PoopMeat Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE, Peter Joseph, The Zeitgeist Movement, Berlin (full 2:43:06) youtube description: Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / Resource-based Economy, Peter Joseph, The Zeitgeist Movement, Berlin GermanyNovember 12 2013 Intro: 0:00 Part 1: Why Change?: 4:04 Part 2: Post Scarcity: 30:59 Part 3: Economic Organization and Calculation: 1:11:01 Q&A: 1:45:10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o Economic Calculation in a Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy http://event.tzm-deutschland.de/ Economic Calculation in a Natural Law/Resource-Bas http://www.ustream.tv/channel/peter-joseph-berlin TZM founder Peter Joseph will be visiting Berlin, Germany on November 12, 2013 to deliver a lecture entitled “Economic Calculation in a Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy”. This advanced presentation will answer questions related to the economic feasibility of a “post-scarcity” modeled socioeconomic system, as proposed by The Zeitgeist Movement, delving into exactly how resource management, allocation, sustainability protocols and other critical factors are calculated, along with the nature of social participation. Standing in stark contrast to the current “proxy” management process known as the price/profit system and the traditional market practice of competing businesses and general exploitation, a Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy follows a train of thought which arrives at an improved mode of economic unfolding which can structurally assure both environmental and cultural sustainability, while alleviating enormous levels of stress both with respect to our personal well-being and with respect to our global ecological footprint as a species. This new approach is about taking a direct technical orientation to social and economic management as opposed to a monetary or political one, with public health given the most critical importance. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods science and technology have to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange. This event will be organized and hosted by the Berlin chapter of The Zeitgeist Movement. Peter Joseph: http://peterjoseph.info/ The Zeitgeist Movement http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/ Tickets: http://www.tzm.eventbrite.de/ Location: http://www.essentis-biohotel.de/essentis-hotel-berlin.php
PoopMeat Posted December 3, 2013 Author Posted December 3, 2013 Peter just uploaded the full speech on youtube. Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE, Peter Joseph, The Zeitgeist Movement, Berlinhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o
LanceD Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 How long until TZM violently overthrows a country and slowly kills a few million people?
Josh F Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 I feel like this topic is exhausted, personally.
Livemike Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Ok, I've listened to 1:11:01 to 1:31:00 and nothing new and plenty that is simply wrong.
Armitage Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 How long until TZM violently overthrows a country and slowly kills a few million people? Soon! That's what people do when they stray from the one true God's path, the money! Evil people burn money! Only sacred magic papers can carry economic information.
Mike Fleming Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith I'm curious what that means. What is the opposite of man exploiting man? Sorry for the OT, I'll try to keep it brief.
tasmlab Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 I'm curious what that means. What is the opposite of man exploiting man? Sorry for the OT, I'll try to keep it brief. Intuitively, "man NOT exploiting man" would be the opposite. I've just added zero value to the thread.
Clay Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 I'm curious what that means. What is the opposite of man exploiting man? Sorry for the OT, I'll try to keep it brief. Intuitively, "man NOT exploiting man" would be the opposite. I've just added zero value to the thread. I think it's more of a humerous observation. No matter what system you have, man exploits man. The opposite of man exploiting man, is man exploiting man. That's how I interpreted it.
PoopMeat Posted December 4, 2013 Author Posted December 4, 2013 Peter in this lecture and in other lectures talks about how great the military structure is. I do not think this guy really know what he talking about and why he would ever suggest the military is a great thing and that it is efficient and also isn't concerned with money is beyond me. As much praise Peter Joseph gives towards the concept of a military, I think he would like to carry on the military concept in his imaginary RBE utopia where in fact Peter Joseph is the military dictator inside his RBE fantasy land and all criticism is abolished. I youtube time stamped this lecture as well as two others where he talks about the military being a good thing. Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE, Peter Joseph, The Zeitgeist Movement, Berlin 1:28:35 Military is the most efficient systems on the planet. It's absent the market economy. Industrial efficiency is born in the military first.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o#t=88m00sTZM London TownHall with Peter Joseph, November 15th 2013 [ The Zeitgeist Movement ] 51:55-53:00 Peter Joseph says the military is the best example of selfsustainability as well as global awareness and efficiency.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYS0vKBZac#t=51m55s Peter Joseph on Singularity 1 on 1: We Are All Subjected To The Same Natural Law SystemPeter Joseph on Singularity 1 on 1: We Are All Subjected To The Same Natural Law System 1:06:14 - 1:07:25 Says the military system which utililizes more money than most countires on the planet are socialists and do not have demcoracy. The military is what society should be without the intention of killing other people. The military is the soruce of the internet, microwaves stoves, the navy figured out how to make things smaller. The military represents what true focus can actually do. The military orgnization is brilliant, but it's intention is aweful.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcyDxNic1ao#t=66m14s
Armitage Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 Peter in this lecture and in other lectures talks about how great the military structure is. I do not think this guy really know what he talking about and why he would ever suggest the military is a great thing and that it is efficient and also isn't concerned with money is beyond me. As much praise Peter Joseph gives towards the concept of a military, I think he would like to carry on the military concept in his imaginary RBE utopia where in fact Peter Joseph is the military dictator inside his RBE fantasy land and all criticism is abolished. I youtube time stamped this lecture as well as two others where he talks about the military being a good thing. The idea of Peter Joseph the military dictator makes about as much sense as if he'd be a secret Nazi because he made a movie with a German name. Surely you don't think that Peter enjoys war, obedience or killing? Military is an organization and the process of organization is one of basic principles in nature. Military does efficiently whatever it is used for, as one organism. The only thing that can stand against a military is another military, nothing else is powerful and fast enough. The military has to have an internal economy and this economy of war supply does not use prices to distribute and allocate the stuff. Stop inventing cheap accusations like utopias and dictators when someone thinks of a system. Answers that explain everything, explain nothing. The rule of a thumb to understand Peter Joseph is NOT thinking that he is a totalitarian egomaniacal power-hungry militant idiot. If you keep hearing egomaniacal militant idiocy in his words, it's in your head and you need to think again about what he actually meant. Some education would help greatly. I just returned from a lesson on social impact of technologies. And as usual, Peter Joseph is right. Military indeed is a great structure. It is extremely complex, yet ordered and efficient for the tasks that it is made for. Instead of money, it uses chain of command, supply logistics, managing conscripted industries, machine checking and fixing, replacement parts ordering... People developed these procedures under extreme circumstances of fighting for survival, when all rules and technologies of traditional warfare were violated and they bent their genius to one purpose. A wrong purpose certainly, but the only way to develop efficiency is to have a purpose of efficiency. Hell, during the world war 1 German bureaucracy managed the whole economy without collapsing it! That is some computing power. In fact, the socialist Edward Bellamy used the basis of military to organize the utopian economy in his book Looking Forward. In the year 2000 of Looking Forward (written in 1887) the vocations are managed in army-like units. Each young person chooses or re-chooses a vocation and then advances in it by military ranks, according to his skills. He is "paid" by his rank. But officers are paid by the work quality of their workers. The shops are for show only, they serve to show the goods and let people order what they want for home delivery. The supply is stable and kept produceable by the industrial army in abundance, according to what people themselves order for consumption. *here's why army is not concerned with money! It uses clerks who write down people's orders and communicate with the industry! Like today!* Of course, as the army is industrial, it serves only to fight scarcity, much of the book describes a life style with time off. Time off is the actual goal of the whole army - to eliminate the industrial tasks so efficiently, that minimum time is spent working for all population. War against work. Heh. Sounds cool. This book is one of The Venus Project's source books. However, Fresco wrote the book Looking Forward, describing how such a society would look with applied technology like automation to eliminate all work. It is of course very different - much more different than 19th century capitalism to 21st century capitalism. There is a real progress. Capitalism keeps things much the same. Always the same chaos. I think it's more of a humerous observation. No matter what system you have, man exploits man. The opposite of man exploiting man, is man exploiting man. That's how I interpreted it. You interpreted it right! What do you think about sociology, by the way?
Mike Fleming Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 I guess Peter likes the concept of his "soldiers" following orders and not asking questions. It's how religious orders and cults tend to operate also. Hitler didn't go around telling everyone he wanted to be a dictator. You had to read between the lines. Most people didn't until it was too late.
PoopMeat Posted December 5, 2013 Author Posted December 5, 2013 @Armitage The idea of Peter Joseph the military dictator makes about as much sense as if he'd be a secret Nazi because he made a movie with a German name. Surely you don't think that Peter enjoys war, obedience or killing? Military is an organization and the process of organization is one of basic principles in nature. Military does efficiently whatever it is used for, as one organism. The only thing that can stand against a military is another military, nothing else is powerful and fast enough. The military has to have an internal economy and this economy of war supply does not use prices to distribute and allocate the stuff. Stop inventing cheap accusations like utopias and dictators when someone thinks of a system. Answers that explain everything, explain nothing. The rule of a thumb to understand Peter Joseph is NOT thinking that he is a totalitarian egomaniacal power-hungry militant idiot. If you keep hearing egomaniacal militant idiocy in his words, it's in your head and you need to think again about what he actually meant. Some education would help greatly. I got a say for a guy who said they would no longer respond to me and have blacklisted me you sure do follow through with that... Though I'm confused why you would defend TZM Peter Joseph as that's not even apart of your RBE ideology, as you believe in a TVP RBE not a TZM RBEM. I can say and you have admitted that you in fact do not even know your own RBE ideology, as well as I can say that you have not dealt with or observed TVP and TZM as much as I have. The idea of Peter Joseph the military dictator makes about as much sense as if he'd be a secret Nazi because he made a movie with a German name. Surely you don't think that Peter enjoys war, obedience or killing? Well for a guy who says the military is a good concept he certainly doesn't follow the chain of command. I'll give you one good example. When Fresco/TVP criticized Peter/TZM in a youtube video for not having solution to fix the world and for not referencing TVP in Peter's work [1]. Peter got upset at Fresco's criticisms and decided to split from TVP, no member in TZM had a choice it was entirely Peter's choice to split from TZM. Peter could of resolved the situation and listen to TVP and make good on their social agreement with TVP but he did not. The original agreement between TVP and TZM was that TZM would be the long arm of the Venus project, Peter did not want to listen TVP, Peter wanted to command TZM in his own way, Peter did not want a boss he wanted to be the boss the dictator if you will, the person who called the shots and that's exactly what he does in TZM (which is fine because it's just internet based). Not only did Peter not make good with TVP but he made a decision without any other TZM members input. It makes sense to me why Peter would love the concept of a military in his fantasy RBE because this is good for him as long as he is on top and not taking any orders from anybody else. TVP did the right thing when they officially dissociated with TZM as Peter broke out of the original agreement TVP had with TZM [2]. To add my initial interest in monitoring TZM came about due to the drastic differences in the groups philosophy vs. the way the organization was lead. I found it rather interesting that members of the organization wanted a form of direct democracy but decisions regarding the direction, messaging and imagery of the organization were entirely controlled from the top down. Sometimes even to the chagrin of those at the bottom doing the actual legwork to promote the organization. I found myself wondering how they could overlook such a glaring contradiction. The only explanation I could think of is that the members on the bottom of the pyramid had so much emotional investment in the goals of the organization that they were willing to overlook the glaring contradictions. I've always been interested in how people can rationalize their way through cognitive dissonance, and monitoring TZM's forums were a constant source of watching people do exactly that.I will not attempt to assume the motives of those at the top of the pyramid. It is pointless to speculate as to whether they are con artists or true believers. The only thing one can look at is the results, and the results have so far been more and more central control as interest in the organization wanes. References: [1]The End of The Zeitgeist Movement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfDcnDZFias [2]Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement split http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef8VzYXMgj0 [2]Why did The Venus Project part ways with The Zeitgeist Movement? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJbRM46tltI Peter Joseph on The Zeitgeist Movement, Venus Project split - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bhLmsgdwhs Peter Joseph on The Zeitgeist Movement, Venus Project split - Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLgSaVdSwEI Australian TZM Member David Zwolski upsets the leaders of TZM and TVP by writing Article called "Debunking The Venus Project" http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5519/australian-tzm-member-david-zwolski-upsets-the-leaders-of-tz/#0 Military is an organization and the process of organization is one of basic principles in nature. Military does efficiently whatever it is used for, as one organism. The only thing that can stand against a military is another military, nothing else is powerful and fast enough. The military has to have an internal economy and this economy of war supply does not use prices to distribute and allocate the stuff. Outside of FDR I came across two TZMers that said they had joined the military because it's like a RBE and for some reason they rationalized it as to why they would join up. I was a bit blown back by that... I'm a bit shocked now that you would actually say the military is efficient, I'm at a loss of words. Me being very familiar with the military nothing about it is efficient matter in fact it's pretty redundant and inefficient. From JAG which is a military court which is a redundant form of the civilian court, to the amount of money spent to train, feed, and house individuals as well in the military. Spending money in the government such as in the military which has no real meaning to anything, means a loss in meaningful jobs within the market. Unlike what Peter said the Military diesn't create anything. The military is the opposite of efficiency in every aspect of the word. Peter Joseph time and time again does not know what he's talking about and for you to protect him for saying such a ignorant thing, to parrot what he says and believe it shows how dogmatic you are as well as how much you really don't know. The Military benefits from money, without money there is no military. By Peter's logic Peter is more in favor for the draft than the voluntary military because there is less money for a draft participant than a voluntary military which pays substantially more. [1] It's ironic because Stefan just posted a video on youtube about this very matter and I completely agree with it. Maybe he saw the post I made about Peter supporting the concept of a military and felt compelled to post none the less I suggest you watch this [2] Refernces: [1] Milton Friedman - The Draft - From Compulsory to Voluntary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mCV29j9_nY [2] The True Costs of War: Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio speaks at the University of Toronto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edtWe759KIw [2] How to stay out of the Army... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=othPVuzMngw Stop inventing cheap accusations like utopias and dictators when someone thinks of a system. Answers that explain everything, explain nothing. The rule of a thumb to understand Peter Joseph is NOT thinking that he is a totalitarian egomaniacal power-hungry militant idiot. I didn't invent anything and I stand by what I said. That is what Peter wants, you heard it out of his mouth, he agrees with the concept of a military. Thank goodness Peter will never get into any sort of power as he and TZM will forever be apart of the weird fringe side of the internet. Here's some videos I found. Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants Part: 1 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxdJIDQg5vc Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 2 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIuis6wh6EA Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 3 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcubNyEojY Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 4 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VSdVcERACM Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 5 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iys3mN75tNU Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 6 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vR4IYf03jc Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 7 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olmzG0jWm3s Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 7 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCPU4OViTcg Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 9 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDQ3BO_ZvY4 Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 10 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ4KzrKHho0 Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 11 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw5niOPyzx4 Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 12 of 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyj594aoi_c Adolf Hitler and Peter Joseph Merola, twin tyrants part: 13 of 13 (had to reupload video has Stefan Molyneux in it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqZxm5rSZUY alternate link https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerAndPeterJosephMerolaTwinTyrantsPart13Of13 If you keep hearing egomaniacal militant idiocy in his words, it's in your head and you need to think again about what he actually meant. Some education would help greatly. I know english is not your main language but I think you need better reading comprehension skills. To add when you talked with Stefan you lack very basic critical thinking skills as well. I suggest researching before buying into anythings so easily. [1] I'm good at this at least this dance with TVPers, TZMers, RBEer's among other groups, I've been doing it for years. I'm not trying to convert you or anybody else over to anything however I will put my thoughts out there using logic and reason and backing up my claims. I will show you how incoherent your groups logic is but you'll ignore it but sometime down the line you'll give it another look for one reason or another and see how right I among others were and when that time comes there is no shame in admitting you may have been wrong. I Can't guarantee you will snap out of it but there is that possibility and I'm awful good and presenting a opposing skeptical side. I've gotten numerous e-mails from people who have read the things on Skepticproject.com thanking SP/com members for what we do, not just in TVP./TZM but Alex Jones, David Ike, destinian etc... [2] skepticproject.com is like a Motel Six for rational thought as people come and people go, but as they say at Motel Six we'll keep the light on for anybody. [1] How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True http://lifehacker.com/5919830/how-to-determine-if-a-controversial-statement-is-scientifically-true [2] Denver airport conspiracy theory de bunked youtube description: Ok guys, http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/nwo/denver-international-airport/my basic words are DO NOT BELIEVE THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY. it is out of date and plain full of shit. its like me saying the dirt is made out of jesus's testicles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii8IEU3G4K4
LanceD Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 I think it's more of a humerous observation. No matter what system you have, man exploits man. The opposite of man exploiting man, is man exploiting man.That's how I interpreted it.I believe you are correct.
Armitage Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 I guess Peter likes the concept of his "soldiers" following orders and not asking questions. It's how religious orders and cults tend to operate also. Hitler didn't go around telling everyone he wanted to be a dictator. You had to read between the lines. Most people didn't until it was too late. Don't take Peter literally. He's an intuitive thinker, makes a lot of leaps of intuition and he uses metaphors. If human army can have its economy without market, then we can have a machine army economy without market. The whole RBE is about the concept of MACHINES following orders. Not people. If Peter ever thought of a real army, then he'd have to believe in a human labor and he wouldn't talk of automating everything. Which is not the case, therefore, machine army it is.
PoopMeat Posted December 5, 2013 Author Posted December 5, 2013 Don't take Peter literally. He's an intuitive thinker, makes a lot of leaps of intuition and he uses metaphors. If human army can have its economy without market, then we can have a machine army economy without market. The whole RBE is about the concept of MACHINES following orders. Not people. If Peter ever thought of a real army, then he'd have to believe in a human labor and he wouldn't talk of automating everything. Which is not the case, therefore, machine army it is. I see cognitive dissonance at work here. First Peter never spoke about robot armies within the context of military being a good concept. Second even if PEter did suggest a military robot Army is a good one, militaries are out to control and commit violence to acheive control, not machines doing work to help humans. If Peter ever thought of a real army, then he'd have to believe in a human labor and he wouldn't talk of automating everything. Which is not the case, therefore, machine army it is. To delve into RBE utopia fantasy land ideology, Peter does talk about automating everything but never suggests during the transitional period that everything would be automated. Matter in fact he would probably suggest a military concept be implemented in the transitional period to a RBE which is very similar to many other socialistic countries but they never made that jump over to communism aka RBE. I wouldn't want a machine army, that would suggest violence would be invovled and I simply cannot support any form of violence. So basically my understanding of a RBE now is a utopia fantasy land where Peter will rule and a army of robots will keep and enforce Peter's rule through violence.
Armitage Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 I see cognitive dissonance at work here. First Peter never spoke about robot armies within the context of military being a good concept. Second even if PEter did suggest a military robot Army is a good one, militaries are out to control and commit violence to acheive control, not machines doing work to help humans. You've got a chaos in categories. Peter never meant a violent army. He took the organizational aspect of an army as an evidence that non-market economy is possible. After all, army is good at supplying the soldiers with clothes, food, ammo, housing and spare parts, soldiers don't have time for trading, they fight. Then he in his mind replaced fighting enemies with fighting scarcity. Then he replaced the soldiers with robots and guns with automated lines and replaced the intel on enemy with market demand signals produced by the people themselves. This he all did in his mind in a few quick steps that you don't notice unless you know his style of thinking. I see how he thinks, because I have read Bellamy's Looking Backward, which is a model of the industrial army fighting scarcity and win freebie hours, which Fresco has as one of his sources. To delve into RBE utopia fantasy land ideology, Peter does talk about automating everything but never suggests during the transitional period that everything would be automated. Matter in fact he would probably suggest a military concept be implemented in the transitional period to a RBE which is very similar to many other socialistic countries but they never made that jump over to communism aka RBE. I wouldn't want a machine army, that would suggest violence would be invovled and I simply cannot support any form of violence. So basically my understanding of a RBE now is a utopia fantasy land where Peter will rule and a army of robots will keep and enforce Peter's rule through violence. There can be no dictatorship, because there is no centralization, except centralized design of all mass-produced stuff. TVP will end up as a free kit of mass-produceable architecture and infrastructure jigsaw puzzle, which will be accommodated to local geographical, populational and climate specifics.All that people need to do is to help with a global survey, mass-produce the Ikea city parts, assemble them on spot (may involve scrapping some old trashy cities), move in and hook the city to the internet. Then they need to go to school and learn how to use this new city properly, RTFM, how to find out what to do, where's the toilets and how schools work in there. The first generation of cities might resemble a glorified college campus and this is what it will really be. Every city is a college city. Everything is a big provisional set of Ikea architecture (and everything else) gone open-source. Really, it sounds kind of boring when I put it like that. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Give a man a 3D printer and a computer, he'll download open-source models and do whatever the hell he wants and he won't bother you anymore. If you think taking away a part of your income (taxes) is violence, then what about time? Time is money. There are things that take away a part of our time - like cooking, washing, drying and ironing clothes and other kinds of housework, all that is a crime against freedom of time. All these people, mostly women, have to do that every day on their own. This is something that a city automated facilities should do, technically it's no problem. TVP means industrialized housewifery, as B. F. Skinner would put it.
Armitage Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Just great. People who know they've been just proven wrong and can't admit it, give negative reputation. Or if you don't understand, well, as I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure it goes deep, it goes down to the level of a language that we use to think about economy, the very way of thinking. And that is very personal. I sense an attitude here like at a primary school "I don't understand this, I don't care, I'm not interested, I don't want it, go away." Well, this is not a school, acting like adults is possible.
PoopMeat Posted December 9, 2013 Author Posted December 9, 2013 Skepticproject.com member named Jim Jesus has Responded to Peter Joseph's Economic Calculation Problem Lecture on his blog. Dr. Zeitgeist or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Robot. http://www.jimjesus.com/2013/12/dr-zeitgeist-or-how-i-learned-to-stop.html
Armitage Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Skepticproject.com member named Jim Jesus has Responded to Peter Joseph's Economic Calculation Problem Lecture on his blog. Dr. Zeitgeist or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Robot. http://www.jimjesus.com/2013/12/dr-zeitgeist-or-how-i-learned-to-stop.html What this guy describes is a big straw man argument, based on not understanding RBE at all. He assumes that without money, there is no motivation, coordination, communication, infrastructure either... A common problem. He has the functions that money do so much associated with money, that he can not imagine them implemented by any other mechanism than green rectangular papers with numbers and dead presidents on them. His argument against the new system is... sociopaths might hack it! Well, when did we ever allow sociopaths stand in the way of development? Never, We actually put them in charge of our financial and political institutions. I don't think it can get any worse than that. He uses professional companies as argument against open-source, not realizing that today open-source sucks because the companies employ the best programmers. Do the dead president papers create professionals?
Recommended Posts