Page By Category
Forum - The Skeptic Project: Criticisms of a Resource-Based Economic Model
Skeptic Project on Zeitgeist Movement forums!
Tags: Skeptic Project in the news, TZM, Zeitgeist, have fun with this, Debunked [ Add Tags ]
| [ Return to The Zeitgeist Movement | Reply to Topic ] |
| Clock | Posted: Jan 22, 2014 - 14:48 |
| ||||
 :') Level: 5 | I saw this while attempting to enter Skeptic Project on Google today: http://thezeitgeistmovementforum.org/common-objections-tzm/284-skeptic-project-criticisms-resource-based-economic-model.html It seems as though the article the person is quoting is here: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/3940/an-economist-criticises-resource-based-economy-idea/ It seems like an old forum post Anti made awhile ago. Have fun :) | |||||
| #1 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Clock | Posted: Jan 22, 2014 - 14:52 |
| ||||
:') Level: 5 | Backup: Thread: The Skeptic Project: Criticisms of a Resource-Based Economic Model 01-12-2013 #1 Dan.S The Skeptic Project: Criticisms of a Resource-Based Economic Model An economist criticises Resource Based Economy idea - "The economic system described seems to completely ignore human nature. How would people ever arrive at the point where there are no true possessions, just "access points" to avail yourself of the use of a product? It seems very unrealistic. Part of human nature equates possession with security. When one has exclusive use of say a house, a car, a whatever, it adds to one's security and to one's happiness. One must then protect the possession and that gives rise to private property law, etc. Who controls the computer systems in this arrangement? It seems there is some omnipresent power that will supervise and construct these systems. Is that not a recipe for oppression and eventual abuse? Realistically, I don't believe even the most advanced super computer could ever even remotely manage global demand, global production and global resource allocation. Despite all its flaws, I think the price systems that exist today are the most effective resource allocators. For example, the price of oil goes up, it is transmitting that there is the likelihood that demand is rising faster than supply, the higher price delivers the financial incentive to find more oil and creates the scenario that alternative energy sources become more economically competitive. That's how a price system allocates resources. So, as interesting and logical as this video appears, personally I think it is pie in the sky warmed over soviet central planning." How would you respond to this critique? Came across this forum post the other day, would anyone care to dismantle this 'argument'? For starters hearing an economist tell us what 'human nature' is, is laughable to say the least. Your thoughts? jasonis Pieces of the puzzle I cannot "dismantle' his argument because his argument is incomplete. I would need to rebut each point and when I finish we would be no closer to an understanding than where we started. When I read these piecemeal arguments I am constantly reminded that TZM is a vision of a future that could work. A puzzle that would be complete only when and if all the pieces fit together. Whenever I have attempted to put together a puzzle I never take an arbitrary piece from the box and analyze why it can't go here and can't go here and it can't go here. If I did, I would never reach my goal. Instead, I start by finding some piece, any piece, that I know where it goes. Usually an edge, a foundation piece that can be built upon. A factual piece that cannot be rebutted. Regardless of where anyone should choose to look at the TZM puzzle they can only help in it's assembly of they have a vision of the finished product. They need to have the image in their head or placed in front of them so they can see, not how, but that the pieces actually can be assembled in time, with patience, and unwavering desire to see it to completion. For anyone who looks at the movement and states, "I can't imagine", because this piece doesn't seem to fit, needs not to have their argument dismantled, but rather to have the image placed in front of them so that they can share the vision. Maybe then they will put down that piece that doesn't seem to fit and pick up another one that must fit somewhere. I may not ever see the puzzle completed in my lifetime but I will do what I can to share the vision. I believe that if each of us who can imagine finds just one piece of the puzzle that fits, the picture can be completed. Quote Originally Posted by Dan.S View Post An economist criticises Resource Based Economy idea - ... Came across this forum post the other day, would anyone care to dismantle this 'argument'? For starters hearing an economist tell us what 'human nature' is, is laughable to say the least. Your thoughts? CitizenOfEarth "The economic system described seems to completely ignore human nature. How would people ever arrive at the point where there are no true possessions, just "access points" to avail yourself of the use of a product? It seems very unrealistic. Part of human nature equates possession with security. When one has exclusive use of say a house, a car, a whatever, it adds to one's security and to one's happiness. One must then protect the possession and that gives rise to private property law, etc. Human history exists way before the invention of the concept of "private property", there are examples of societies that lived peacefully and happily without such concept, like the hunter-gatherers and even modern african and brazilian tribes. While I agree that ownership may induce a feeling of security today, that is largely motivated by the disturbances and lack of personal security inherent to the current scarcity based socioeconomic paradigm. Who controls the computer systems in this arrangement? It seems there is some omnipresent power that will supervise and construct these systems. Is that not a recipe for oppression and eventual abuse? That sort of depends on which type of "computer systems" we're talking about, and what's it's purpose on a specific application set, since technology is an ever evolving tool, trying to speculate on something without the specific context is rather pointless. Realistically, I don't believe even the most advanced super computer could ever even remotely manage global demand, global production and global resource allocation. Despite all its flaws, I think the price systems that exist today are the most effective resource allocators. For example, the price of oil goes up, it is transmitting that there is the likelihood that demand is rising faster than supply, the higher price delivers the financial incentive to find more oil and creates the scenario that alternative energy sources become more economically competitive. That's how a price system allocates resources. Most if not all of the production would be done locally, because we have the technological tools to do so, such as renewable energy sources that can be strategically applied in a number of different ways, we can create desalinization plants on areas were there is a shortage of clean water and we can create hydroponic/aquaponic farms and basically grow food regardless of the characteristics of any area. And most important because it's less wasteful than making the resources travel to one place to the other, wasting large amounts of energy like we do today. That being said the notion of a super-computer allocating everything on a global level is unlikely to even be the more technically efficient way of approaching this. There is of-course a global consideration to the usage of natural resources and the impact that a certain practice has on the larger ecosystem, but that can easily be analyzed with actual calculation and statistics, and will definitely be more efficient without the financial bias and short-sighted interest we have today, if the price system was a sustainable way of allocating resources and managing the planet, we wouldn't be using natural resources 50% faster than what earth can actually renew. Synergy The economic system described seems to completely ignore human nature. How would people ever arrive at the point where there are no true possessions, just "access points" to avail yourself of the use of a product? It seems very unrealistic. Part of human nature equates possession with security. When one has exclusive use of say a house, a car, a whatever, it adds to one's security and to one's happiness. Hence why they are an economist. No concept of psychology or anthropology. In anthropology, there are simple archetypes and complex archetypes (and shades of grey in between). The simple archetype is egalitarian, and the tendencies attributed to this archetype are remarkably common. They include cooperation over competition (sometimes to the point of punishment when competitive values develop), lack of hierarchy (same safeguards as competition), and diffuse ownership and reciprocal exchange. -- http://anthropologymuseum.net/en/ind...ho-c&Itemid=35 Hardly materialistic tendencies assumed by this "economist." Inborn? Who controls the computer systems in this arrangement? It seems there is some omnipresent power that will supervise and construct these systems. Is that not a recipe for oppression and eventual abuse? We speak of a central computer loosely, from my interpretation. It is certainly far from a requirement, at least. From my perspective, inventory and production can be utilized on the scale of the community. The global resource inventory can simply be coordinated on a global scale through networking. If someone, or some group, gains control of a community or two and attempts to rig the system to their advantage, they can be cut off by the global community and their power eliminated. Decentralization. 3D printing coupled with molecular manufacturing could allow for personal home printers (such as we have today for paper documents, but in this case for home appliances and the like available via the internet though open source collaboration), which I would imagine could satisfy the impatient materialistic "consumer" type in an RBE, if such would exist. YaseaP Realistically, I don't believe even the most advanced super computer could ever even remotely manage global demand, global production and global resource allocation. Google can do it now already. It has literary all information available on the internet available on the touch of a button. They calculate millions of route per second in real time using available traffic information all over the world. How hard can it be to manage the stocks and transports of a few thousand cities? Who controls the computer systems in this arrangement? It seems there is some omnipresent power that will supervise and construct these systems. Is that not a recipe for oppression and eventual abuse? Only when it's open source anybody can check if it's ok. But now we use closed source completely locked in (iOS comes to mind) and all the money comes from the central bank, a private company. Seems to be an argument against the current economy. How would people ever arrive at the point where there are no true possessions, just "access points" to avail yourself of the use of a product? It seems very unrealistic. I'm going to assume we reach 100% recycling. Energy is renewable. It is a RBE goal in any case. So in a given city there is always enough raw material and energy for your needs. In every city you put multiple 3D printers, robots for assembly, food production, house construction and delivery and good public transportation. All these techniques exist in production or prototype already. So if you need anything (hamburger, bicycle, tablet computer, clothes, new batch, chairs) you choose, customize and order it through a kiosk / smart phone / home computer and you get it delivered at the front door. Why would you need property when the things you might need are just available at the push of a button. Possession in a situation like this just seems ridiculous. | |||||
| #2 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| JimJesus | Posted: Jan 22, 2014 - 23:45 |
| ||||
 Bacon Pancakes! Making Bacon Pancakes, take some Bacon and I'll put it in a Pancake! Bacon Pancakes that's what it's gonna make...Bacon Pancaaaaaake!! ♪ Level: 3 | *I need to make a note here; I am using the term 'cost prohibitive a lot and having to clarify it so I'm just going to put a disclaimer here. When I'm using the term, I'm not talking about currency restrictions, I'm talking about resource restrictions. We can all agree that using gold for toilets would be 'cost prohibitive' in an RBE because there's only so much of it and it needs to allocated to more productive or valuable items like electric components..etc. Now you get the idea. When I read these piecemeal arguments I am constantly reminded that TZM is a vision of a future that could work. A puzzle that would be complete only when and if all the pieces fit together. Whenever I have attempted to put together a puzzle I never take an arbitrary piece from the box and analyze why it can't go here and can't go here and it can't go here. If I did, I would never reach my goal. Instead, I start by finding some piece, any piece, that I know where it goes. Usually an edge, a foundation piece that can be built upon. A factual piece that cannot be rebutted. Why do TZMers always create a paralel and run with it to the point of being almost incoherent? At least say something substantial, I mean anyone can make shit like this up. "Herp derp TZM will never happen because it's like a broken coffee mug, and like... we can all hope the mug will reassemble. But low, it does not." wat
While it is true that humans did not have a working property rights philosophy for most of it's history, it was also a life of toil, poverty, war, disease, and starvation. You didn't see people protesting against it because it was just assumed that such is life. It wasn't until philosophy established property norms were we able to make strides out of this lifestyle. Even today there are primitive tribes who don't have a consistent view about property rights but they are irrelevant when it comes to advances industrial economies. There's not a single economist in the world who will disagree that communal economics are workable in primitive single stage production society. Even still this is just harping to the old noble savage myths. Primitive tribes are very diverse even in their own regional demographics. Most of them do have a primitive understanding and application of property rights as goods become more scarce. Secondly scarcity is not a product of " current scarcity based socioeconomic paradigm" rather the opposite. We have the paradigm because resources are scarce. Free trade, entrepreneurship, and exchange is what has made things like TVs, cellphones, and refrigerators not just a luxury for the well to do, but commonplace in most lower income households. You'd be hard-pressed to go to a slum anywhere in the western world without these. Who controls the computer systems in this arrangement? It seems there is some omnipresent power that will supervise and construct these systems. Is that not a recipe for oppression and eventual abuse? 1. Not all production can be done locally in most places. For example, I live in Las Vegas, Nevada. Naturally we have things like hot stand and some rare minerals under it and not much else to offer. The sun is too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter to do any kind of out door farming and too resource prohibitive to do it indoors unless you're growing pot which has a higher rate of return. So we import the vast majority of our resources from other states. It's also more cost effective (not just in dollars, but in resources) to do it that way. There are places more suitable to get some resources than others and you will inevitably need to do a lot of transportation. Just saying you'll do things mostly local sounds good, but it's not a feasible model. Skeptoid did a good podcast on the myths of local produce already. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162 2. Hydroponic ≠ sustainable. Hydroponic ≠ eco-friendly. Hydroponic ≠ efficient. Hydroponic systems are like any other method of farming. It has it's pros and cons in all areas. Waste water and things like rockwool is often not very good to release back into the environment. Filtering, disposing, and cleaning hydroponic waste can be cost prohibitive. Then you have things like cocomats are one time use or do you use something like clay balls which need to be cleaned and sanitized with agents that can't be good for the environment? Not to mention the nutrients and chemicals needed to be created for the plants. People have this utopian view of hydroponics and I don't understand it. It's no more eco-friendly or lighter on recourse use than conventional farming. 3. He does distance himself on the idea of a super computer (and I guess a network as well) which would put him at odds with Peter Joseph and his latest ECP lecture. So that's good. SynergyHence why they are an economist. No concept of psychology or anthropology. In anthropology, there are simple archetypes and complex archetypes (and shades of grey in between). The simple archetype is egalitarian, and the tendencies attributed to this archetype are remarkably common. They include cooperation over competition (sometimes to the point of punishment when competitive values develop), lack of hierarchy (same safeguards as competition), and diffuse ownership and reciprocal exchange. -- http://anthropologymuseum.net/en/ind...ho-c&Itemid=35 Economists do not care about what humans could be or how people ought to be, they only care about how they act now. Human nature, however much Zeitgeisters want to deny it, exists. It can not be changed in the ways they think it can though child rearing or environment. The USSR and China under Mao really pushed for the new socialist man to come and eliminate all the kinks in human nature and all have failed miserably. Even the guy they hold up, Robert Sapolski, would disagree with them on this issue. Steven Pinker has a great book on this; The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature Also worth noting that no economist puts competition over cooperation or visa versa. Who controls the computer systems in this arrangement? It seems there is some omnipresent power that will supervise and construct these systems. Is that not a recipe for oppression and eventual abuse?We speak of a central computer loosely, from my interpretation. It is certainly far from a requirement, at least. From my perspective, inventory and production can be utilized on the scale of the community. The global resource inventory can simply be coordinated on a global scale through networking. If someone, or some group, gains control of a community or two and attempts to rig the system to their advantage, they can be cut off by the global community and their power eliminated. Decentralization. So build a algorithm already. I'm serious. Take a computer science class, computers are not rational ubermenches they are computers. There's a good reason there's no computer science majors in TZM, because they know TZM and TVP makes claims about computers that are false. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNPaB3WVsBw
OK, you still have to get the 3D printer "ink" and a lot of those are scarce goods, hence you need economics. Do the rest in a bit. Need more coffee. | |||||
| #3 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| CyborgJesus | Posted: Jan 23, 2014 - 18:04 |
| ||||
 Level: 6 CS Original | These kinds of arguments always go the same way. On-topic Critic: Your economic model makes all kinds of assumptions that lack evidential support. You also don't address the foundational problems of resource allocation, incentives for work and distribution of products. Our system works - with caveats - so you'd have to make a more convincing argument before we support you. Off-topic Critic: Human nature. Meta critic: Your movement has no SMART objectives nor do you provide helpful resources for researchers. We have nothing to gain by associating with you. On-topic TZM: Mainstream economics makes all kinds of assumptions that lack evidential support. The foundational problems of resource allocation, incentives for work and distribution of products come with severe side effects. Our framework sounds possible in theory, so you should join us so we can make it work, somehow. Off-topic TZM: Let me grab my thesaurus. Meta TZM: Anybody still here? Hello? | |||||
| #4 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||