Labour for Income

[SteveSmith]

Hey friends!

 

I was just wondering recently about the idea of performing actual work and letting everyone benefit from it, as opposed to having to work and then selling that work to others.

 

Why do you think its not a good idea to simply have an open access economy like Peter Joseph proposed?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, SteveSmith said:

Hey friends!

 

I was just wondering recently about the idea of performing actual work and letting everyone benefit from it, as opposed to having to work and then selling that work to others.

 

Why do you think its not a good idea to simply have an open access economy like Peter Joseph proposed?

Simple. It's much easier to exchange a medium than a shit load of apples for a TV (assuming the TV guy even wants apples!). That's my argument for a medium against bartering. 

The main problem with the Peter Joseph Resource Based Economy is that it's literally techno-communism. Whoever controls the machines controls everything. Without a price mechanism to indicate supply and demand people will abuse it (or overuse it unwittingly) and the result will be mass shortages in some areas, too much in others, and eventually a return to the stone age.

Such systems can only be sustained via theft of some sort or another because they are inherently unsustainable and unnatural. Capitalism is not only the most efficient system but the most moral one. All exchanges are by definition win-win so long as no force nor fraud is involved. The result is everyone becoming wealthier thanks to everyone else's participation as an economy. 

Freedom has a funny way of saving lives and making everyone's life (even the deadbeat's) easier and more enjoyable. Of course freedom comes with responsibility and most bad people don't want that.

[SteveSmith]

5 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Simple. It's much easier to exchange a medium than a shit load of apples for a TV (assuming the TV guy even wants apples!). That's my argument for a medium against bartering. 

The main problem with the Peter Joseph Resource Based Economy is that it's literally techno-communism. Whoever controls the machines controls everything. Without a price mechanism to indicate supply and demand people will abuse it (or overuse it unwittingly) and the result will be mass shortages in some areas, too much in others, and eventually a return to the stone age.

Such systems can only be sustained via theft of some sort or another because they are inherently unsustainable and unnatural. Capitalism is not only the most efficient system but the most moral one. All exchanges are by definition win-win so long as no force nor fraud is involved. The result is everyone becoming wealthier thanks to everyone else's participation as an economy. 

Freedom has a funny way of saving lives and making everyone's life (even the deadbeat's) easier and more enjoyable. Of course freedom comes with responsibility and most bad people don't want that.

Well, you certainly have a point against a barter based system. But I was thinking more in line of an open access economic system. This would mean that there is no exchange and no markets. People simply produce and consume based on their needs. This is clearly even simpler than a monetary system.

 

As far as abuse goes, well we can all agree that monetary system is rife with it. So cheating with money is actually easier than cheating with physical resources.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

12 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

Well, you certainly have a point against a barter based system. But I was thinking more in line of an open access economic system. This would mean that there is no exchange and no markets. People simply produce and consume based on their needs. This is clearly even simpler than a monetary system.

No, it is subtly far more complicated because who will be controlling the flow of goods? Who will manage it? Who will say when enough's enough? The monetary system is dead simple: you work, you get a medium, you use medium to pay bills, food, and save the rest for an emergency and maybe reward yourself if you have enough. 

RBE requires so many checks and balances to be even functional that it is essentially Communism under a different name. Controlling the flow of goods is as much a means of controlling people as the controlling of money, perhaps even more so since historically when mediums of exchange were short (for whatever reason) goods were paid to retainers in order to act out the controller's wishes. Sometimes retainers would revolt and seize the goods and become warlords in this manner. 

Point is RBE is a recipe for disaster. A (bad) return to feudalism. A regression at best.

12 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

As far as abuse goes, well we can all agree that monetary system is rife with it. So cheating with money is actually easier than cheating with physical resources.

The Central Banking system is definitely rife with abuse. It funds wars and government abuse. At least we aren't divided like Sengoku Era Japan where those with resources paid their retainers with resources in exchange for defense/offense, with it all coming to an end once a (relatively) centralized system of economy was established via the Tokugawa. 

It is pretty much impossible to escape abuse of a system; what's possible is mitigating it to the point where it's either no big deal (like before the Federal Reserve) or practically bearable (like now--that is bearable because we're not fighting a civil war or living under a totalitarian regime. Not great, but paradise to anyone older than 150).  

[Jsbrads]

Without markets, there is no price signal, without a price signal, people will produce too much of one resource and too little of others.

Russia was notorious with that. People starving but plenty of bricks...

[SteveSmith]

1 hour ago, Jsbrads said:

Without markets, there is no price signal, without a price signal, people will produce too much of one resource and too little of others.

Russia was notorious with that. People starving but plenty of bricks...

Well I'd put it another way. Price is one of the signals. It's quite possible to have, actually just like we have today, a pre-order system where people would order products and such and such amount would be produced on demand. 

Don't you think that's possible?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

1 hour ago, SteveSmith said:

Well I'd put it another way. Price is one of the signals. It's quite possible to have, actually just like we have today, a pre-order system where people would order products and such and such amount would be produced on demand. 

Don't you think that's possible?

What's to stop everyone from ordering every item available on earth instantly?

[SteveSmith]

12 minutes ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

What's to stop everyone from ordering every item available on earth instantly?

Nothing of course. But they won't get them. Just as we have today, there  are supplies which can and can't be met. When Sony usually announces their new PlayStation model, a lot of people wait in line to get one. Of course, not everyone can get their hands on one because of the initial shortage, so they have to wait for the next supply. Nothing out of the ordinary.

 

Same thing would apply in this case as well, first come first serve basis would be applied.

 

Also, just to make sure everything runs smoothly, there should be some initial restrictions applied where you can't order more than a predefined number of items. Once people get used to such an economic system there will be no need for restrictions at all.

 

You see, people usually work based on the motive principle. They usually have a motive to do things. In a society where you can have access to everything, there would be no motive to order more than you need. I mean, think about it. What would be the motive for someone to order 50.000 TV sets, instead of dozen, which would be enough to furnish his home?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

10 minutes ago, SteveSmith said:

I mean, think about it. What would be the motive for someone to order 50.000 TV sets, instead of dozen, which would be enough to furnish his home?

I need 7 homes.

Around the world.

[SteveSmith]

49 minutes ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I need 7 homes.

Around the world.

I actually completely agree with you and as opposed to bubble cities proposed by certain RBE proponents, I want to live in nice homes which have all the features that luxury mansions have today.

I see nothing wrong with that, quite contrary I see it as progress. But I also understand that I don't need to own these homes. I only need access to them.

 

Once you realize what that actually means, your whole value system changes. So instead of owning 7 houses around the world, you simply order a house and live in it for as long as you want. Once you want to move somewhere else, you simply order another house. And someone else uses your house.

Think of hotels. You don't actually need to own a hotel to use it. Same thing would apply to living space. So, in other words, there is no need for you to order those TVs in the first place, because the housing would already have it.

Edited February 22, 2018 by SteveSmith
Spelling fixed

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

When I see you pull a Buckminster Fuller, I'll acknowledge you know what you're talking about.

[SteveSmith]

3 minutes ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

When I see you pull a Buckminster Fuller, I'll acknowledge you know what you're talking about.

Peter actually said many times that he was influenced by Buck. Me personally, I haven't read or seen much of his work.

[Jsbrads]

So we only have to wait in line for bread until...

That sounds incredibly wasteful. Why not have many different types of bread wait for me? That’s what markets provide with the price signal. And then you just presume people will what? Get so used to waiting in line, they will stop waiting in line? Or are you just rewarding the least productive people? First come, first serve? Some may die, but that’s a risk you are willing to take? Who will administer the whole system? Millions of mid level bureaucrats? Answerable to whom? Upper level bureaucrats? I’m guessing they don’t have to wait in line for bread?

[SteveSmith]

I think the answer to your question is quite obvious. Not all things are equally needed all the time, thus we can do without them for a while. But we can't do without food. Thus, priority will be put on thing based on their immediate need. Clearly, that means, we don't wait for food, it needs to be present every day.

 

As for who would overlook the system. Well, the distribution systems would be built based on the information about the local population. Based on that, and their past needs, we can come up with calculations what requires more immediacy and how much resources should be distributed in such products. The people who build the systems are the same ones who build any system that is being built today - those with technical skills to do it right.

 

Now, please don't think I don't want to address your price signal argument. I most certainly did, but I first want to make sure we both agree that what I'm proposing is possible. If you don't think it's possible let's continue discussing it.

[SteveSmith]

On 2/22/2018 at 5:48 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

No, it is subtly far more complicated because who will be controlling the flow of goods? Who will manage it? Who will say when enough's enough? The monetary system is dead simple: you work, you get a medium, you use medium to pay bills, food, and save the rest for an emergency and maybe reward yourself if you have enough. 

RBE requires so many checks and balances to be even functional that it is essentially Communism under a different name. Controlling the flow of goods is as much a means of controlling people as the controlling of money, perhaps even more so since historically when mediums of exchange were short (for whatever reason) goods were paid to retainers in order to act out the controller's wishes. Sometimes retainers would revolt and seize the goods and become warlords in this manner. 

Point is RBE is a recipe for disaster. A (bad) return to feudalism. A regression at best.

The Central Banking system is definitely rife with abuse. It funds wars and government abuse. At least we aren't divided like Sengoku Era Japan where those with resources paid their retainers with resources in exchange for defense/offense, with it all coming to an end once a (relatively) centralized system of economy was established via the Tokugawa. 

It is pretty much impossible to escape abuse of a system; what's possible is mitigating it to the point where it's either no big deal (like before the Federal Reserve) or practically bearable (like now--that is bearable because we're not fighting a civil war or living under a totalitarian regime. Not great, but paradise to anyone older than 150).  

Whether it's simple or complicated is not so much a question. The question is whether we have the means to solve the problem given our technology. There is no management in the current sense of the word where someone decides that enough is enough. 

We would solve problems based on systems which have the capability to decide. This is not distant future, this is called an optimization problem and any computer today can solve it. What we would have to solve it with respect to, is the resources at our disposal and the population at hand which needs to work with those resources.

If the calculation is solved, there is no waste since the solution is an optimal one.

 

As far as control goes, well yes, there needs to be a control of the people as well. I mean do you not want there to be a policeman to help you when you're being robbed? Just because there is control, doesn't mean it's going to get abused. The point is to have the right person for the right job. If having authority over someone means that abuse follows by definition, then we would see daily how parents are torturing their children. Sorry, this is not what happens. Also, please explain to me how is a pre-FED era considered a paradise? Was there no crime? Was there no poverty? Was there no private sector abuse?

 

And simply pointing out central banks as problems is dead wrong. You can't just pretend that there is no cheating going on in the private sector. What about all the investment banks and mega-corporations? Are you telling me you're not aware of their wrong doings?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

7 minutes ago, SteveSmith said:

Whether it's simple or complicated is not so much a question. The question is whether we have the means to solve the problem given our technology. There is no management in the current sense of the word where someone decides that enough is enough. 

Someone programs the machines. Someone maintains them. Someone guards them from being hacked. Human involvement cannot be severed. 

7 minutes ago, SteveSmith said:

We would solve problems based on systems which have the capability to decide. This is not distant future, this is called an optimization problem and any computer today can solve it. What we would have to solve it with respect to, is the resources at our disposal and the population at hand which needs to work with those resources.

If the calculation is solved, there is no waste since the solution is an optimal one.

How is it calculated? What is considered optimal for whom? Is everyone of equal wealth regardless of labor, morals, competency, etc?

7 minutes ago, SteveSmith said:

As far as control goes, well yes, there needs to be a control of the people as well. I mean do you not want there to be a policeman to help you when you're being robbed? Just because there is control, doesn't mean it's going to get abused. The point is to have the right person for the right job. If having authority over someone means that abuse follows by definition, then we would see daily how parents are torturing their children. Sorry, this is not what happens.

The issue isn't in the control but the controllers and how easily corruptible the system is. Especially if its founders are anything but benign. 

Goods are naturally controlled via price signals and natural conditions. Policemen are naturally controlled by the community and in turn the police dedicate themselves (ideally not necessarily always or at present) to stamping out active crime and disincentiveizing planned crime.

There is a fundamental difference between a system in which there is an enforced monopoly of something versus a system in which any monopolies are voluntarily created. The Roman Republic elected dictators whom willingly put away their cloaks after their term was over. Perhaps it is possible to return to the Roman Republican days as far as Republican kinds of systems go. Perhaps not. However Communism (RBE=control of resources by one entity, not exactly the means of production but perhaps just as bad)

7 minutes ago, SteveSmith said:

Also, please explain to me how is a pre-FED era considered a paradise? Was there no crime? Was there no poverty? Was there no private sector abuse?

Let's see: mortality rates went down enormously; technology exploded to the point where only a minority of Americans needed to be farmers to feed everyone else; government corruption was relatively tame compared to now (especially its effects); poverty was, as is, deserved for most and those for whom it wasn't they had the chance and the drive to pull themselves out (often with the support of private charities and Churches); families were stable and powerful; the nation-state was secure; multiculturalism in the modern sense was non-existent while in the real sense (i.e. different cultures not oppositional and competing cultures ) it was working well as most folks who weren't living in enclaves were assimilating (and those that weren't were not causing problems of an Islamic invader scale) and it was pretty clear a golden age of abundance was coming about as a result of the awesome combination of freedom, innovation, nationalism, a single unified culture (again outside the many enclaves like the Mormons in Utah or Germans in the countryside), peace (though the Mexicans were belligerent they were certainly not an equal to America at the time), familial stability, strong moral values, etc. etc.

And then after WWII the inheritors of paradise trashed it while drinking the poison of Socialism and Feminism. Unfortunately the parents of the WWI and pre-Fed generation failed to arm their children intellectually against deceit and discord. Though it's not like there was no reactionary movement against creeping Socialism and Feminism--evidence that in spite of being under siege there were quite the robust characters fighting for their inheritance. 

7 minutes ago, SteveSmith said:

And simply pointing out central banks as problems is dead wrong. You can't just pretend that there is no cheating going on in the private sector. What about all the investment banks and mega-corporations? Are you telling me you're not aware of their wrong doings?

The private sector is inextricably tied to the public sector. When in an insane system, it is sensible to do that which in the long run spells disaster because (at least for the individual and perhaps his descendants) it will work out profitably in the short run. 

I can't blame the players when the game is built in such a terrible way. It's like cursing extremist Christians in Europe while they are being hounded and threatened as the new Jews. They are doing wrong, but ultimately in order to stop it the fire must be aimed at the roots not the branches.

[Jsbrads]

Some bankers do cheat. How many congressmen tho? 100%! Congress wrote a law saying they are allowed to inside trade, but you are not. One law for me, one law for thee.

What you are creating is the motivations to cheat and the inability for people to meet their needs.

1. You think you only need to prioritize creation of food. Which foods? What about distribution of food? Heating oil? Medical care? Countless other necessities? 

2. What incentives are you creating in the system? Some will take advantage. Some will use the power of the system for their own benefit.

[RichardY]

Hey Commrades,

Why not just call an "Open Access Economy" Communism? Not really sure if Communism is a state of mind or non mind, but this open access economy, sounds a bit suspect what if I want to "reserve" a space for my current "junk" (it has sentimental value)? 
In the meantime why not settle for a resource based economy? Recyling is a moral virtue after all...........

Paradise NOW!!!!

[SteveSmith]

12 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Some bankers do cheat. How many congressmen tho? 100%! Congress wrote a law saying they are allowed to inside trade, but you are not. One law for me, one law for thee.

What you are creating is the motivations to cheat and the inability for people to meet their needs.

1. You think you only need to prioritize creation of food. Which foods? What about distribution of food? Heating oil? Medical care? Countless other necessities? 

2. What incentives are you creating in the system? Some will take advantage. Some will use the power of the system for their own benefit.

Again, let's deal with one question at a time. There is no point in asking so many questions all at once, so let's stick to the question of distribution of resources.

It's actually not just food that needs to be properly distributed, it's other resources as well. My point rather is that we can determine how to distribute resources, with the help of technology.

If you think that can't be done, please explain why.

[Jsbrads]

Because people have tried and failed every time.

why do you think you can replace the current system? How?

[SteveSmith]

7 minutes ago, Jsbrads said:

Because people have tried and failed every time.

why do you think you can replace the current system? How?

What do you mean how? I explained it in the posts above! Do you have Alzheimer's?

 

And what do you mean people have tried and failed, have you ever heard of Machine Learning algorithms and how they're used for business? They are used today, as we speak to help facilitate business. The agree used to predict what the future demand for goods will be based on past trends.

Are you aware that such things exist?

[RichardY]

Dr. Strangelove: It would not be difficult, Mein Führer! Nuclear reactors could, heh...I'm sorry, Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country, but I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.

Muffley: Well, I, I would hate to have to decide...who stays up and...who goes down.

Dr. Strangelove: Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.

Muffley: But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief-stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?

Dr. Strangelove: No, sir...excuse me...When they go down into the mine, everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! [involuntarily gives the Nazi salute and forces it down with his other hand]Ahhh!

Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

[SteveSmith]

On 2/24/2018 at 5:41 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Someone programs the machines. Someone maintains them. Someone guards them from being hacked. Human involvement cannot be severed. 

How is it calculated? What is considered optimal for whom? Is everyone of equal wealth regardless of labor, morals, competency, etc?

The issue isn't in the control but the controllers and how easily corruptible the system is. Especially if its founders are anything but benign. 

Goods are naturally controlled via price signals and natural conditions. Policemen are naturally controlled by the community and in turn the police dedicate themselves (ideally not necessarily always or at present) to stamping out active crime and disincentiveizing planned crime.

There is a fundamental difference between a system in which there is an enforced monopoly of something versus a system in which any monopolies are voluntarily created. The Roman Republic elected dictators whom willingly put away their cloaks after their term was over. Perhaps it is possible to return to the Roman Republican days as far as Republican kinds of systems go. Perhaps not. However Communism (RBE=control of resources by one entity, not exactly the means of production but perhaps just as bad)

Let's see: mortality rates went down enormously; technology exploded to the point where only a minority of Americans needed to be farmers to feed everyone else; government corruption was relatively tame compared to now (especially its effects); poverty was, as is, deserved for most and those for whom it wasn't they had the chance and the drive to pull themselves out (often with the support of private charities and Churches); families were stable and powerful; the nation-state was secure; multiculturalism in the modern sense was non-existent while in the real sense (i.e. different cultures not oppositional and competing cultures ) it was working well as most folks who weren't living in enclaves were assimilating (and those that weren't were not causing problems of an Islamic invader scale) and it was pretty clear a golden age of abundance was coming about as a result of the awesome combination of freedom, innovation, nationalism, a single unified culture (again outside the many enclaves like the Mormons in Utah or Germans in the countryside), peace (though the Mexicans were belligerent they were certainly not an equal to America at the time), familial stability, strong moral values, etc. etc.

And then after WWII the inheritors of paradise trashed it while drinking the poison of Socialism and Feminism. Unfortunately the parents of the WWI and pre-Fed generation failed to arm their children intellectually against deceit and discord. Though it's not like there was no reactionary movement against creeping Socialism and Feminism--evidence that in spite of being under siege there were quite the robust characters fighting for their inheritance. 

The private sector is inextricably tied to the public sector. When in an insane system, it is sensible to do that which in the long run spells disaster because (at least for the individual and perhaps his descendants) it will work out profitably in the short run. 

I can't blame the players when the game is built in such a terrible way. It's like cursing extremist Christians in Europe while they are being hounded and threatened as the new Jews. They are doing wrong, but ultimately in order to stop it the fire must be aimed at the roots not the branches.

Let's try to stick to one topic at a time please.

Of course humans would still be involved. But the point is to minimize their involvement as much as possible. Once we develop algorithms which deal with certain problems well, it is irrelevant who programs the computers, as long as the person knows what he's doing.

The result of the calculation is the same, which is all that matters. Do you care who programmed your calculator? Do you need to oversee every step of the calculation which your calculator does when you type in 5+5?

Of course not, you take it for granted because you have better things to do. This is what I'm proposing on a grander scale and I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against it. All I've heard is how Soviet Union failed and how great capitalism is. These are not arguments against my position.

When I talk about about optimallity its obviously with respect to the society. Resource distribution needs to fit the goals for the society, not few individuals. As long as you are an upstanding member of the society, you should have full access to what the society has to offer.

As far as monopolies go, I don't remember anyone asking me whether I agreed with any monopoly that exists today, their business plans or pricing of products. If I were to go and try to break up that monopoly, the police would arrest me. So how is this capitalist version of monopoly not enforced?

You are quite mistaken on pretty much all points you mentioned about the US. But let's take some important things into account.

After the FED was established, both crime and mortality rates went down. Not that the establishment of FED had anything to do with it, but just so that we're clear on this. Page 30 of the pdf, for your reference. If you care, please provide a casual relationship between FED and any of the things you said were better before.

Last but not least, please drop the poetry act. There are lies, cheating and corruption in both public and private sector. Don't try to justify any with poetic language. You justify exploitation of workers by saying that the government is bad, thus the owners of companies are ok to exploit their workers? Sir, you would be the last person I'd like to work for, thank you very much.

 

https://guymcpherson.com/2013/02/memento-mori/

 

[RichardY]

What about stimulating the why?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

Let's try to stick to one topic at a time please.

Bro WTF. Do you think proposing an alternative means of living is just something that has no connection to pretty much 100% of all that is human? I'm not talking about RBE/Communism if I'm not also going talk about its effects versus other systems and the factors that led to the pluses and minuses of each. 

I'm not here to masturbate about how ideally it'd work; I'm here to talk about if it can work in reality and if it can't I'm going to do my best to point out how and why.

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

Of course humans would still be involved. But the point is to minimize their involvement as much as possible. Once we develop algorithms which deal with certain problems well, it is irrelevant who programs the computers, as long as the person knows what he's doing.

The result of the calculation is the same, which is all that matters. Do you care who programmed your calculator? Do you need to oversee every step of the calculation which your calculator does when you type in 5+5?

Okay I'm going to hack into the mainframe and cause an "emergency" so my goons can go in and "restore order". 

I also don't understand why you want humans to not be involved in their own collective well-being and why you'd trust a machine to be infallible when it's created by fallible mortals. 

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

Of course not, you take it for granted because you have better things to do. This is what I'm proposing on a grander scale and I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against it. All I've heard is how Soviet Union failed and how great capitalism is. These are not arguments against my position.

Yes it is. You're proposing Communism under another name. You are suggesting that all the means and ends of productions be centralized by something. Presumably we cannot opt out of it and let the people who want communism/RBE live in their little hellscape and away from moral people who think robbery and slavery is wrong.

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

When I talk about about optimallity its obviously with respect to the society. Resource distribution needs to fit the goals for the society, not few individuals. As long as you are an upstanding member of the society, you should have full access to what the society has to offer.

What are the goals of society. Who determines it. Who executes it. Who measures it. And if MomBot is the answer...

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

As far as monopolies go, I don't remember anyone asking me whether I agreed with any monopoly that exists today, their business plans or pricing of products. If I were to go and try to break up that monopoly, the police would arrest me. So how is this capitalist version of monopoly not enforced?

What does someone with no skin or stake have to say about a peaceful monopoly? Why should the guy who makes the best pizzas in town break up his business because no one wants to buy pizzas from somebody else? What is wrong with monopolies in general? Particular monopolies (like a monopoly on force for example) can very easily cause problems but most monopolies are very easily broken. Like to break the pizza monopoly all you have to do is make a better (or cheaper) pizza or perhaps find something shady about Mr Pizza Monopolist that would cause people to stop buying his pizzas (thus destroying his business in a flash).

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

You are quite mistaken on pretty much all points you mentioned about the US. But let's take some important things into account.

Oh okay. Let's gloss over every point I made because all I have to do is say "you're wrong" to win.

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

After the FED was established, both crime and mortality rates went down. Not that the establishment of FED had anything to do with it, but just so that we're clear on this. Page 30 of the pdf, for your reference. If you care, please provide a casual relationship between FED and any of the things you said were better before.

Define "casual relationship". Given the rise in Capitalism around the same time, I suppose with only a passing glance all gains of capitalism can also be attributed to the FED. However they work on very different principles (and thus theoretically very different outcomes).

FED: Forced Monopoly on currency. Try to make a new one and they'll put you in jail. 

Capitalism: the ability to exchange value freely without force or fraud. 

I know there's a hell of a lot more nuance but fundamentally it is this simple. Rapists tend to make horrible spouses; consent-ists tend to vary. However I think it's safe to say consent>rape except perhaps in the most ridiculous and insane of cases.

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

Last but not least, please drop the poetry act. There are lies, cheating and corruption in both public and private sector. Don't try to justify any with poetic language. You justify exploitation of workers by saying that the government is bad, thus the owners of companies are ok to exploit their workers? Sir, you would be the last person I'd like to work for, thank you very much.

I'm going to talk however the Hell I want to talk and point out the BS as I see it. If you really have a strong case to make, then make it. So far all I'm getting is Super MomBot is going to take care of everything and I don't trust Super MomBot anymore than Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or any other totalitarian ruler's benevolence.

Explain to me how the "wehkers arrr exploited". I fail to see how voluntary lovemaking=exploitation but then I also fail to see the appeal of slavery, bondage, and victimhood.  

9 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

 

https://guymcpherson.com/2013/02/memento-mori/

 

Okay. I concede living conditions improved over time and are arguably better now than ever (by a ginormous degree). My argument was that the dramatic improvement of the 19th and 20th centuries came from freedom not the State or the Hammer and Sickle or the Hooked Cross.

Answer me this: does man own the sweat of his brow or does MomBot/theState/ThePeople own it? If your answer is the former then how is RBE going to work in practice. Will it be like Communism in which all resources are forcibly collectivized or do only the willing contribute to the pile and thus RBE is basically just how some people live while the Free Market is how others live.

I.e.: Do I have to live under RBE if I don't want to or is the proposition that we basically occupy the same space but live in parallel systems? Ultimately the most important part is whether RBE=Communism (where force is concerned) or if RBE=Peaceful Communism (I.e. some people choose to live this way while others can freely opt out with the only practical consequences maybe being shunning or ostracism). 

If your answer is the former then I see no point is using words to argue with someone who wants to steal from me. If the the latter then as a Rightist I am inclined to let you do your thing so long as it doesn't infringe upon the lives of myself, my family, or any of those who do not wish it.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 2/26/2018 at 3:23 AM, RichardY said:

Dr. Strangelove: It would not be difficult, Mein Führer! Nuclear reactors could, heh...I'm sorry, Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country, but I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.

Muffley: Well, I, I would hate to have to decide...who stays up and...who goes down.

Dr. Strangelove: Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.

Muffley: But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief-stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?

Dr. Strangelove: No, sir...excuse me...When they go down into the mine, everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! [involuntarily gives the Nazi salute and forces it down with his other hand]Ahhh!

Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

I hate to admit it but I can definitely see the appeal to Dr. Strangelove's plan... Never saw the movie, only saw small clips as it was mentioned in the Putin Interviews by Oliver Stone (that's his name right? I know the last name's Stone that's for sure).

Of course I totally get the aim of quoting the conversation; just if RBE was sold to me that way I'd be awfully tempted. But then temptations tend to be even self-destructive, so I'd have to say know even if my monkey brain's basically going bananas over it...

[SteveSmith]

On 2/28/2018 at 6:01 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Bro WTF. Do you think proposing an alternative means of living is just something that has no connection to pretty much 100% of all that is human? I'm not talking about RBE/Communism if I'm not also going talk about its effects versus other systems and the factors that led to the pluses and minuses of each. 

I'm not here to masturbate about how ideally it'd work; I'm here to talk about if it can work in reality and if it can't I'm going to do my best to point out how and why.

Okay I'm going to hack into the mainframe and cause an "emergency" so my goons can go in and "restore order". 

I also don't understand why you want humans to not be involved in their own collective well-being and why you'd trust a machine to be infallible when it's created by fallible mortals. 

Yes it is. You're proposing Communism under another name. You are suggesting that all the means and ends of productions be centralized by something. Presumably we cannot opt out of it and let the people who want communism/RBE live in their little hellscape and away from moral people who think robbery and slavery is wrong.

What are the goals of society. Who determines it. Who executes it. Who measures it. And if MomBot is the answer...

What does someone with no skin or stake have to say about a peaceful monopoly? Why should the guy who makes the best pizzas in town break up his business because no one wants to buy pizzas from somebody else? What is wrong with monopolies in general? Particular monopolies (like a monopoly on force for example) can very easily cause problems but most monopolies are very easily broken. Like to break the pizza monopoly all you have to do is make a better (or cheaper) pizza or perhaps find something shady about Mr Pizza Monopolist that would cause people to stop buying his pizzas (thus destroying his business in a flash).

Oh okay. Let's gloss over every point I made because all I have to do is say "you're wrong" to win.

Define "casual relationship". Given the rise in Capitalism around the same time, I suppose with only a passing glance all gains of capitalism can also be attributed to the FED. However they work on very different principles (and thus theoretically very different outcomes).

FED: Forced Monopoly on currency. Try to make a new one and they'll put you in jail. 

Capitalism: the ability to exchange value freely without force or fraud. 

I know there's a hell of a lot more nuance but fundamentally it is this simple. Rapists tend to make horrible spouses; consent-ists tend to vary. However I think it's safe to say consent>rape except perhaps in the most ridiculous and insane of cases.

I'm going to talk however the Hell I want to talk and point out the BS as I see it. If you really have a strong case to make, then make it. So far all I'm getting is Super MomBot is going to take care of everything and I don't trust Super MomBot anymore than Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or any other totalitarian ruler's benevolence.

Explain to me how the "wehkers arrr exploited". I fail to see how voluntary lovemaking=exploitation but then I also fail to see the appeal of slavery, bondage, and victimhood.  

Okay. I concede living conditions improved over time and are arguably better now than ever (by a ginormous degree). My argument was that the dramatic improvement of the 19th and 20th centuries came from freedom not the State or the Hammer and Sickle or the Hooked Cross.

Answer me this: does man own the sweat of his brow or does MomBot/theState/ThePeople own it? If your answer is the former then how is RBE going to work in practice. Will it be like Communism in which all resources are forcibly collectivized or do only the willing contribute to the pile and thus RBE is basically just how some people live while the Free Market is how others live.

I.e.: Do I have to live under RBE if I don't want to or is the proposition that we basically occupy the same space but live in parallel systems? Ultimately the most important part is whether RBE=Communism (where force is concerned) or if RBE=Peaceful Communism (I.e. some people choose to live this way while others can freely opt out with the only practical consequences maybe being shunning or ostracism). 

If your answer is the former then I see no point is using words to argue with someone who wants to steal from me. If the the latter then as a Rightist I am inclined to let you do your thing so long as it doesn't infringe upon the lives of myself, my family, or any of those who do not wish it.

Your inability to understand even the basics of my argument is primarily the reason why I'm not interested in discussing things on a point by point basis. It's very unproductive when the person who you are talking to is also rude. Sure you can talk however you want, but your constant use of loaded terms shows just how infantile you are and how you display a low level of respect for the opposing side. Also, please educate yourself on the basics of causal inference. Case in point is your perception that I think that machines are somehow perfect. They're not, they're just better than people at what they're designed to do. This is the basis of all technological progress - constant improvement, not immediate perfection.

For the reasons stated above, I will term this discussion in only two points. The Open Access Economy and Capitalism in general.

As far as the first point is concerned, efficiency is the goal. More specifically, efficiency of production with respect to the whole society. In order to achieve this, we need a centralized system which would be able to distribute the resources efficiently. My goal is to utilize technology, and not societal conventions to solve problems. To give you an example, have a look at the following chart, which shows ice cream sales by month in year.

 

I think that even a lowly person with mediocre amount of intelligence would be able to derive a general description of what is happening here. We could easily create an equation which would tell us that more ice cream is sold during hot days than cold days. Thus, with respect to production, we could also easily come up with an efficient strategy which would allocate more ice cream to hot days and less to cold days.

But, what do you think happens when we have more variables in the production process, as in, when we take into account the whole population in a country and their needs. Then the chart starts looking like this.

Now I think it should be obvious that letting any human make decisions on such data is highly inefficient. A much better way of solving problems on such data is by using technology which is good at solving such problems. This is nothing else but a pattern detection problem based on which decisions must be made. Just as you would be able to find the pattern on the first chart and suggest an efficient ice cream allocation strategy, the class of algorithms, known as Machine Learning algorithms would be able to do for the second graph.

This is today well known and is utilized in products called Business Intelligence, which are doing nothing other than analyzing patterns and suggesting efficient strategies based on what they found. Now, the reasoning behind the need for this technology is simple, the computational resources available to a human mind is lacking and a single human, even a group, is unable to compute all the possible solutions, and come up with an efficient strategy. But when we use tools, such as mentioned above, the problems are readily solved. So, asking me why I want to remove people from the decision making process, the answer is simple, to remove inefficiencies and to let people do more important things, i.e. those that require creative thought.

The same logic applies to making a table. You wouldn't want to make a table by hand. Nailing in nails is a very hard thing to do for a human. But using tools such as a hammer, the job becomes much easier. The same logic applies to other jobs which people need to perform. Seeing as how you show interest in Japan, you should know that principles of Fuzzy Logic have been used to relieve people of decision making in some trains in Japan.

Please try to understand that technology is not your enemy.

So, now coming back to the problem of distribution of resources. You might be aware that Toyota has developed a system for production called Just-in-Time. It turns out that this is an efficient method for production of goods and is today widely applied not just in manufacturing but in computer engineering as well. These kind of algorithms are what we are looking for and technologists have a way of analyzing such algorithms and understanding which ones should be used where. You can see that from the following science article where the JIT algorithm was analyzed and found to be optimal.

This in turn explains who would be in charge of handling these machines. The answer is the same as today - the people with relevant skills. Truck drivers will not be software developers, nor will the business people.

In turn, this leads us to the second point. Your proposal to use the free market system to distribute resources. Unfortunately, in order to distribute resources efficiently we need efficient algorithms, this immediately precludes the free market system from being optimal since its goal is local optimum and not global optimum. We know that such algorithms don't necessarily lead to global optimums unless carefully selected. In other words, certain groups, i.e. companies will prosper, while the society on whole will not. This should be obvious since you are optimizing with respect to the profit of companies and not the society at large. Such algorithms are called Greedy Algorithms, and we know how they work.

Now, I would like to give an example how its quite obvious that such system does not produce global optimums with respect to products which people have. In other words, people prefer certain things, which they do not buy, yet the companies who profit the most, produce sub-optimal products, and their products sell better.

If you now take a look at a list of the best selling cars, you will notice that these are mostly regular cars you see every day on the street. Thus most people have these cars and use them every day. Should you now on the other hand take a glance at a list of the most expensive, and by any standard, better cars than the best selling ones, measured either by design, safety, luxury of interior speed, etc. you will notice that none of these cars are found on the best selling list. This also goes for other goods and services as well, thus my simple conclusion is that the free market system produces an incredible inefficiency where most people have things they don't actually want.

Furthermore, with respect to the 2nd point, i.e. capitalism, you asked about enforced monopolies and contrasted them with free exchange of goods and services. You see, you make a mistake in thinking that free exchange doesn't lead to violence. You first mistake of course is a much more fundamental one because you don't understand the concept of change over time. A famous example Stefan likes to give is the example where you have a pen yet someone needs something else, you give him the pen and he gives you something else, then you are both better off.

This simplistic view, as Peter Joseph rightly called it, would have you think that if you had a perfect free market system and no government, your world would be a carbon copy of the American Dream and the ideal American family image from the 1960s, where they are all buying from a mom and pops shops and everyone is happy.

Such is of course an illusion. This illusion stems directly from your misunderstanding of the fundamental ways algorithms operate. We call this problem the Scalability of the system. This actually can be further explained by computational complexity of algorithms where you compare a linear time running algorithm with a quadratic running time algorithm.

 

 

 

I understand that it might be hard for you to understand, but if you assume the red line to be a function which represents your solution to the problem and then contrast it with the green function, you will see something amazing. Assuming that your solution, with respect to utilization of some resources needs to be lower than some limiting value, you will clearly pick the green algorithm as the better one at the start. But as you increase the number of elements you need to handle, the utilization of your algorithm becomes a lot more than is the case of the red algorithm. So much so, that the red algorithm, which grows more slowly, becomes the better solution to the problem, even though it first wasn't.

In other words, at some point, your initial solution might fail even though it worked for a very small number of input elements.Now ask yourself, how ell does the pen analogy describe what we have today, with respect to the number of transactions which take place daily?

What you stated is only true in the case when this is the only transaction which will happen in all eternity. That obviously is not the case, there are numerous cases of such transactions and they are not equal. As time passes, some people will accumulate more wealth than others. This will happen for multitude of reasons, some are simply better at trading, other reasons are inheritance. The point is, by executing a large number of such small trades, over time a large inequality is created because some people accumulate more wealth than others. This directly leads to my previous point where people buy things which they don't want, but can't help themselves since they don't have the money for better goods and services.

Furthermore, this shows us how violence is exerted on regular people by the system. The fact that regular people are being priced out of life is a direct consequence of the market economy. The prices are constantly rising, yet the people are not making that much more money in order to buy what they need, thus in turn on average becoming excluded from goods and services which the society has to offer. But now, they are only offered to the ones who can afford them. Not giving a person high quality food and housing, not giving him medical care when he can't afford it yet forcing him to work for the society is violence and exploitation.

The only alternative this person then has is to leave the society and go live in the woods by himself - thus almost certain death sentence for any person raised and who lived in the city his whole life. Just because you see a person working doesn't mean he is doing is voluntarily. It should be obvious that if he doesn't do the first job he can, he will starve to death. This idea of free market you presented is no different than Soviet gulags you are so scared of.

Work, should be for the benefit of the society, thus to answer your question, no you don't own your work, unless you live in the woods by yourself. The reason is simple. You created none of the tools you used to perform any of the work you did. Nor did you create the house you live in, nor did you grow your own food, or teach yourself the skills you utilized to do the work you perform. These are all products of a multitude of people working together as a society and then passing them on to the next generation. And yes, if anyone wants to leave such a society, he should be free to leave as far as I'm concerned.

A casual glance at the open source community, whether its software, or Wikipedia or any other, will show you how things would work. People would work and their work would be available to anyone who wants to participate without any need for immediate reciprocation. 

[Jsbrads]

No one looks at that crazy graph and chooses to make decisions based on it. They try to supply goods at a profit and the price signal efficiently sends them the information they need to allocate their resources.

Central planning isn’t more efficient. It is not only less efficient, it is less innovative. A market system promotes innovation. So many of the benefits we have today are due to innovation. In your central planned economy, designed by foolish limited people, how will innovation get resources allocated?

[SteveSmith]

45 minutes ago, Jsbrads said:

No one looks at that crazy graph and chooses to make decisions based on it. They try to supply goods at a profit and the price signal efficiently sends them the information they need to allocate their resources.

Central planning isn’t more efficient. It is not only less efficient, it is less innovative. A market system promotes innovation. So many of the benefits we have today are due to innovation. In your central planned economy, designed by foolish limited people, how will innovation get resources allocated?

I'm sorry, you have the answer in my post. Don't reply back to me until you understand my arguments, because this is my last post to you until I see that you made any attempt at understanding my arguments.