Zeitgeist, looking at the here and now

[Mark Carolus]

Hello FDR users and Stefan.

 

First, i have to say that MAN Stefan, i LOVE your show.

Many of the opinions you have on things like child raising and other things to do with human interaction, are opinions i share with you and opinions i've had even before i ever heard of you.

 

Your shows help reinforce my thoughts on a meriad of things.

Before i started listening to your shows, i felt like i was on my own and that my opinions and feelings were not of this world somehow.

 

I have many things i would like to discuss on this forum, but i will start off with the Zeitgeist thing, seeing as it is a recently discussed subject and therefore fresh in the memory of your listeners/followers.

 

 

There are a couple of facts, which i would like to present to the readers and writers of this forum, in hopes of starting a usefull discussion ( discussion for the purpose of coming to better understanding ).

 

Fact 1:

The production and distribution of various types of food, can be fully automated today.

Cows are already getting milked by machines, fruit and vegetables can be grown in fully automated hydrophonic vertical farms.

The only thing that is not yet automated, is meat production.

At the same time, scientists have already created the first synthetic meat, which tastes like and has the same structure as normal meat, while providing the same nutriants or can in fact be made to have more nutriants.

 

It is also more than likely, that in the very near future, we can just 3D-print meat products in our own kitchen ( this has been done and merely needs to be further refined to be viable )

 

Conclusion:

With current or near future technology, nobody would need to work in the food industry anymore.

 

Fact 2:

Carbon NanoTubes have been available on the open market for some years now and research on them, has concluded that basically..... they can replace pretty much anything from metal to plastic and from semi-conductor to complete computer.

 

It is stronger, lighter and if needed more conductive than any metal.

It can be made to be more heat resistant than any other alloy or substance in use today.

 

You can build up an entire car out of carbon NanoTubes, from wheels to engine and from seats to body parts.

You can build micro-chips and bread-boards out of them.

I can not come up with something it can not make and i have done quite some searching.

 

This fact, coupled with ( again ) 3D printing, will mean that, if unrestricted by market incentive, people can make anything they want when they want it where they want it, including your Ipad or lawn-mower ( so no need to trade with your neighbor )

 

Conclusion:

With current and near future technology, there is no longer a need for people to extract resources from the ground, mines will all be closed and the only thing we need to harvest, is pure carbon, which..... can be automated.

 

 

Fact 3:

 

The first 3D printed house, complete with everything a house needs, has already been realized.

 

Conclusion:

with current technology, there is no need for people to work in construction anymore.

 

 

 

Now, seeing that with current or near future technology, nobody needs to work in mining anymore and nobody needs to work in food production anymore and nobody needs to work in construction anymore, while at the same time seeing that we can create basically anything from the comform of our living-room, what reason would there be, to have money at all?

 

I think that there would only be work for designers , engineers, developers, programmers and techinicians, of which you will NEVER need more than 6-10% of the entire population, in order to function.

This means that, for at least 90% of the worlds population, there would be no need to work ( not need to in the sense that, society is dependant on it to function ).

If there's no real need for 90% of the population to work, what reason is there, to stick to using money?

 

 

I hope i have inspired people to think about this, please refute anything i wrote if you can.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Reason]

If 90% of the population doesn't have a job, how can they afford to live? How does TZM propose the transition to a moneyless society?

[LovePrevails]

Mark, so get the state out the way of these tehnologies and they will come to market as soon as they are more efficient to consumers than the current systems.

[TheRobin]

just because something is available, doesn't mean it's efficient or cheap enough to be implemented. When cellphones first came out, almost nobody could afford them because they were so expensive to produce at that time.

 

But sounds like cool stuff and I'm sure if it's cheaper (i.e. more efficient) than what we have now, producers will implement it (or go out of business eventually)

[zg7666]

The basic problem Peter has is not non-initiation of force (voluntarism) it is property (private property in everyday language), which is in factually (not as adjective) Marxist view of world (mercantilism in its origin). It denies Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy), bodily integrity.

 

And scarcity is strictly defined term in economics: All means are scarce, i.e., limited with respect to the ends that they could possibly serve. If the means are in unlimited abundance, then they need not serve as the object of attention of any human action. For example, air in most situations is in unlimited abundance. It is therefore not a means and is not employed as a means to the fulfillment of ends. It need not be allocated, as time is, to the satisfaction of the more important ends, since it is sufficiently abundant for all human requirements. Air, then, though indispensable, is not a means, but a general condition of human action and human welfare.

Secondly, these scarce means must be allocated by the actor to serve certain ends and leave other ends unsatisfied. This act of choice may be called economizing the means to serve the most desired ends.  -http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap1a.asp#2._First_Implications_

 

So when austrians speak non scarcity, they use "garden of Eden" in thought experiment, a situation where "stuff" need not be allocated. They say something of this nature: food and would drink would materials in your mouth when you had need for it.

As a point for ZGM/TVP people, all mater is limited  (which is not of great importance because of law of marginal utility), but ultimately scarce are time and space (which is also noted in lectures of austrian school, when they talk about "garden of eden")

On the point of automation: Hundred fifty years ago 70% of population in America was working in agriculture, today it is 3-4%, that toes not imply that there is less work to be done, on the contrary. It is productivity and wealth-creation that maters in markets, not a mere existence of jobs.

On this subject please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG9Q9a1kaco

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtjdCa9Divg

[Mike Fleming]

If there's no real need for 90% of the population to work, what reason is there, to stick to using money? 

 

Here's the thing,

 

Money was a concept created by the market (and eventually co-opted by the state).  

 

TZMer's often talk about how they don't like money.  Do you wish to ban it?  And if so, how exactly?

 

If the free market eventually says that it has no use for the money product, just like has happened for many products, that is fine.  But if the market decides it wants money, how will TZMer's deal with this reality?   Personally, I am fine with whatever the free market decides.  When you look at things like Bitcoin for example, it is clear, at this time, the market wants a money system.  

There will always be scarcity of some type.  For example, an original painting.  There is only one of them but, if it is regarded as good, it will be wanted by many.  How does the VP determine who gets it? 

[gwho]

"A gallon of milk is very cheap, and accessible at any nearby store. Doesn't that mean milk is not scarce?" 

"scarce" in the economic sense is not the same as "scarce" in the colloquial sense. Milk is still scarce in the economic sense. This is because there are a limited number of cows, grass, farmland, etc, all of which have opportunity costs associated with them. The industrial revolution vastly increased productivity and output. Even though the cotton gin made cotton processing less of a bottle neck process, cotton and cotton processing was still scarce. Only so many cotton gins could be made, and if you make too many, beyond what is really demanded, then all that is a waste of time, labor, or processing power. Relative to those times, an explosion of productivity if achieved by the Zeitgeist's system would still be scarce. As long as something is not infinite, it is scarce. It is because human desire is infinite. The limit of the ratio of human desire to supply is infinite and not finite. Achieving Zeigeist's economic prosperity would not make it "no longer scarce"As long as scarcity in the economic sense exists, a rationing mechanism is required (which includes production quantities, production rates, production periods, and production ramp phases production/processing power is also a finite resource). If we become so much more abundant in goods on the earth, the population will grow, and then reach a point where things are scarce, whether it be squarefootage of land, squarefootage of ocean if we develop ocean dwelling technology, 3d space of the atmosphere, if we develop gravity defying dwelling technology, amount of food the planet can produce in a given period of time... So then scarcity will hit again. So the zeitgeist solution really needs to address the mathematical limit of the ratio of infinity to non-infinity being infinity, and therefore scarce in the foreseeable future."Resrouced based economy" is not an answer to this. Resources were always limited. Going from a money system of rationing to a supercomputer system of rationing doesn't change this fact. The question still remains - how are you going to decide between making/doing A or B when we do reach the inevitable limits of resources? who gets them and who first? will a car be built, or will 100 desks be built instead?You'd think such foundational economic issues would get addressed quite early on. Jacque Fresco in the 3rd part of the original 3-part zeitgeist movie does not address this. Stefan's first debate with a Zeitgeist person didn't address it. Neither did his debate with Peter from the Zeitgeist movement. All the very intelligent people spokespeople at Zeitgeit do not seem to see this point. Just like how Noam Chompsky is blind to the gun in the room when advocating his social policies, the Zeitgeist people are blind to these basic economics concepts, and skip a bunch of steps when they go from economic observations to mechanism to philosophical conclusion. It always struck me that all of the Zeitgeist proponent spokespeople lacked a level of rigor when developing their macroeconomic conclusions. 

To make a really concise illustration of my point, I'll say this. The talk about 3d printers, supercomputers making possible a huge increase in production doesn't mean it's infinite or will make things no longer "scarce" (a conflation between the colloquial and economic senses of the word).Because the mathematical limit of the ratio of wants to goods will always remain infinity until human nature changes, there will always be scarcity.If people before the industrial revolution saw the vision of how massively wealthier and productive the would could be with machines, and started saying how things won't be "scarce" anymore, those people would be quite disappointed if they lived in the post-industrial revolution, where there was still scarcity due to natural physical limitations. supercomputesr MAY increase that limit by a lot again, but it is nowhere near infinite. So you will run into that limit again. resources may not be the limiting factor, but production rate capacity is also a limitation, and there is still the problem of allocation/rationing.All the talk of magical buttons, talk of human endeavor being art, growing up in non-violent society really aren't sufficient answers. People can still abuse systems. they can still order more than they need. The incentives as far as game theory is concerned can still favor greed and waste, since there is no punishment or personal cost to ordering another house, or car. See, the market mamkes things more costly as they become more scarce. the DRO model handles criminals by creating the proper incentives and disincentives for a given choice of action, so it's all self-sustaining and stable, and promotes good behavior while creating uncoerced disincentives for doing wrong. A solution like the DRO actually addresses issues. The resourced based, supercomputer allocating economy is no where near addressing some basic glaring problems (like "What is the rationing algorithm?" and "how do you deal with opportunity cost?"), let alone being a fully developed plan for organizing society.

[Mike Fleming]

I have a theory that Zeitgeisters don't want to see the end of government because they want to impose their view of the world on the rest of us and they know government is the only mechanism by which they can do so.  So it doesn't surprise me to see Peter Joseph trying to convince people that government will always be around and we are wasting our time trying to rid the world of it.  

 

The end of government and it's faux authority before the Zeitgeisters can impose their vision on the world is a terrible prospect from their point of view.

[Mick Bynes]

I read that if the Zeitgeist world will be a Marxist utopia.  We do not want that.  I certainly do not want that.

[gwho]

Here's the thing,

 

Money was a concept created by the market (and eventually co-opted by the state).  

 

TZMer's often talk about how they don't like money.  Do you wish to ban it?  And if so, how exactly?

 

If the free market eventually says that it has no use for the money product, just like has happened for many products, that is fine.  But if the market decides it wants money, how will TZMer's deal with this reality?   Personally, I am fine with whatever the free market decides.  When you look at things like Bitcoin for example, it is clear, at this time, the market wants a money system.  

There will always be scarcity of some type.  For example, an original painting.  There is only one of them but, if it is regarded as good, it will be wanted by many.  How does the VP determine who gets it?  

This is the kind of basic basic economics that go unaddressed and seemingly uncomprehended by TZM.you still need to exchange things. Things will still be scarce, no matter how much of a great of a computer algorithm (are any TZM people working on the super computer btw?), or how automated and capable manufacturing is.This leads to the problem of coincidence of wants. You can only trade something with someone if they also want your thing. This limits your ability to trade SO much. If you can't imagine, think about fantasy sports, or trading cards where you have to arrange 3 way trades, and forego a lot of potential trades. It facilitates trade.This also leads to the problem of retention of value. Someone who produces food cannot accumulate enough food to buy jet. The food will go bad before he can save up enough, unless he produces a LOT of food, and the jet maker so happens to want that much food.You cannot get around these two facts. You may argue that scarcity won't be an issue in an RBE, but that is not true. it always will be. Once population rises, you will reach limitations once again, just as we reached limitations after the industrial revolution. If it's not infinite, it's scarce, and it simply raises the possible population ceiling, which gets reached. How would RBE address these two issues? Answer in DETAIL please. I've already heard all of the hand-wavy leaps of logic, and the misunderstood, oversimplified economic platitudes by Jacque, Peter, and other TZM members. Their answers are not sufficient, or valid.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyBnaYCUhwThis is basic basic basic basic basic economics. It blows my mind TZM people do not even attempt to address these cogently with some substance after having heard these objections. If they really wanted to make a great society, wouldn't they work out the holes and objections in their proposition not only to gain more supporters, but to actually know and make sure for themselves it is doable and functional with a greater degree of confidence and reliability? Wouldn't they want to make their case as strong as possible, as well as make sure your plan is actually feasible? Building a society is a lot like engineering a machine. You are subject to all the laws of reality (phsyics), or in TZM's case, economics and human nature. Even if they did somehow convince everyone and achieved their plan, what good would it be if that plan could not stand up to reality? I know TZM people want the best, and would definitely not want for their plan to be futile or impossible.So what gives? ADDRESS these fundamental problems that you cannot avoid. Don't delude yourself with oversimplifications and a very shaky understanding of foundational economics. Either face up to the idea that your idea of scarcity and how things would play out is oversimplified and delusional, or make the case that it's not. Either address the coincidence of wants problem an the retention of value problem without money in detail (not just a hand-wavy "supercomputer" answer, which isn't even being worked on), or admit your ideas have some serious flaws (and no one is saying they can't be worked on and developed further).

 

Don't even get me started on the stability of the system - the flaws of preventing corruption, all very predictable by applying game theory.

[Guest darkskyabove]

This is the kind of basic basic economics that go unaddressed and seemingly uncomprehended by TZM.

 

Not just TZM. It appears to be a universal flaw that only a tiny minority of humans are willing and able to confront reality head-on. My personal guesstimate is that if people honestly studied economics all the hand-wavy wishes and assumptions would die a fiery death in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, this would also apply to the result from people honestly studying any branch of philosophy.

 

I am beginning to think that the uncurable disease of humanity is arrogance. Why else would so many people invest so much time and effort claiming they have some right to tell everyone else what to do?

 

Which brings up my main contention with TZM (though it applies equally well to just about everyone): Are you so arrogant to think that I would rather do what you say than to be free to act on my own, even if my own actions result in mistakes?

[gwho]

Not just TZM. It appears to be a universal flaw that only a tiny minority of humans are willing and able to confront reality head-on. My personal guesstimate is that if people honestly studied economics all the hand-wavy wishes and assumptions would die a fiery death in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, this would also apply to the result from people honestly studying any branch of philosophy.

 

I am beginning to think that the uncurable disease of humanity is arrogance. Why else would so many people invest so much time and effort claiming they have some right to tell everyone else what to do?

 

Which brings up my main contention with TZM (though it applies equally well to just about everyone): Are you so arrogant to think that I would rather do what you say than to be free to act on my own, even if my own actions result in mistakes?

there is a resistance against rationality. Arrogance is one cause of irrationality. Emotional attachment is the bigger thing imo. There are people who aren't arrogant, but really stick to the idea out of some other psychological emotional need. arrogance is oen emotion. so i'd generalize it to emotion.emotional attachment (for one reason or another) is the appropriate scope and cause of it imo.