not to calling TZM-ers economic illiterates, and instead posts this instead.My real question and purpose of this thread is to inquire about the policy and use of force of the RBE / TZM utopia, knowing that the time would come when they'd have to face that decision. You do have to face that decision because scarcity is not gone with a supercomputer whose magical algorithm is not even being developed by TZM as far as i know.Also, is there only one super computer that handles all the variables of everyone's supplies and demands and preferences and tastes? or can there be multiple? If multiple, who decides which computer governs which area or number of people? If so, is there a central management group that does this? What if everyone wnats to work for that? Who says they can or can't? Can there be overlapping of geographic or person coverage by different supercomputers? Why is it so deplorable to rely on supply and demand, property rights, voluntary trade, and the price mehcanism, which accomplishes things that no central supercomputer can't? the supercomputer would have to tap into everyone's brains (or just get super super scarily accurate in predicting what people want) to be anywhere near accurate. privacy issues. do we even want such a computer? Isn't that much power just a giant barrel of gunpowder waiting to be lit up by a violent sociopath that works for the world's suptercomputer department? It hardly seems stable from a game theory point of view.I used to be pretty ignorant, but critical of anarchy before i heard how it would work and all of the game theory objections were addressed by podcasts 1,2,64,131,and 203. So it's possible I'm being like that again about RBE. But i've yet to hear any real address to these issues. Why not have a king of the hill approach to truth? Science seems to do that just fine. But seriously, if we're going to talk, you have to accept that scarcity is not rid of by a supercomputer (again, which you aren't building). You have to learn basic economic principles. edit: excuse the grammar and the spelling. I just don't really care that much. Infer or impose whatever irrational, or statistically true judgement you want. I'm more concerned about the substance of the discussion, and if you're not, then do what you want. If I'm making money with this, or doing it for some professional thing, I'd consider it, but I just don't care. Just like I don't wear suits in my own home or when I visit my neighbor's house.

Who is Nikola Danaylov? From the about on his website: Philosopher, infopreneur, blogger and popular podcast host, Nikola Danaylov was born in Bulgaria. ... ... For the past 4 years Nikola has published and edited over 600 articles and conducted more than 120 interviews with the world’s best known experts. He has spoken at public events on topics ranging from technology, transhumanism and the technological singularity to new media, blogging and podcasting. Nikola has also been interviewed himself for numerous documentary films, blogs, podcasts, magazines and newspapers. His own Singularity 1 on 1 interviews have been featured on international TV networks as well as some of the biggest blogs in the world such as io9 and BoingBoing. Today Singularity Weblog is the biggest independent blog on related topics. The unique Singularity 1 on 1 podcast is the most popular and widely recognized interview series in the niche and, according to Prof. Roman Yampolski He has interviewed many notable people such as Ray Kurzweil, Noam Chomsky, Aubrey de Grey, and many others. interviewed Peter Joseph in July of this year. Some of it clarifies that the Zeitgeist movement is a collectivist system. The youtube video of the interview is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcyDxNic1ao

Stefan recently interviewed G. Edward Griffin (August 20th 2013). Great interview and in doing a little more digging (mind you I had come across G. Edward Griffin before in documentaries & lectures) I found he did some great work back in the 1980's. He is an author and lecturer, The most famous book he wrote and published in 1994 was "The Creature from Jekyll Island" about the Federal Reserve and how it was created. You must watch this interview G Edward Griffin did with an EX KGB defector in 1983, "Yuri Bezmenov": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4 There was a another lecture with Yuri in 1983 called "Subversion": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQoGMtE0EY This information was way a head of its time. Unfortunately they never had the internet 30 years ago. All of what is happening around us with the state controllers tightening their grip was outlined by Yuri 3 decades ago; Politics, Media, Economics, are all flowing a doctrine in state control methodology. Save a little more of your time here is a Wiki page on Yuri: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bezmenov Kindest Regards, OX

I just wanted to thank the final caller on that recent call in show for presenting the Zeitgeist Movement's ideas in a more chewable fashion than Peter Joseph. I think this is the debate that many of us were hoping would happen between Stef and PJ but didn't quite make it there. Even though I think the caller needs to be a bit more rigorous on his definitions of objectivity and subjectivity, I do appreciate him presenting the ideas and enabling a very useful and productive conversation between himself and Stef.