Question to TZM - The inevitability of money

[gwho]

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.

[Guest darkskyabove]

My money is on: no one but a troll will answer.

 

I wonder how many TZM's know the meaning of "zeitgeist"?

 

Before anyone runs out and "googles" the term: it means "The Zeitgeist (spirit of the age or spirit of the time) is the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought that typifies and influences the culture of a particular period in time." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist)

 

Kind of a contradiction to be claiming something unknown as the "dominant school of thought".

[gwho]

anyone who thinks they have the answer, whether they are TZM or not, ofc.Ya, I haven't been impressed with the quality of responses on the forums on various other topics so far either...

[FreedomPhilosophy]

My understanding of what the TZM propose is that there will be no initiation of force, they want to pursued everyone to live their way voluntarily because they think it has the best outcome for the most people.

 

They believe that there will be no requirement for trade with money or selling of labour because all conceivable material needs will be provided for by entirely automated systems. They will not ban money, they will eliminate the need for it.

 

This social condition will clearly not work if there are any geographic locations (or other restrictive situations) where material needs from such systems cannot be provided for instantaneously. In such cases a think money will prove indispensable and thus I cannot conceive of it being entirely eliminated.

 

Another problem is that I do not believe that computers will be able to provide all the crafted goods or human services that people can offer and again in such cases trade for money would persist. While artisans would be free to produce such goods without charge because all their basic needs would be met, they still might not produce enough to meet demand, and therefore a market providing some kind of incentive would still arise.Watch my video below for further critique of PJ.

[Mick Bynes]

One of my closest friends was explaining to me that TZM's ideas will work, since they're new ideas the world hasn't done yet, like the RBE system.  It's just that people are scared about it and they believe it will fail like the other systems?  Right?  I'm not really for TZM.  I did listen to my friend and I do respect his point of view on TZM.

[gwho]

One of my closest friends was explaining to me that TZM's ideas will work, since they're new ideas the world hasn't done yet, like the RBE system.  It's just that people are scared about it and they believe it will fail like the other systems?  Right?  I'm not really for TZM.  I did listen to my friend and I do respect his point of view on TZM.

 

i didn't get an answer.TZM's ideas will work because it hasn't been done yet? that's not sound logic.It may be true that the world is scared of it, but that is beside the point, and doesn't answer why RBE will/could work.Whether people believe it will fall like other systems only explains why it's not being implemented now, or why it's hard to implement..... NOT whether or why the system as described will and can be successful.Ideas can be respected, but it doesn't prove them or disprove them. (As for me personally, I have ZERO respect for unfounded assertions, especially when objections to it cannot and will not be addressed. It just happens to be a different idea, but that's the same violation and process of propaganda, religion, and patriotism - and I think you should demand the same too).This is the kind of stuff that irritates me about Peter Joseph, Jacque Fresco, and every other TZM spokesperson ever. They don't answer the question, and always point to irrelevant points, or overly leapy, or completely provably false points.

[Mick Bynes]

Yeah, my friend also says the whole monetary system should totally be non-existent.  That is one of the things TZM wants done.

[Bert]

I hate to be the one to defend TZM but there are serious fundamental misunderstanding/misinformaiton in this OP's arguements i feel i have to...

 

TZM doesn't think a supercomputer will create 'infinite everything' or even produce anything, its a means of resouce distrobution. The idea is that if you take all the worlds resouces into account, declare them common heritage to all people, then the process of distrobution of these resouces becomes an objective process, which can handled by a computer model devopled by the experts of the age and processed on said supercomputer.

Furthermore, I don't beleive TZM thinks you can remove scarcity all together , just that you can remove scarcity for the basic requirements for life, food, water, energy and housing. I too beleive this can be achived, but like you i reconize that as we can not remove scarcity all together, there will always be a need for some form of currency for people to exchange with for those fringe needs.

[gwho]

I hate to be the one to defend TZM but there are serious fundamental misunderstanding/misinformaiton in this OP's arguements i feel i have to...

 

TZM doesn't think a supercomputer will create 'infinite everything' or even produce anything, its a means of resouce distrobution. The idea is that if you take all the worlds resouces into account, declare them common heritage to all people, then the process of distrobution of these resouces becomes an objective process, which can handled by a computer model devopled by the experts of the age and processed on said supercomputer.

Furthermore, I don't beleive TZM thinks you can remove scarcity all together , just that you can remove scarcity for the basic requirements for life, food, water, energy and housing. I too beleive this can be achived, but like you i reconize that as we can not remove scarcity all together, there will always be a need for some form of currency for people to exchange with for those fringe needs.

if i had the time and motivation, i could pull up quotes from various TZM people that directly contradict ... every point you made ( not trying to combative here, i'm stating dry facts).i've heard peter joseph and the other guy stefan debated with.... a nicer sounding guy whose name i can't remember. They both say scarcity goes away. From their contexts you can tell they mean the colloquial definition (i.e. scarcity as opposed to abundant). But it doesn't matter. because you will get scarcity in the economic sense. Both peter and the other guy subtly conflate these two. Why? because they say we can do away with money, that a supercompter can handle it. I don't know how anyone would get that they still do think money would be around, that money would be around, or how either of the men would resolve the paradox. It sounds to me you're agreeing with the more logical points i raise, and trying to have your other food on the TZM side.I also think basic needs can be met... it doesn't have to be through a super computer and getting rid of all mediums of exchange. it's simply doing away with violence. Plus, if people go with money after RBE has been achieved, that will reintroduce the profit motive, middlemen, and withholding. in that case RBE is not a sustainable model. Once you hit resource limitations, you then have to choose between using resources for "basic needs" and other stuff. Of course people might say go with basic needs, and use the excess for otehr stuff. but this is silly. you then have to have this enforced, which requires a monopoly of power. Also, "basic needs" and "other stuff" aren't clear cut disctinctions. fuzzy goods and services, like say, bandwitdth for paying bills vs bandwidth for doing calculations... or a crab for a family vs a crawfish for someone who has slightly less wealth than the first family... ... like wants and needs are in a spectrum, and you will run into the problem of drawing a line in the sand. who decides this? RBE and TZM are all silly. They haven't thought this through. once you get money in, how will you get it out again? how will you enforce anything without power? If we had DROs and RBE, why do we need RBE? just go with DRO and free exchange with whatever competing currencies come up. AFterall, even in an RBE + DRO society, you will inevitably get money.There are easily seen logical problems that arise when seriously considering RBE that TZM never address, even when they are explaining by themselves with no opposing debater, that are quite plain to see, honestly.a money system takes into account all preferences, wehtehr it be basic needs or luxuries, or anything in between. It also gives people the freedom to choose certain luxiries over basic needs if the ywant too. Given the inevitability of money, i don't see why we need an RBE in the first place. An RBE is great central power and dependence. corrupt people will be attracted to its management. You will need ways to enforce quotas, rules, needs, preferences, etc. which pretty much is a state. with no bid/ask, floating price system, you end up having to get in line or put on a queue list, and end up having the closer, more privileged managers of the RBE/enforcement getting priority and giving people connected to them favors.. just like the old kingdom and communism days. money already is a rationing mechanism. 

"which can handled by a computer model devopled by the experts of the age and processed on said supercomputer."

 

this is embarrassingly similar sounding to TZM. you might as well say magic. I think TZM approaches things from a very idealistic point of view, which is not bad, but they have major blind spots to very basic and pragmatic obstacles that should be addressed, but never are, and that they cannot see even when they're pointed out to them. They have leaps of logic when it comes to macroeconomics, as evidenced in the Peter debate, where he says states are a natural outgrowth of free markets - without any evidence, or willingness to develop the point further. IF someone disagrees with you in a debate, you make arguments and cases for your side. TZM, including Jacque sees too much of hte negative sides of free markets, which is not bad, but they refuse to honestly reexamine their ideas with other aspects of Free markets for a rational, evidence and logic based theses.I just kind of got wordy and spewed out many things here. to address your points directly, in light of my spew, I don't know if you really have what TZM are actually saying. The magical supercomputer has many problems with it, even aside from the point that it's technically not achieved or being worked on right now. Problems include enforcement, how to handle allocation when resource limits are reached, how to prevent abuse and "runs" on resources when it shortages start to occur - since that would spur people flocking to it before it runs out, whereas a market system would provide increasing prices to curb that. I'll commend you on your honesty regarding money. I'd ask you to take it a step further, just like the supercomputer point, and tell me why we need RBE if we already have a peaceful society (which TZM claims would occur if their plan was implemented), and we have money. free market works (unless you want to disagree with that too). The supercomputer idea is just ... not thought through well enough,,, I hope you can see where I'm coming from with this.

[Bert]

Jeez state your points clearly or not at all, you ramble like crazy.

 

 

this is embarrassingly similar sounding to TZM. you might as well say magic.

This is all I really needed to read, you take what I say out of context and so it's hard for me to trust any interpretation you make of other peoples statements too, and hence your whole rebuttal. The whole statement is just so asinine also, yes it sounds like TZM because I'm trying to explain to you an idea they talk about, and no i may as well not say magic, because there was a whole lead up to that statement.

 

free market works

 

How? by magic?!

[Mike Fleming]

Free market is one of those loaded terms in society.  But really a market is just people exchanging goods and services with each other.  Some people are better at producing certain goods and services than others which is why we have the division of labour.

 

So advocating for a free market and freedom are one and the same.  And it can be seen voluntary exchange and production of goods is far more efficient, and therefore more conducive to overall human well-being than are the coercive sectors of the economy which waste resources, principally human resources (think of all the wasteful public sector jobs)  on a massive scale.

[Bert]

it can be seen voluntary exchange and production of goods is far more efficient, and therefore more conducive to overall human well-being than are the coercive sectors of the economy which waste resources, principally human resources (think of all the wasteful public sector jobs)  on a massive scale.

 

I was with you up until this point. The problem comes from the miss-framing  'cost' efficiency courses in a monetary system. I think by efficiency we mean the use of resources which will result in the most output, but what is cheapest dollar wise is not always the cheapest resources wise. We waste massive amounts of fuel shipping around products because of relative poverty. We waste massive amounts of energy recycling because of the squeeze to produce products more cheaply, or from not making products with are upgradable/modular, because it reduces sales and cuts profits.

[Guest darkskyabove]

@gwho: Pay up! Refer to reply #2. I bet that a troll would answer.

[PoopMeat]

I hate to be the one to defend TZM but there are serious fundamental misunderstanding/misinformaiton in this OP's arguements i feel i have to...

 

TZM doesn't think a supercomputer will create 'infinite everything' or even produce anything, its a means of resouce distrobution. The idea is that if you take all the worlds resouces into account, declare them common heritage to all people, then the process of distrobution of these resouces becomes an objective process, which can handled by a computer model devopled by the experts of the age and processed on said supercomputer.

Furthermore, I don't beleive TZM thinks you can remove scarcity all together , just that you can remove scarcity for the basic requirements for life, food, water, energy and housing. I too beleive this can be achived, but like you i reconize that as we can not remove scarcity all together, there will always be a need for some form of currency for people to exchange with for those fringe needs.

 

The first TZmer has emerged.

 

First your right about what a RBE is but you left out some key things. The idea is we go through a transitional period to reach a RBE where TVP constructs a enviroment where they can build there test city. At that a RBE needs to be globally based it can't be locally based. When TVP finally gets towards there RBE, social values will need to be changed in the transitional period. In the end a RBE is classless, stateless, moneyless society or basically communism.

 

In a RBE a computer will share the resources equally to it's inhabitants of earth. This is basically communism, communism has never worked on a massive scale. To add their is no science behind a RBE or RBEM or any academic evidence. Do testing see what happens get it evaluated by credible academics, prove us wrong. You've got nothing.

 

Why RBE will never work. (a must see for zeitgeist supporters)

[Guest darkskyabove]

@PoopMeat: STOP SPAMMING!

[Bert]

The first TZmer has emerged.

 

First your right about what a RBE is but you left out some key things. The idea is we go through a transitional period to reach a RBE where TVP constructs a enviroment where they can build there test city. At that a RBE needs to be globally based it can't be locally based. When TVP finally gets towards there RBE, social values will need to be changed in the transitional period. In the end a RBE is classless, stateless, moneyless society or basically communism.

 

In a RBE a computer will share the resources equally to it's inhabitants of earth. This is basically communism, communism has never worked on a massive scale. To add their is no science behind a RBE or RBEM or any academic evidence. Do testing see what happens get it evaluated by credible academics, prove us wrong. You've got nothing.

 

Why RBE will never work. (a must see for zeitgeist supporters)

 

I am not a Zeitgeist supporter, I just hate misinformation which this thread is full of.

The only thing which seems to matter to the people here is whether or not I align with your views, rather the truth I try and seek.

[gwho]

I hate to be the one to defend TZM but there are serious fundamental misunderstanding/misinformaiton in this OP's arguements i feel i have to...

 

TZM doesn't think a supercomputer will create 'infinite everything' or even produce anything, its a means of resouce distrobution. The idea is that if you take all the worlds resouces into account, declare them common heritage to all people, then the process of distrobution of these resouces becomes an objective process, which can handled by a computer model devopled by the experts of the age and processed on said supercomputer.

Furthermore, I don't beleive TZM thinks you can remove scarcity all together , just that you can remove scarcity for the basic requirements for life, food, water, energy and housing. I too beleive this can be achived, but like you i reconize that as we can not remove scarcity all together, there will always be a need for some form of currency for people to exchange with for those fringe needs.

 

 

 

 

Jeez state your points clearly or not at all, you ramble like crazy.

 

 

This is all I really needed to read, you take what I say out of context and so it's hard for me to trust any interpretation you make of other peoples statements too, and hence your whole rebuttal. The whole statement is just so asinine also, yes it sounds like TZM because I'm trying to explain to you an idea they talk about, and no i may as well not say magic, because there was a whole lead up to that statement.

 

 

How? by magic?!

 

 

 

look, the entire premise of this "rebuttal" is just flat out false. how do you reply to it when it's so fundamentally misunderstood. like it's not even representing TZM correctly? I've heard peter, jacque, and the other guy, and that's not what they say. like if you're going to rebuttal, say things that are true.i gave you an entire lesson. i actually did it, when you should already know the basics of TZM if you're defending it, just as you should know how free markets work if you're posting on this forum at all. like, excuse me for rambling, but at least it's on point. you can't trust my interpretation? PLEASE. you get facts wrong. dont even go there.It's much easier to be curt and wrong. At least give me credit for writing it out. I don't even care about that, say something true.And if you're going to agree that money will be needed, then answer the freaken question: what then? how will an RBE deal with that? will they stamp it out? will it let it grow? What will it do, since it sees money as the root of all evil, and the cause of structural violence and artificial scarcity? just sit by and let it take over? If a police force is used, to enforce RBE, then it will also be used for other things.Like, add to the discussion. Don't veer off track with false statements, pointless agreements that is already acknowledged, and actually literally part of the question. an implied reiteration of the question is not necessary.You ask how the free market works? You think after that shitty comment, i'm actually going to explain it to you, just to have you dismiss it? you're on the freedomainradio board. how do you not know the points pro-free marketers make? If you have a problem with any of them bring them up. Actually don't. do that on another thread. and take yourself out of this thread too. you haven't added anything to the discussion, and frankly, if I was a serious TZMer, i'd want you to stop misrepresenting it too.

@gwho: Pay up! Refer to reply #2. I bet that a troll would answer.

how much do i owe you?

 

This is all I really needed to read, you take what I say out of context and so it's hard for me to trust any interpretation you make of other peoples statements too, and hence your whole rebuttal. The whole statement is just so asinine also, yes it sounds like TZM because I'm trying to explain to you an idea they talk about, and no i may as well not say magic, because there was a whole lead up to that statement.

 

oh, so you basically don't read... or answer questions. gotcha.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I'd settle for not feeding trolls. I'm highly susceptible to their crap, myself, but I'm going to try ignoring them. There is a feature on this forum for ignoring members so their posts do not display, although it does provide a message for a blocked post with an option to "view anyway", just in case it's hard to follow a thread without reading the full sequence. Click your username at the top of the page and the drop down has "Manage Ignore Prefs". Pretty easy.

[gwho]

I'd settle for not feeding trolls. I'm highly susceptible to their crap, myself, but I'm going to try ignoring them. There is a feature on this forum for ignoring members so their posts do not display, although it does provide a message for a blocked post with an option to "view anyway", just in case it's hard to follow a thread without reading the full sequence. Click your username at the top of the page and the drop down has "Manage Ignore Prefs". Pretty easy.

i'm the same way. thanks for the tip

I guess I can "troll" (the original meaning of the term) the trolls to find out which ones are.and how do i "troll" them? by posting serious posts like these.

[Livemike]

One of my closest friends was explaining to me that TZM's ideas will work, since they're new ideas the world hasn't done yet, like the RBE system.  It's just that people are scared about it and they believe it will fail like the other systems?  Right?  I'm not really for TZM.  I did listen to my friend and I do respect his point of view on TZM.

The fact that something hasn't been tried yet doesn't mean it will work.  Nobody has tried using CO2 as a lifting gas in a lighter-than-air craft.  That doesn't mean it will work and it won't because CO2 isn't lighter than air.  RBE doesn't work.  It isn't even really a system, it's a wishlist of things they want to happen without any means to have it happen.  

[gwho]

The fact that something hasn't been tried yet doesn't mean it will work.  Nobody has tried using CO2 as a lifting gas in a lighter-than-air craft.  That doesn't mean it will work and it won't because CO2 isn't lighter than air.  RBE doesn't work.  It isn't even really a system, it's a wishlist of things they want to happen without any means to have it happen.  

^ because the laws of scarcity, comparative advantage, wealth increase upon voluntary, informed trade are all established, tested, repeatable, and thus true.Once you discover rules like gravity, then the burden of proof becomes on the one who wants to go against gravity.

[Mick Bynes]

The fact that something hasn't been tried yet doesn't mean it will work.  Nobody has tried using CO2 as a lifting gas in a lighter-than-air craft.  That doesn't mean it will work and it won't because CO2 isn't lighter than air.  RBE doesn't work.  It isn't even really a system, it's a wishlist of things they want to happen without any means to have it happen.  

 

Correct, I never thought of that.  RBE is indeed a wishlist.  It's not a very realistic and good wishlist either.

[tasmlab]

I digress, but I wonder if today's Western world would look 'scarcity-free' to someone living in the 1600s or even the early 1900s.  You could paint this great picture where even the poorest American has an abundance of food (to the point of obesity), indoor plumbing, housing, medical care, a phone, a computer, a television, etc.

 

That person imagining this in the 1600s would assume that we'd be all done progressing.  We made it!  they might think.  But really, they wouldn't even have imagined it that way.  Their idea of scarcity free would just look like how the king lived sans medical care and a toilet.

Could our TZMers be similarly lacking in imagination?

[MrCapitalism]

The inevitability of money is the result of a market process, the utility of prices, and the social need for indirect exchanges.

 

These activities rely on a principle of trade: two people individually making an agreement to exchange their private property.

 

This activity of trade necessarily needs the institute of private property.

 

TZM desires to eliminate the necessity of the institution of private property.

Therefore they are also against trade.

And in this situation it's not possible for money to come into existence, as we understand it now.

[gwho]

The inevitability of money is the result of a market process, the utility of prices, and the social need for indirect exchanges.

 

These activities rely on a principle of trade: two people individually making an agreement to exchange their private property.

 

This activity of trade necessarily needs the institute of private property.

 

TZM desires to eliminate the necessity of the institution of private property.

Therefore they are also against trade.

And in this situation it's not possible for money to come into existence, as we understand it now.

^ Exactly.Of course they will use verbal acrobatics to never be direct and empirical about it like you said it. There are certain necessary implications of a premise. I find it entirely annoying when people avoid and tiptoe around what they know to be true, especially if they're being manipulative about it, rather than being in denial, which is understandable.