When you try to replicate (falsify) social science or economics experiments involving, say, 300 million people over a certain territory, do you use a time-machine, tele-portation devices or some other methods of making sure that “all the variables are accounted for”? Just curious.
If after this post you think I didn’t help answer that question, then define the relevant parameters of what you think is difficult to account for, w/o money.
Paraphrasing ECP: → Capital goods and labor are very heterogeneous, therefore economic calculation requires common basis to compare forms of labor and capital. The goods that cost less money are more desirable to use. That signaling and rationing function both prevent over-use of any resource. W/o money, you can’t easily compare goods and services, and you wont have enough knowledge. So then bureacrats are left to the decision making, not people.
I’m going to put this out there, it’s just my thoughts. Empirical information (the common basis) is the key to going beyond the final frontier of the monetary utility in economics calculation. What if only those products, which are proven best by consensus and also a number of identical field testing in various and controlled situations, to be best suited for the purpose and best in consideration for natural resource avaliability, and for aesthetics if it’s important too. Design the infrastrucutre so only those products were mass produced.. Open sourcing all this information through the internet, or print, and constantly updating ASAP. Also products that allow for people to research, collaborate, build and invent new and better products.Or even just produce their own.
Oh my God, I don’t even understand how any thinking person takes this Venus project stuff seriously. It’s based on first grade economic ignorance. Basically it just assumes away scarcity to imagine a post scarcity utopia. Nice trick, lol. Any system can do that. I can say that my carrot-based-economy (CBE) will be a post scarcity utopia if I simply assume that scarcity does not apply to it.
You’re clinging to a priori reasoning while neverminding posteriori.. Your reasoning, I’m learning, is independent of experience, and it’s not on par w/ the standards of modern science.
An ontologicalargument for the existence of God attempts the method of a priori proof, which uses intuition and reason alone.[1] The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist.
I didn’t say anything about communism. Try to dispute what I said: The Venus project simply assumes that scarcity does not apply to their system. With that little trick any economic problem vanishes into thin air, and they can imagine a utopia without money or work. All that talk about robots and efficiency is just distraction.
ERIMOS- Be honest, have you read all 8 pages of this post? I thought this thing was squashed when apfel left. We decided the ECP is real and unsolvable, and even if you could wiggle around this, you would have to completly change “human nature.”
I like what Stefan Molyneux said about the computer that builds all the best stuff in the world. He said that to know human preferences as intimately as the computers building all the stuff, that machine would have to posess an superhuman intelligence and may decide that it does not need the humans all that much. My part is that when it comes to that conclusion it decides to rid itself of humans, the humans would not stand a chance against it as it would control the production of everything that humans need to survive. So the whole project has in its utopia sown the seeds for its own destruction.
False Dichotomy. One is not used where the other is not(Or shouldn’t be). Instead both methods are mutually used together when there exists an honest effort to discover truth. It is false to assume that aprioristic reason is used in place of posteriori and vice versa. The two are complimentary as far as discovering truths are concerned. For it is aprioristic reasoning that helps us understand and interprit empirical results(probability dilemma of a coin toss).
The empirical sciences which reject reason repeatedly publish studies which contradict themselves regularly every few years.They look rather silly every time it happens(Which is frequent).
But all of this is besides the point. Your arguments are without empirical merit anyways. Additionally anyone can tweak the variables so that the empirical data is twisted in their favor. Absent any reasoning any studies provided are meaningless. I could present an empirical study to you which allegedly proves witchcraft exists. Whats the point? There is more empirical data and more theoretical support for that data for markets then you could ever dream of having support your own arguments, and your own argument lacks a coherent theory. (You cannot and will not ever be able to get past the calculation issue)
Except that the premise is easily falsified, via reason. So when you make a statement “Eat your words”. Human action is a bit more difficult to denounce.
Is the antagonism necessary? I suppose anyone who rejects reason as a means to discover truth has nothing else to offer.
I didn’t say anything about communism. Try to dispute what I said: The Venus project simply assumes that scarcity does not apply to their system. With that little trick any economic problem vanishes into thin air, and they can imagine a utopia without money or work. All that talk about robots and efficiency is just distraction.
You responded to what I said about RBE and Communism.. And you say a lot of things w/o much weight. . . TVP s not a political ideology. You don’t seem to know how to argue outside of political conceptualizations, which is not what the TVP is about. It’s not utopian a priori science fiction. The idea is to fix our culture by redesigning it, based on the principles of modern science.
I just spit up my Coke all over the computer monitor. How in the world can you use science to “redesign” such an abstract, generalized concept as culture? Moreover, what even is the current United States “culture”? Can it be quantified, measured, or even accurately described?
Yes it is. You expect computers to predict the subjective preferences of every man, women, and child on earth. Your making a claim that you can create an omniscient being. Even more hilarious is you think empriical evidence is on your side.
Tog get around this many TVPers argue that human behavior will predictably change. But this can just be dissmissed as desperate nonesense. When it gets to that point they’ve lost.
I don’t even think you comprehend what your arguing and It’s very clear you don’t know what the economic calculation problem is. Regretfully many members of this forum also do not understand it and often mis-represent it’s signifigance.
TVP has admited that in order for their model to work human’s must fundamentally be different. They must behave different and hold different preferences. All we have to do is sit back and lol at that. The argument defeats itself.
Assumptions aside, men. Obviously reason isn’t always compatible w/objective reality. As an example: Failures are more highly probable as direct causative result of social inequality.. This means economic inequality is causative to many health and crime problems. **To say otherwise, is not acceptable if you can’t actually falsify it.
Can we provably not, objectively determine subjectively experienced needs and also meet them? Can we provably not, objectively determine how to maximize certain behaviors while minimizing others?
I see you have the typical Venus project style of using big words to say nothing. hehe
Inequality does not have any social consequences whatsoever. Poverty may cause problems, excessive wealth may, but inequality is just a comparison. Besides, no social engineering scheme in history ever managed to reduce inequality.
After reading this are we suppose to assume future discourse with you would be productive/meaningful? I mean I don’t typically go out of my way to talk to people who reject reason. How could you?
Again, a perfect example of someone who draws a conclusion posteriori absent any priori guidance. Let me add one to the pile. In NYC, during the summer, icecream sales coorelate with homocide rates. Clearly icecream should be banned.
Point aside, the methods by which you measure inequality is flawed. No one study makes any coherent sense in their assessment of what is or should be equal. The very concept of inequality itself is nonesensical. So ofcoare your going to draw nonsensical conclusions.
Thanks for providing such an eloquent example of nonesense. (You really need to consider long and hard if the methods employ maximize your success in discourse with your fellow man, help you discover truth, and help you understand the world around you. Or if instead they just leave you more confused.)
How this is a refutation of reason, I don’t know. Has anyone here claimed that poverty doesn’t drive people to do life-changing and damaging things?
Proving a negative is impossible. The burden of proof is on you to prove to us that scientific management of the economy (an idea that has existed since the Progressive Era) is workable.
Are you serious? Reread that sentence again, I’ll let you find the blindingly obvious error.
You can try. It’s called social engineering, and the results are typically quite messy.
I also wasn’t implying that posteiri was better than priori.
I am saying that reason must change in accordance w/scientific inquiry. .. Science must be priori and posteiri..
Now how are you guys actually disagreeing w/me, after clearing that up?
Say there are problems, like crime rates rising. In this situation my intuition is alarmed, and my attention shifts to the variables revolving around these problems.
Proving a negative is impossible. The burden of proof is on you to prove to us that scientific management of the economy (an idea that has existed since the Progressive Era) is workable.
You are right about that. I was also implying that there already is evidence that we can.