Your argument relies on the ability of a God-computer to essentially do what the market is already doing by itself.
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.
No they aren’t. They were based on universal measurement. You’re talking about Richard and Kate’s epidemiological findings?
So what’s the SI unit for social inequality?
There is no universal measurement of what is equality or inequality. Men are created not-equal.
Your argument relies on the ability of a God-computer to essentially do what the market is already doing by itself.
And no. It’s not about doing what the market is doing currently, Communism fell prey to that error. The belief in a god computer is not prerequisitve for my argument… Uh, I can go down a rabbit hole w/you about emerging developments in computing, but you’ll find out anyway. You just assume there won’t be any huge developments, as it is. . Technological advancement implies unemployment which entails moving towards what could be termed a Resource Based Economy.
Unless your technological advancement involves making an omniscient machine, one that can read minds, your argument is flawed.
Why couldn’t this fantasy-land supercomputer just pull a SkyNet and enslave all of us?
filc, the need for a fancy mind-reading computer is avoided by simply turning all humans into sheep whose needs (to be fenced in, fed, milked, and sheared) are scientifically (objectively) already well established, you see.
The occasional black sheep expressing unsheep-like needs such as Ferraris, Kobe beef, or golden yachts would first be subjected to friendly persuasion to become more sheep-like with their needs. Failing that, they would be taken to the woodshed and shot, just so they don’t mess up the “all needs met” record of the project.
Its all becoming so clear to me now!
We find ourselves in a silly situation don’t we? But seriously, currency to wealth values are adjustable.. Money is just an idea.. It’s just borrowed into existence. If the information in them clumsily works to some degree then fine, but I just can’t recommend this as the best way to go.
So here’s the other side. Are homicide rates or teenage birth rates not universally measureble? What about life-expectancy, mental illness, or drug abuse levels per 1000 people for specific drugs? And why are those correlated to average income gap so very consistently? I strongly suggest getting a hold of the Spirit Level book.
It’s not acceptable for our social sphere to disregard legitimate results, such as the clear demonstration of organic argriculture’s higher level of promise to convential. That paper was at least 11 years ago. Here’s a recent article as well. Incredibly slow responses to the scientific findings, if any. I would like it if someone could explain that one.
This is “a perfect example of someone who draws a conclusion posteriori absent any priori guidance”(by filc) btw! Just because money is “printed” doesn’t mean it shares any of the other characteristics of printed newspapers. Ever heard the saying “Not everything that glitters is gold!”? Even if the tenor goes into a different direction I hope you can see the fallacy that it debunks which you are making as well.
Money is not an idea. It is a name for a good with a certain characteristic.
As an aside, fair warning to everyone. Do not lend any money to a person believing (even worse, publicly stating the above). Judging from convincing anecdotal experience, you will never see that money again.
Nevertheless, Mises was justified in describing those principles as a priori, because they are logically prior to any empirical study of economic phenomena
Even Mises says that economics is priori science. I never heard any of you agree that science is supposed to be both priori and posteiri..
You cannot do a solid experiment based on that much priori. . It has to be both (falsifiable and universal) and it has to be logically consistent w/modern scientific methods of experimentation and research.
Show me one study. One that actually has empirical findings.
*a priori
That doesn’t mean he rejects the application of tests. Your jumping to radical conclusions.
Are you serious? This website has mountains of data.
I’m not seeing how that is a response to what I said. Are you challenging my statement that everything reduces to a self-evident assumption, including anything involving observation?
Define ur self -evident assumption in terms that I can relate to. Or just define what it means to you.
That doesn’t mean he rejects the application of tests. Your jumping to radical conclusions.
Maybe so, if he does accept testing of his theories w/in the RBE model then that is what the Venus Project wants to do.. Testing RBE model(s) against the current models to see what works, needs removal, or needs some revision.. If any of TVP’s theories fails to yield significant improvement, then they won’t be acceptable for implementation.. There is still much to be done in that respect.
Organic is less efficient and requires more farmland. It’s a waste of resources and the only reason it is practiced to some degree is that stupid people are willing to pay twice as much for food if it says ‘organic’ on the label.
The market has not adjusted to this “science” because it’s hippie nonsense that would make us all poorer. In your centrally planned world, societies welfare would constantly be wasted on all sorts of aesthetic fads like this.
Yeah, like conceding that a “resource based” economy is empty words that only sound as if it’s an actual economic theory. Every economy is resource based, because every economy is a system to allocates resources. The question is how to allocate resources. Calling it “resource based” is just clever rhetoric to hide that your scheme makes no economic proposals whatsoever and instead assumes away scarcity by fiat. RBE is internet nonsense, just read a basic economics book.
And the austrians are saying that their theoretical framework is flawed. Before we even begin to analyse the data. The theory itself is incoherent as far as logic is concerned.
Also in this respect the TVPers are saying hey something similar to the following. We need to test to ensure that flipping a coin always yields a 50% chance heads or tales. The Austrians are saying no we know apodictically that with an equal weighted coin its going to be a 50% chance each toss. But the TVPers argue in response(According to you) with their “real life” evidence suggesting to the contrary. It’s 70% chance heads! Err I mean 65% tails. Woops I mean 90% tails, and so on ad infinitum.
Do you understand the dilemma yet in applied empiricism absent reason?