Skeptic Project

Hey now Muertos, he's just being skeptical of the Holocaust.... ;-PP

@Pendrokar no clue where Matt is he does what he wants pretty much. So you never answered my question Pendrokar. How many Heil Hitlers do you do before you go to bed?

I don't care if I turn out to be 1/4 or 1/8 of a jew.

What if you turn out to be 1/2 of a jew. Like from the waist down or so.

Ooh missed this part too:

"What I said earlier was just one example. Here is another - Piracy or filesharing. Efficient, not good for capitalism, still outlawed.

How is filesharing outlawed? Some of the biggest new industries are thriving because of it. Its not outlawed at all. PIRACY is outlawed, which has nothing to do with efficiency.

If you could make a device that could provide free energy for next to nothing the energy companies might not like you very much, but everyone else in the world that pays expensive fuel and energy bills would love for it and you'd still be rich for it and investors would be too.

Zeitgeisters have no idea how the system really works, apparently.

> how great the Zeitgeist movement is.

I missed that bit, where was that said ?

FX [ watches storm in teacup brewing.. ]

@Ed

What about promoting the movement with the movies? Which, you know, do.
I used to think he could be helped back when I was on the ZGM forums and back when I was a member, eventually it was obvious he can't. He is a kook, a loony toon and will always be. He knows big words which can fool some people, but look at Zeitgeist 1, he still defends everything in it despite it being ripped to shreds years before he even copy and pasted it into that film!

No one I know in my chapter is handing out Z1 to promote TZM. And if they did I would have a problem with that. There isn’t much I can do about the fact PJ made Z1, other than lobby to get him to put a disclaimer on it stating that it is not part of the Z-movement. I am hoping that when the third movie gets released, he’ll just drop Z1 from his movies page, or just move it off the homepage.

@CyborgJesus

The problem with the cybernetic process of a RBE is an extreme positive feedback* in scenarios of scarcity.
*(Positive Feedback means that if some process starts to get imbalanced, it gains momentum and gets more and more imbalanced. The opposite, negative feedback, brings the process back to normal - air conditioners and automatic driving systems for trucks work that way)

Let's say some important good gets scarce.
Ideal solution: Use gets limited per person to avoid situations of extreme lack, capitalism regulates this over the price mechanism, planned economies of the past per rations.

RBE: Unless there is some government force to restrict consumption, the computers will just say that the good is getting more and more scarce, people will increase their demand, just to go sure they're adequately supplied for the future, further increasing the scarcity of the good.

It's not about whether this scenario will happen, but that it can, and the ideal economic system has to cope with as many possible scenarios as possible.
I don't see a moneyless society w/o government be able to do that, at least not in the foreseeable future.

I find it hard to accept that if people saw that a particular resource was running out that they wouldn’t start rationing it and spending time to find a substitute or a way to use their current reserves more efficiently. It’s like standing on the tracks and watching an oncoming train but not moving because you are, at that moment, comfortable.

I think I mentioned this before, what is the difference between having the market tell someone they can't have a resource (by pricing it out of their reach) and having a resource management system tell that same person they can't have that resource?

Not only could a resource management system see the depletion coming long before it happened, it could alert people to solve it and begin rationing in the meantime. By the time the price mechanism informs us that we are in trouble, the resource is nearly depleted and the time horizon to act on it is shortened. It takes time to communicate shortages through the price mechanism.

@Bill

@ TeeZedem ah ok more great responses from you.
because I like my privacy. nono I "need" my privacy. I masturbate and stuff you are saying I do this out in public where everybody can see me that's involved in RBE and we'll all be cool about it?

Ha ha that is a good one Bill, but seriously do you mean to tell me that our privacy laws sprung up around our need to let off alittle “steam”? I put it back to you again, what was the underlying need for private property, how did it evolve?

I guess one can condition themselves into anything? Isn't RBE mind set a kind of conditioning?

As much as a capitalism mindset is some kind of conditioning

This is exactly why RBE isn't any better than our current system :) Also wants can turn into needs even if you may not need them to live. You may want a computer because it's unique, then when everyone has ones it becomes necessary or needed if one goes to college to further ones education. Here's a better one, you may try drugs for testing because you want to then you get addicted to a particular drug if you do not continue to take that drug he may honestly die you have become dependent or you have developed a need for in in the physical and even mental sense. Although you original do not need these things and for the most part can do without people have the potential to develop need for them. So who are you to say other wise? Who is RBE to say other wise? Who exiles these people? Yet again your hypothetical RBE uses force to deal with a problem rather than with science. This is why RBE is bullshit and I hope you understand this. Even if I think RBE is bullshit I do not deter anyone from trying it out, if your going to sit here and say to me that RBE is real without doing any test then your it's own hypocrite. You worship RBE, Fresco, and Dr. Peter like a god and believe what he says like the gospels.

Well using your logic needs can turn into wants; items we once needed to live become no longer necessary. But if you think about it empirically, what do we need to live? Air, Water, Food, Shelter, pretty much everything after that is gravy. Provide access to these basics without obligation and consider what we could then do with our time.
The individual who refuses to offer redress exiles himself that is his choice, he is choosing to leave rather than stay and try to live peaceably within his community. Show me the force in that. Science will be able to deal with most aberrant behaviour, but if you are asking science to neuter free-will that is not possible. There may well be, even after the abundance, and the access to knowledge, people that cannot live with other people in an RBE. So they are offered the choice.

Actually I’m my own free thinker, I don’t agree with everything Peter or Jacques say as evidenced by some of my posts here, also this discussion we are having about outlawry, this is not part of the officially TZM doctrine, but it is an idea I picked up on and find that it would be a great idea for in the transition for as long as it is needed.

It is disingenuous of you to call me a hypocrite because I haven’t started my own RBE yet. This movement is barely a couple years old. How long did it take for money to out compete barter? Generations? Why rush into it and fail like all the other fledgling movements have because they didn’t take their time and plan it out and gain support first.

Not true I often agree with Special Ed's blog that Dr. Peter Joseph Merola can redeem himself by stepping down, I happen to fully agree with that by apologizing to CS members to RBOSE, to Earth 2.0, RBOSE, and I'm sure a few other groups that's a step in the right direction but his sudo ego is to huge to make such step it's not going to happen. See when peter calls people from CS "mentally I'll" or bans them on third party websites for things that they said on a third party website no affiliated with Zetigeist cult one tends to think things differently.

If someone could take his place, I’m sure he would step down. I can’t begin to imagine the strain it is to do this. Douglas Mallette seems to be an up and coming individual and he has made his own documentary. As to people being banned on third party websites for what they said, I’ve heard this mentioned before but I have no evidence of it. I have said stuff that could be construed as not favourable to Peter yet I have not been banned, both on the TZM forum and on third party sites. I’m not denying it happened but I would have to know the context before I made any judgment. I think it was Special Ed was given a forum thread of 70+ pages to make his case against the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Which in my mind demonstrates patience. My apologies if it wasn’t special Ed, but rather Ed.

This is a third party forum not affiliated with the zeitgeist movement once so ever. I'm a individual with an opinion. Not only do I bash Peter, I bash Alex Jones, CTer's, among other people. I imagine people stand in line to bash "King Peter" not just CS just on the bases that he is full of shit and his sudo logic is laughable. Asking CS to talk good about your God is like you asking CS to talk good about Alex Jones... Why are you not defending Alex Jones because everyone here in CS rips on him as well. Isn't Alex Jones prison planet changing the world as much as Dr. Peter Joseph Merola's zeitgeist movement? If someone googled and found CS forums and saw "Dr. Peter" posts on here they probably think he is a conspiracy theorist and idiot with or without putting "Dr." before the name.

It’d be much more powerful if you said “I’m an individual with some facts”. As you know the old saying opinions are like assholes, everyone has them. I will not argue against facts, facts are self-evident. Opinions, however, are debatable. I’m not asking this forum to talk good about anybody; this is your forum, thus your rules. I was making an observation. And why would I defend Alex Jones? Alex Jones is boorish and acts like a child when an argument isn’t going his way.

Alright got a question for Teezedem take it any way you want too, make sure you can answer it to the best of your ability. Overall why should everyone in the world (or anywhere else) join Zeitgeist movement?

Wow I feel like I’m back in high school writing an English exam.

No other social movement, economic system, political ideology has ever addressed the root causes of behaviour that I have come across. Almost every solution that I have discovered is more of the same, more taxpayer’s money, more laws, more taxes, more regulations, more human nature, more political parties, more borrowing, more consumption, more pills, more complex financial instruments, more war. These don’t fix anything, they are bandaids at best. Money is a ubiquitous way for power to perpetuate and influence all aspects of life, money in small amounts lubricates transactional exchange. But money in large amount combined with compound interest changes its character from a tool to facilitate living, to something that can change the very fabric of our society. Everyone who complains about an RBE using force on people should consider that the mere act of amassing billions is an act of force. Where money enforces scarcity, each dollar accumulated means less resources for someone else. You think that is a fallacy? How else could we support our standard of living if we were not forcing (through debt obligations) other countries to give up their resources at less than equitable market prices? In our society money is the most powerful force, and those that hold the money make the rules. If all else that TZM stood for was complete garbage, the idea that money enforces scarcity and inequality is a true one. If we accept that as true and starting from that point anything we come up with that dispenses with the idea of money is a good start.

@ domokato

@CyborgJesus: That's a great point. Tragedy of the Commons. It tends not to happen in small communities, but in a larger society I think it could be very problematic since individuals are no longer affecting just their neighbors by their economic actions, but also people halfway across the globe that they've never met. How will an RBE handle these runaway consumption situations? How will an RBE distinguish between normal consumption and runaway consumption?

There are just too many holes in RBE theory that needs to be filled before anyone can or should take it seriously.

How would they handle it? By changing how you look at people who are your neighbours, even on a global scale. This cult of individualism has made us lose our empathy with other people. In the 1900’s we lived or died depending on our relationship to our community, today we think we can go it alone. Well we can’t.

@Muertos

It's not personal, at least not with me. However, Merola spreads conspiracy theories. He's the second most common source of conspiracy theories circulating on the Internet today, after Alex Jones, at least in my view. The fact is that he's the head of a movement that is primarily about conspiracy theories, pushing conspiracy theories, recruiting conspiracy theorists and promoting conspiracist thinking. That's what he does, just like Alex Jones.

Where are we not sticking with the facts? Does Merola push Acharya S. as a reliable source or does he not? Does Merola shout from the rooftops that 9/11 was an inside job and the hijackers are still alive, or does he not? Does he promote demonstrably false misconceptions of the economic system and the Federal Reserve or does he not?

I can’t comment on Acharya S. and her credentials as I can’t read Greek, nor Egyptian hieroglyphics, nor have I studied the bible for decades, nor have I authored six books, so in short I’m not qualified to critic her work, only other biblical scholars are. The 9/11 thing I clearly do not agree with. However you brought up about the false misconceptions of the economic system and the Federal Reserve before in a previous thread but did not elaborate. I would like to hear more of that.

@Ed

If you can really do that then go invent it, investors will be climbing down your throat for that technology. You'll be super rich. Zeitgeist pretends that abundant, efficient technology isn't what capitalism wants, on the contrary, thats exactly what capitalists want.

In the long run, in a capitalistic system, you do not make money by being efficient and abundant. When capitalism was in its early stages and competition was prevalent, it made sense to make a good product that was more efficient or abundant than your competitor. It made good sense right up until the point you bought your competitor out or drove him out of business.

As we all know making a quality product costs money. How do you increase your margins? Two ways, one is raise the price, second is lower the cost of production. You can only justify rising prices if you competitor does, unless no competitor exists or you offer a unique product (and restrict supply). It is much easier to cut costs, (inferior materials, less laborers, automating processes, and skip on quality control) but keep the pricing structure the same. Once you’re a monopoly or part of a cartel what is the incentive to produce abundance? By artificially restricting supply you get more money for less effort. The only reason I could see that companies would be climbing all over themselves for this technology is so they could patent it and use it to further consolidate their position, then sit on it.

@CyborgJesus

The whole argument is based on nothing.
Nobody knows what consumption in a RBE will be like, so to say that we can do it with the technology we have is nonsense.
I've made a graphic, because...well, because I can, but you can also show it TZMers:
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8360/rbegraphic.jpg

I wanted to address your graphic that you presented. Industry has been wrestling with the oversupply problem since the early 1900’s. Which is why they recruited Edward Bernay’s to change the American citizen into the American consumer. He knew more about the psychology of crowds than anyone else alive. Cyclical consumption and planned obsolescence would be nowhere without him. Of course factories can produce an over abundance, look at what the Soviets did, they just produced an overabundance of the wrong things because they had not solved the economic calculation problem for which the price mechanism is uniquely suited. For arguments sake, let’s say we can’t produce enough houses or cars to sustain an RBE, there is nothing preventing us from producing enough food and clean water that is certainly within our grasp. I think a misconception is that an RBE can’t exist alongside capitalism or within a capitalistic economy, I think it can. In areas that we can produce the superabundance the RBE prevails, in areas where we cannot capitalism reigns. Eventually technological innovation solves the scarcity problem in more areas, the RBE grows and capitalism shrinks. And it is possible that capitalism never goes away entirely, just like we have pockets of barter today.

I think a misconception is that an RBE can’t exist alongside capitalism or within a capitalistic economy, I think it can. In areas that we can produce the superabundance the RBE prevails, in areas where we cannot capitalism reigns.

That's a topic that should be addressed on TZM.

If they agree with a statement similar to this, there might be a chance for RBE to evolve into a butterfly. If not, it'll stay a kook's cocoon.

@CyborgJesus

But that's exactly what a no-limit resource distribution system is. Minerals, as well as certain metals with industrial use (palladium, gold, silber) are scarce, so their price is high enough so not every new gadget uses them, but only those with high enough demand.

We have a similar argument going on with the Austrian economists from Mises.org. How they frame it is the Economic calculation problem. The premise being that no one can possible have all the inputs to determine costs AND changing demand patterns, only the price mechanism can do that. This was very true in the past, no one man, or group of men (USSR) could predict demand. But distributed networks of computers can measure demand and can collate all the necessary information of cost inputs, resource availability and forecasted demand. This in essence solves the Economic Calculation Problem. Austrians then muse that we don’t have enough computing power in the world to do this. Debatable, but even if they are correct, this changes in a handful of years as the rate of storage and cpu speed increase at an exponential rate.

If the resource system tells people that, it's already too late. Scarce resources are priced high so not every schmuck can take what he wants, but only small doses that don't wreck the whole system.

If resources are scarce then a resource system can parcel them out in exactly the same fashion, except it will be based on need, and not just to rich schmucks.

If the RBE computer thinks it's okay to build high-end computers for 5 billion people now, and two months later somebody realizes that they don't have enough conducters for a new power grid or solar panels, you're fucked.

An RBE AI wouldn’t make such a terrible forecasting error. We have the raw resources inventoried, the replacement rates of said resources, the recycling rates of existing materials, the input material of every existing product, and how important they are on the scale of things, like a queue and lastly the demand patterns adjusted for region and seasonality.

It's not that this doesn't happen in some areas in capitalism, it sure does, but increasing the chance for this to happen by allowing every producing facility on the planet to start every project they want (and can do right now) is just nonsensical.

With one AI coordinating the network how could this happen?

Demands of dozens, possible thousands of industries for one resource will pile up, leading to a scenario in which you'll have to decide which demand is more important and has to be granted right now, which can wait, and which must be cancelled.

Think of the AI as a traffic cop, directing requests for materials to projects and production based on supply and demand.

This is what economics is about - deciding how society can use its resources in the most efficient way. "Just take what you need" isn't a system, at least not unless we'll come up with the perpetuum mobile.

Just take what you need is just that though. Our needs are going to change drastically when we realize we don’t have to live a consumerist lifestyle to be happy and when the products we do use and more sturdy and are designed to last. Our society is going to be more mobile as you no longer have to stay put for a job and mortgage payments, travel will become common place as infrastructure is built up to allow for fast efficient land travel via maglev trains. Personal property will become more about what has sentimental value than furniture, houses, cars, appliances, TV’s, etc. We will have less stuff, because the more we have the more we are burdened by it. This isn’t just a technological revolution, this is a social revolution as well. One must necessarily accompany the other, or neither one will make it. So of course an RBE seems ridiculous to most people, that is because most people are looking at it through eyes that see today’s values: individualism, consumerism, capitalism, democracy, etc.

If rationing is okay, why not use money anyway? Some people might want to trade their ration of A for two rations of B or otherwise.

We probably will be using money, for quite some time yet, but it’s prominence will fade over time.

@Ed your more than welcome to join the independant groups if you want(I have a bad sarcasm detector).Even though there are some CTrs there they dont actively promote them and they have other redeeming qualities in them .

> I find it hard to accept that if people saw that a particular resource was running
> out that they wouldn’t start rationing it

That is my thinking too.

Though, usually when I mention rationing to TZM folk, they get all upset and say "NO!" there will be no rationing..

So its good to see we are on the same page here.

> I think I mentioned this before, what is the difference between having the market
> tell someone they can't have a resource (by pricing it out of their reach) and having
> a resource management system tell that same person they can't have that resource?

Nothing much as far as I can see.

> but seriously do you mean to tell me that our privacy laws sprung up around our need
> to let off alittle “steam”?

I think he is correct there, though one should also remember that letting off steam = can mean stealing resources. Thus people built castles to protect their stuff from others taking it.

> Provide access to these basics without obligation and consider what we could then
> do with our time.

Watching folk on state benefits shows people aren't necessarly very productive with their time, other than sitting around getting obese, watching TV, smoking pot, getting drunk, having kids..

But, whilst the general population would do that, I do think you are right in that the few that currently cannot do things such as develop a cure for cancer because they are struggling in their 9 to 5 job, would be free to help develop humanity.

> Science will be able to deal with most aberrant behaviour

I hope people realise that might easily mean prisons in some cases.

> Why rush into it and fail like all the other fledgling movements have because
> they didn’t take their time and plan it out and gain support first.

One should also not take too long, look at Technocracy US where about a hundred years of taking their time hasn't really got us anywhere.

So whilst I'm for planning, I would hope we moved at least at a reasonable speed.

For example, this community started 40 years ago with just two people, now its hundreds of folk:

http://www.findhorn.org

I see no reason why TZM could not move in that direction, rather than in 10 years time, people are still homeless, jobless and the world hasn't been improved at all for anyone.

> If someone could take his place, I’m sure he would step down.

Its slightly amusing that once Tanktop I think it was, got upset after he thought I was after PJ's position! I replied that I did not, I only think PJ should learn to work with others, then it doesn't really matter if he is up top, not if he listens and actions suggestions by others below. (It is after all, how I see management is supposed to work, at least I found operating that way myself as a manager it worked very well..)

> I can’t begin to imagine the strain it is to do this

Running my own effort, it is a strain yes.

> I have said stuff that could be construed as not favourable to Peter yet I have not
> been banned,

Yet..

No seriously.

Really, if one looks at Domokato, I couldn't imagine a more polite, thoughtful/etc. individual who would be on the list of least likely ever to be banned people I have ever in my 25 years of chatting like this met.

So, lets see if you are still not banned in a years time :-)

Hopefully you won't be, because TZM really needs sensible people like yourself to stand a chance to change the world.

> facts are self-evident. Opinions, however, are debatable.

Lets not forget that often opinions are based on observing facts in play, and whilst many people have a limited view of the world and thus they are not aware of all the facts, there are also a fair number of people whose opinions are good enough to be equilivant to a set of walking scientific studies. (This is often the case with older people who have had plenty of experience to base solutions upon, having a more accurate opinion on what works than what doesn't, compared with someone with less experience and thus often younger.)

Thats part of the reason why people like Billl, who have had lots of experiences, know plenty that is worth listening to.

Cheapening the term opinion I think isn't a good thing to do and some call it a cultish type of behaviour to act in this manner. (It perhaps didn't start that way, but now the word of Fresco is being interpretured like the word of God and not being fully understood correctly I reckon.)

> But money in large amount combined with compound interest changes its character from
> a tool to facilitate living, to something that can change the very fabric of our
> society.

Indeed.

But, its not the fault of money per say, its the fault of the compound interest part..

It would be like blaming tyres for car accidents when its the drivers fault..

> Where money enforces scarcity, each dollar accumulated means less resources for
> someone else.

That is if there isn't any production, then some of that money goes towards the people at the top and some towards the people at the bottom.

> How else could we support our standard of living if we were not forcing (through debt
> obligations) other countries to give up their resources at less than equitable market
> prices?

Indeed.

But we don't need money to do that, in days before money people would go and physically steal the stuff, so if we got rid of money, its likely people would find some other way to go and steal other folks stuff..

RBE appears rather like that to me, instead of stealing it, or using money to get it, you will trick people into giving it to you for free!

> In our society money is the most powerful force, and those that hold the money
> make the rules.

I would say resources is the most powerful, eg. those that own mines, forests, oil wells, land, housing.

But that isn't necessarly a bad thing, because if you give stupid people money, they spend it rather badly..

> the idea that money enforces scarcity and inequality is a true one.

Scarcity maybe, but I think overall money has helped solve the problem of inequality, as in the old days unless you had the physical means to take what you wanted, you was screwed!

Now, you can use brains..

Though, sadly you can also lie and cheat your way there too :-(

> Capitalism formed organically through time,

Agreed.

> RBE is pure science fiction

Generally agreed, though I can see how it too could form organically over time. (If its allowed to! eg. I think PJ is holding back that process..)

> Ok you have convinced me I want to rejoin the Zeitgeist movement.

I'm a bit confused here, as if someone is banned from the main TZM forum, but not banned on their local chapter, does that mean they are or not a member ? (I'm banned on main TZM site, but not my local chapter.. (Who thankfully so far have not sucummed totally to the idiot style moderation seen on the main TZM site, though sadly do appear at risk of that happening rather easily as they let just anyone become a mod and in time your bound to get unsuitable types join and then start banning people like me..)

> Which is why they recruited Edward Bernay’s to change the American citizen into
> the American consumer.

Did he also work in all the other countries and help them to become consumers too..

Or perhaps his influence is over rated..

> I think a misconception is that an RBE can’t exist alongside capitalism or within
> a capitalistic economy, I think it can.

Totally agreed.

> In areas that we can produce the superabundance the RBE prevails, in areas where we
> cannot capitalism reigns. Eventually technological innovation solves the scarcity
> problem in more areas, the RBE grows and capitalism shrinks. And it is possible that
> capitalism never goes away entirely, just like we have pockets of barter today.

Again, totally agreed.

> "Just take what you need" isn't a system,

Agreed. (But then, we can ration can't we..)

> If rationing is okay, why not use money anyway? Some people might want to trade
> their ration of A for two rations of B or otherwise.

Indeed.

I tend to think that an RBE for want of a better term can exist and money.

> The premise being that no one can possible have all the inputs to determine costs
> AND changing demand patterns, only the price mechanism can do that. This was very
> true in the past, no one man, or group of men (USSR) could predict demand. But
> distributed networks of computers can measure demand and can collate all the
> necessary information of cost inputs, resource availability and forecasted demand.
> This in essence solves the Economic Calculation Problem.

Agreed.

Though, let us not forget that in many parts of the world that are poor, money is a cheap analogue computing solution and it will take time to computerise the world enough to run it without needing the current paper analogue computing solution.

But yes, I think its a doable thing in time. (With probably money at the edges for the real poor..)

> If resources are scarce then a resource system can parcel them out in exactly the
> same fashion, except it will be based on need, and not just to rich schmucks.

I think it should be rationed, with a bit extra for those that work. (So you can supply and demand jobs that need to be done, else how will you find enough brain surgeons or toilet cleaners..)

> An RBE AI wouldn’t make such a terrible forecasting error.

It might :-)

I think it will take a while though before AI is good enough for that kind of job, but I do think people could do a better job than the market even today, but it might be difficult to figure out who those people are.. (Perhaps we could run competitions in MMORPG's to find them!)

> With one AI coordinating the network how could this happen?

One of the reasons one of my hobbies is AI, as I'd like to build something smarter than me to help reduce the chances of this kind of thing happening.

> travel will become common place as infrastructure is built up to allow for fast
> efficient land travel via maglev trains.

Travel might be an issue if everyone wants to go to the nice spots all at once, so your end up rationing in some fashion I imagine. (Random chance seems one of solutions to me that could work well and help avoid corruption.)

> Also, giving free electrical power to North Korea? Smart move, very smart move.

Actually, I think it would be a smart move, as when you help your neighbour, why would they then want to go to war with you ?

> And what if I don't pay?

Prison :-)

> On Piracy:

My only real concern with piracy is the pirates that make money from selling copies.

@TeeZedem

No other social movement, economic system, political ideology has ever addressed the root causes of behaviour that I have come across.

What? You mean people doing what it takes to survive, and needing money to do it? Unfortunately, RBE theory doesn't address the part that happens after everyone's needs are met for free. Will they keep working, or will they start creating problems for society? Maybe you could do some scientific experiments and find out.

Where money enforces scarcity, each dollar accumulated means less resources for someone else. You think that is a fallacy? How else could we support our standard of living if we were not forcing (through debt obligations) other countries to give up their resources at less than equitable market prices?

Not true. Wealth can be created through labor or resource acquisition. It's not like there is a set amount of wealth on the planet that everyone is jostling for. When I put materials together to make a radio, that radio is worth more than the sum of its parts. I have just created wealth. And that's how I can create a higher standard of living without necessarily screwing others over.

How would they handle it? By changing how you look at people who are your neighbours, even on a global scale. This cult of individualism has made us lose our empathy with other people. In the 1900’s we lived or died depending on our relationship to our community, today we think we can go it alone. Well we can’t.

That's great and all, but just try getting someone to care about the billions of people he never sees as much as he cares about the people whose faces he sees every day. Do you know how you're going to go about it? Is it even possible? Can you do it in an ethical way?

Once you’re a monopoly or part of a cartel what is the incentive to produce abundance? By artificially restricting supply you get more money for less effort.

And we have laws against that, so that's neither here nor there.

But distributed networks of computers can measure demand and can collate all the necessary information of cost inputs, resource availability and forecasted demand. This in essence solves the Economic Calculation Problem.

It solves it if it solves it. In other words, build an actual system (running on at least a simulated economy) that can solve the economic calculation problem, and I will be impressed. Until then, all you have is an ideology that says that the economic calculation problem can be solved. I want to see it happen.

An RBE AI wouldn’t make such a terrible forecasting error. We have the raw resources inventoried, the replacement rates of said resources, the recycling rates of existing materials, the input material of every existing product, and how important they are on the scale of things, like a queue and lastly the demand patterns adjusted for region and seasonality.

Let's see it working!

Just take what you need is just that though. Our needs are going to change drastically when we realize we don’t have to live a consumerist lifestyle to be happy and when the products we do use and more sturdy and are designed to last. Our society is going to be more mobile as you no longer have to stay put for a job and mortgage payments, travel will become common place as infrastructure is built up to allow for fast efficient land travel via maglev trains. Personal property will become more about what has sentimental value than furniture, houses, cars, appliances, TV’s, etc. We will have less stuff, because the more we have the more we are burdened by it.

This is your utopian vision, and you're trying to work backwards towards reality. You should probably, instead, start at reality and see where you can actually go from here. It's just more rational.

@Nanos

Really, if one looks at Domokato, I couldn't imagine a more polite, thoughtful/etc. individual who would be on the list of least likely ever to be banned people I have ever in my 25 years of chatting like this met.

Thank you Nanos. But don't look at my somewhat-less-polite posts on this forum. Now that I am banned I can criticize them openly, but while I was there I was all about logic and facts - mainly asking for them and never getting any - even while Peter and others were being fairly disrespectful towards me, typing in all caps, assuming I don't understand the material, and "questioning my motives" lol.

@Ed
Also when we were talking about efficiency. I was wrong to make it look as if I say companies don't like efficiency. I only meant about the unethical usage of it.

@Nanos
> "So, lets see if you are still not banned in a years time :-)"

You had, like what, more than a thousand posts in one year, which is more than 3 posts a day. Where the hell did you find the time? Because of this alone I think you slowly got an urge to rush for an RBE, Nanos. After all, according to Peter, 6 months before the ban, moderators started to have problems with you 'subtle' behaviour.

> "I'm a bit confused here, as if someone is banned from the main TZM forum, but not banned on their local chapter, does that mean they are or not a member ? I'm banned on main TZM site, but not my local chapter.."
Last thing Peter said about membership, something like: "This forum is also not the movement. The real movement are people in chapters."

The base of communication is talking face to face, so I agree with Peter on this one. So Nanos, you have always been TZM member, ever since you joined at your local chapter, you only got banned from a TZM forum that is largely owned by Peter Joseph. We could make the global site Peer-to-Peer to drastically change the ownership. I doubt Peter would mind, since it would lower his expenses.

>> I think a misconception is that an RBE can’t exist alongside capitalism or within
>> a capitalistic economy, I think it can.

>Totally agreed.
Careful with that one... You might be stealing so many jobs as to drive the country that RBE cities are in, into anarchy, due to leaked advancement of those cities. Which would not bode well for it.
Sure, in transition, we will always have some level of RBE and some level of capitalism.

Here is where, lies my worries, Nanos - http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=288557#288570

@Billll
> "Nope not at all, you've convinced me. Would you mind helping me in the process of getting unbanned?"
> "So I can still get unbanned form the zeitgeist movement based on what a admin said :)"

You can already read the forum and can find your closest chapter and talk with them. You really don't need anything else. Just as you see, Nanos is technically still a TZM member.

@Billl

Lets see here RBOSE did not attempt to divide any of the chapters. Grits is one person, I cannot control him nor anybody else. Let me give you an example if a "troll" goes and trolls a buntch of groups on the internet then join the zeitgeist movement, do all the places that person "trolls" say hey don't join the zeitgeist movement because they happen to accept a person they do not like based on the action did that to that group. So does the unbuntu group go out of it's way to blacklist another group because of one person? Not only is that not logical that is pretty offense. If one person does something it certainly doesn't represent and entire group, and let me give you another example if one person says they are affiliated with the zeitgeist movement and they do a crime and lets say kill a lot of people in a bank and say it's because it's on behalf of the zeitgeist movement are we to all actually think that, that one person represents the zeitgeist movement? That's exactly what the Zeitgeist movement in particular Dr. peter Joseph Merola, Dark Dancer, VTV, tanktop and a few others are saying and trying to convince to others. It's simply not logical to blame 1 and say that represents the many. This is like taking 10 steps up from what modern society is all about...

Who is the leader of RBOSE? When you say that you don’t control Cody Vickers, does that mean the leaders of RBOSE don’t have the capacity to ban him either? If I were working hard to get a project or a movement started and someone who was from my group started acting in a manner unbecoming in public, I would be pissed. Why? Because Cody was representing RBOSE and therefore his behaviour by extension taints what the RBOSE stands for. I would have kicked him out and I would have apologized for his behaviour on behalf of RBOSE. Sure its not fair, but what would you think of TZM if they came on to your forums and harassed you and your members. You would think that guy is an a-hole and by extension think that the rest of TZM is populated by a-holes, until you met a more civilized one. My question is why do your leaders not care who represents your group? RBOSE has a message and a plan, but that gets lost in the shuffle if you let just anyone represent your message. Believe me I know how hard this is and how damaging it can be.
And for the record, I hope none of you feel I am harassing any of you

lets put it this way what give another group or project any rights to say who we can and cannot hang out with? That's why RBOSE was formed as a flat structure with no leaders among other things as well.

Well that is your problem; you don’t as a group take responsibility for anything. If you have no leaders, then the responsibility rests in each an every one of you to curtail the behaviour of your rogue members. In TZM we have mods that do it. Like I said earlier, you have a plan and a direction, but you get tarred by the same brush when other people perceive your rogue members as “spokespeople” of the organization

No not at all, in kind of reminds of of Bill Maehr when he makes a satirical comical piece about a politician or someone in power. What I don't like is when it hurts there people, and it must of hurt tanktop in a particular way as such a banning was way way the wrong way to go about it. Even in their forum rules it says a warning is given, I was given no warning... I would of stopped and even apologized then but the ban was given after the fact, even in american court your innocent until proven guilty not guilty then apologize I honestly didn't feel that was a offensive post. Tanktop after that was being very offensive calling people from RBOSE retarded as well as VTV and a few others on their forum for no apparent reason other than their pissed they the majority of the developers left TZM.

First Bill Maher is a comedian, and second it is his show. I am sure that some of the satirical comments don’t get him invited to many parties thrown by the people he makes them about. Look at it from their point of view… Cody, a part of RBOSE was a relentless shit disturber, then tanktop sees your comment from yet another RBOSE member. One could be an anomaly; two is the start of a trend. I agree your banning was probably an overreaction. If that is so, make your case, link this thread. But before you do, you need to get RBOSE on the same page about Cody Vickers. We don’t live in an RBE yet were everyone should know better.

See that's the thing do I didn't do anything after I got banned besides was pissed off. They make claims I was doing this and that but I did nothing of the sort and for the most part I'm talking 98% of the time I did not enter any zeitgeist official chat mediums (with a few exceptions). that's the thing about begin respectful that's like saying you have to be morale. What exactly is it to be morale or respectful that's completely up to the person... I think I have always been considerably respectful when i was on all Zeitgeist movements I think the ohio chapter coordinator Gangreen to tell you that since he is the one that knows me best when i was on the official zeitgeist movements.

Are you still part of your Ohio Chapter? If so why not get them to also intercede on your behalf?

In that my opinion on respect is I don't care if a person respects me or not matter in fact they can call me everything and then some and I can still work with that individual so respect to me doesn't even factor in the majority of the time. of course I am human if they keep it up naturally I'll get pissed off, at that it's only happened to me on a few occasions where I've had to do that. Of course I never banned a person for ever actually and at that I rarely ban anybody.

I am for free speech and against censorship as just about anyone you could ever meet, however, free speech doesn’t give anyone license to act like a jackass while they are a guest in someone else “house”. Cody Vickers clearly was. So maybe you should take a stand for RBOSE and their message and start banning people.

I am very sincere for writing the letter I felt that it was the best I could do at the time. Unfortunately Tanktop and DarkDancer believe that it wasn't even though I say otherwise which I had asked them to show their credentials in mind reading. Apprently they think they can read minds. Nope not at all, you've convinced me. Would you mind helping me in the process of getting unbanned?

Like I said, link this thread of this conversation and if they ask for more input from me I’ll vouch for you because I believe in second chances and I believe that if you are insincere it won’t be long until you are banned again. I don’t believe I’ve actually convinced you of anything, but perhaps you can prove me wrong.

@Nano

That is my thinking too.
Though, usually when I mention rationing to TZM folk, they get all upset and say "NO!" there will be no rationing..
So its good to see we are on the same page here.

You and I are not so far apart, it is too bad that you were banned.

I think he is correct there, though one should also remember that letting off steam = can mean stealing resources. Thus people built castles to protect their stuff from others taking it.

I was thinking more along the lines that as hunter/gathererers we were nomadic and most personal property fell into the category “if you can’t carry it, leave it”, but upon the perfection of agriculture our ability to survive become tied to our ability to protect a plot of land by denying access to that land to others. Thus the push to codify private property laws. If our individual survival is no longer tied to protecting a plot of land, then the pressure to have these private property rights cease to be relevant.

Watching folk on state benefits shows people aren't necessarly very productive with their time, other than sitting around getting obese, watching TV, smoking pot, getting drunk, having kids..

I agree there would be some of that, but I think most of that result from not liking the work they do. Of course if the state was going to give my 95,000 quid to not work, I would take it in a heartbeat, but being on the dole means you have to consistently demonstrate your helplessness otherwise the gravy train ceases to flow. If we were given the basics with no expectation, we would most likely be more productive with our time.

I hope people realise that might easily mean prisons in some cases.

Why bother with prisons, just have them chose exile.

One should also not take too long, look at Technocracy US where about a hundred years of taking their time hasn't really got us anywhere.
So whilst I'm for planning, I would hope we moved at least at a reasonable speed.
For example, this community started 40 years ago with just two people, now its hundreds of folk:
http://www.findhorn.org
I see no reason why TZM could not move in that direction, rather than in 10 years time, people are still homeless, jobless and the world hasn't been improved at all for anyone.

I’ll check that out. And I am already supporting other movements like Open Source Ecology, movements that are doing something, but I am still part of TZM. It’s not incompatible.

Its slightly amusing that once Tanktop I think it was, got upset after he thought I was after PJ's position! I replied that I did not, I only think PJ should learn to work with others, then it doesn't really matter if he is up top, not if he listens and actions suggestions by others below. (It is after all, how I see management is supposed to work, at least I found operating that way myself as a manager it worked very well..)

Old specters of hierarchy still creep up, old habits die hard.

Yet..
No seriously.
Really, if one looks at Domokato, I couldn't imagine a more polite, thoughtful/etc. individual who would be on the list of least likely ever to be banned people I have ever in my 25 years of chatting like this met.
So, lets see if you are still not banned in a years time :-)
Hopefully you won't be, because TZM really needs sensible people like yourself to stand a chance to change the world.

If I am, I am. I still believe in the core idea, and hopefully my local chapter won’t ban me. I have discovered a many groups, books and much knowledge that I wouldn’t have had before. If it wasn’t for TZM I wouldn’t be here talking and learning from you.

Lets not forget that often opinions are based on observing facts in play, and whilst many people have a limited view of the world and thus they are not aware of all the facts, there are also a fair number of people whose opinions are good enough to be equilivant to a set of walking scientific studies. (This is often the case with older people who have had plenty of experience to base solutions upon, having a more accurate opinion on what works than what doesn't, compared with someone with less experience and thus often younger.)

I could agree with that. Opinion based on facts. Experience although anecdotal can be factual. So we could just as easily say “Conclusions based on facts or factual life experiences” oooo that was lawyerly.

Indeed.
But, its not the fault of money per say, its the fault of the compound interest part..
It would be like blaming tyres for car accidents when its the drivers fault..

Our entire society is based on monetary based incentive. It can literally get us almost anything we want. Power corrupts and all that jazz. So is it our fault to fall prey to this incentive? Deliver me from temptation! So really, why don’t we just remove the incentive?

That is if there isn't any production, then some of that money goes towards the people at the top and some towards the people at the bottom. </blockquote

Well lets be realistic here, most money goes to the top, and some money goes to the bottom.

Indeed.
But we don't need money to do that, in days before money people would go and physically steal the stuff, so if we got rid of money, its likely people would find some other way to go and steal other folks stuff..

What is the motivation to steal? Mostly because you don’t have enough currently and your fear future shortages. If you could provide enough and plan against future shortages then the motivation to steal diminishes.

RBE appears rather like that to me, instead of stealing it, or using money to get it, you will trick people into giving it to you for free!

It not really a trick, in economic terms, food and water could be produce in sufficient abundance which a high degree of efficiency that it is virtually free.

I would say resources is the most powerful, eg. those that own mines, forests, oil wells, land, housing.
But that isn't necessarly a bad thing, because if you give stupid people money, they spend it rather badly.

I could accept that argument as most of the super rich actually own a majority of the incoming producing assets. But that is the insidious trick of money, exchanging inflationary pieces of paper for real assets. It is a game of musical chairs, when the music stops the people left holding the money but no assets, are out.

Scarcity maybe, but I think overall money has helped solve the problem of inequality, as in the old days unless you had the physical means to take what you wanted, you was screwed!
Now, you can use brains..
Though, sadly you can also lie and cheat your way there too :-(

Which leads to the wage gap between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. That is inequality.

Did he also work in all the other countries and help them to become consumers too..
Or perhaps his influence is over rated.

Or that others saw the American model and copied it.

Though, let us not forget that in many parts of the world that are poor, money is a cheap analogue computing solution and it will take time to computerise the world enough to run it without needing the current paper analogue computing solution.
But yes, I think its a doable thing in time. (With probably money at the edges for the real poor..)

It’ll happen sooner than we think. I was just talking to a co-worker of mine about laptops; I bought two of them for about the price I paid for one about 5 years ago and they are each twice as good as my old one. I was talking about the simplicity movement and using technology to make our lives more efficient and we were talking about using electronic storage to remove the need for books, CDs, DVDs. And I was saying that in just a short while you are going to have one terabyte of storage available commercially, my eyes all beaming! And he was like “Dude, they have hard drives with 2.5 TB right now.” And I’m like “oh, I guess I should keep up with that.”

I think it should be rationed, with a bit extra for those that work. (So you can supply and demand jobs that need to be done, else how will you find enough brain surgeons or toilet cleaners..)

Sure I could agree with that.

It might :-)
I think it will take a while though before AI is good enough for that kind of job, but I do think people could do a better job than the market even today, but it might be difficult to figure out who those people are.. (Perhaps we could run competitions in MMORPG's to find them!)

Or just look at the really rich investors.

Travel might be an issue if everyone wants to go to the nice spots all at once, so your end up rationing in some fashion I imagine. (Random chance seems one of solutions to me that could work well and help avoid corruption.)

Me, I want to go to Alaska. And see Russia from my doorstep. Seriously, I hate to sweat. And there may be many more nice spots to visit when you don’t have to worry about getting blown up or kidnapped.

@domokato
@TeeZedem

What? You mean people doing what it takes to survive, and needing money to do it? Unfortunately, RBE theory doesn't address the part that happens after everyone's needs are met for free. Will they keep working, or will they start creating problems for society? Maybe you could do some scientific experiments and find out.

Sure that is reasonable, we should test it out. The hypothesis is that they will spend their growing free time doing the things that interest them.

Not true. Wealth can be created through labor or resource acquisition. It's not like there is a set amount of wealth on the planet that everyone is jostling for. When I put materials together to make a radio, that radio is worth more than the sum of its parts. I have just created wealth. And that's how I can create a higher standard of living without necessarily screwing others over.

I don’t disagree with your view that you can use value added processes to make a finished product worth more than it parts. So you can gain wealth through resource acquisition, which I’ve already spoken about, forcing countries to part with resources at rates beneficial for the purchasing party but not beneficial for the selling party. Lots of wealth is created through that. And it accumulates into fewer and fewer hands.
So that is an interesting question, if we can create wealth and thus create a higher standard of living for everyone, how come this has not happened? Why do we still have inequality? Or is this where the “without necessarily screwing others over”, comes in.

That's great and all, but just try getting someone to care about the billions of people he never sees as much as he cares about the people whose faces he sees every day. Do you know how you're going to go about it? Is it even possible? Can you do it in an ethical way?

Whose failure is that? That is our failure for not giving a damn. How am I going to go about it? One step at a time, one person at a time. I donate, I read, I talk, I reduce. How else does one tackle such an issue?

And we have laws against that, so that's neither here nor there.

That is precisely the point, we need laws to constrain and regulate our current economy, because it turns malignant if we let it alone. So any free-market enthusiast out there, take note.

It solves it if it solves it. In other words, build an actual system (running on at least a simulated economy) that can solve the economic calculation problem, and I will be impressed. Until then, all you have is an ideology that says that the economic calculation problem can be solved. I want to see it happen.

Fair enough. So if we build a supercomputer that can actually model this would that be enough to sway you that this idea has some merit?

Let's see it working!

You have JIT systems for industry that model this on a small scale. Not incredibly sophisticated nor with enough horsepower to do it on a global scale, but the model is there to be improved upon.

This is your utopian vision, and you're trying to work backwards towards reality. You should probably, instead, start at reality and see where you can actually go from here. It's just more rational.

I would respectively disagree; there is a growing trend of people who are growing weary of the endless consumerism. Have you heard of the Simplicity Movement, the 100 things challenge? Also looking to history we weren’t always consumers, this culture was imposed upon us and we can just as easily buck it off. This is the trend I am extrapolating.
Do things make you happy domokato? Or do experiences and other people make you happy? Take a look around your house and think about what you could get rid of and never need or use again?

> "Do you have any posters of the Nazi symbol or Hitler in your room?"
A painting of Hitler would look so cool and with another painting of Gandhi beside him, even more!

Well I haven't put swastikas anywhere and haven't searched for them in nearby books or as scratches on furniture. Nop. Probably nowhere to be found.