I’ve been waiting for a response to this, as well. Perhaps I can rephrase the question: The hypothesis is, “Observation and replicability are, together, a reliable source of knowledge.”
How is this hypothesis falsified?
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.
The article demonstrates EXACTLY the OPPOSITE!!.. You want to slam sh* like a child and let things be shitty like they always were..
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.
I get what you’re saying. I really don’t care what you call it, either. It is a question of how. I’m not trying to hide anything when I say , I’m merely being as descriptive as I know how. It’s not Communism. I’d be careful w/your comment about , as it seems like a baseless accusation, strawman. And the current economy does not resemble the efficient, intelligent, distribution and management of resources, in day to day experiences, sorry to disappoint you. It much more resembles whores and parasites.
But maybe here’s something that can help you understand what it’s about.. I’m not sure what materials you guys have been exposed to.
What is that video supposed imply? That technological advancement will fix the inequaity? Who owns the plant that makes the robots?
All economic systems are resource based(even communism). Thats the whole point.
Economics. Not the fantasy land of the singalitarians.
Man would indeed be better off if he had universal collective ends. In this way he could behave as the ant behaves and his economic wellbeing(His subjective satisfaction) would be better off as he has no personal ends of his own.
Does there exist any TVPer who does not have personal ends?I’ve been waiting for a response to this, as well. Perhaps I can rephrase the question: The hypothesis is, “Observation and replicability are, together, a reliable source of knowledge.”
That’s not an actual hypothesis, at least not the typical one in my mind. It seems more like the method of falsification itself.. The mechanics of the logical framework upon which the scientific method is carried out. It’s guidance as you say, but it’s not the same as currency.
If you have self evident assumptions, then you have to define them, otherwise, evidently, you are going to be proven incorrect in your assumptions; dismissed for assuming an a priori postion relative to the actual supporting evidence until replicated. Nobody needs believe you unless the experiment’s “Observation and replicability are, together, a reliable source of knowledge.” And so it is proven or is disproven to be so, for the purpose it’s defined or designed for. The process demonstrates that this is a*“. . . reliable source of knowledge*” . The final framework leaves room for falsifiability- all sorts of testing to ensure this is truly the case universally, and/or the extent it’s limited/influenced by conditions.
TVP’s RBE (a shared volunteer effot / collective -individualistic effort) is by definition, not Marx’s Communism. It’s been rendered an obsolete base- conceptualization and social economic model, agreed? .. If something is proven to work better, like Capitalism, or even Socialist-Capitalism, or WHATEVER, then the RBE will take on some kinda’ futurist Capitalism/Communist framework, firmly advocating the scientific method for social concern nontheless. RBE presents a hypothesis w/greater scope than the ECP even took into consideration, therefore, it’s not even been formally refuted, at least not significantly by anyone, unless you consider Molyneaux as a formal refutation, but he does actually support TVP ideas despite all that. He’s just taking a skeptical position, not outright dismissal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTw
Flic, etc: You say all economics are resource based. Why do you say this? Maybe you need to learn how TVPs model differs a little more. I have plenty of economics understanding outside of Fresco’s TVP, or PJ’s TZM. I also plan on learning more. Which is why I’m here, mainly. 
That is how I can take this subject seriously . I also meant what TVP (or even TZM) information have you been exposed to.
1.Communism does not focus it’s efforts on eliminating scarcity. Instead it kind of assumes that there is enough for everyone. And when this proves to be false rather then seeking solutions using the scientific method it just turns to fascism and tyranny.
I did my best to answer your question. I hope that wasn’t too confusing or silly-sounding.
http://v-radioblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-is-venus-project-not.html
You realize that you are assuming, a priori, the “logical framework”, right? The method itself is an assumtion on which all other knowledge gained from the scientific method is based. If we take away this assumption, the whole thing falls apart. This is, I think, what Caley was getting at.
Have you heard the term scientific socialism before? Saying that communism isn’t all about “seeking solutions using science” is forgetting the enire history of communism. That’s what it was primarily. And the venus project too just kind of assumes scarcity doesn’t exist, remember my first post? I stated: “Basically it just assumes away scarcity to imagine a post scarcity utopia” and “The Venus project simply assumes that scarcity does not apply to their system”. And that precisely what TVP does. When you talk about your system then “the confines of the old system” somehow no longer apply. Then you guys come up with a few reasons why TVP would be more efficient (as in: managed) than capitalism, most of which are wrong. But even if they were right, none of them explain why there suddenly would be no scarcity. In a way TVP it’s just circular logic: We can abolish money because there is no scarcity, and we don’t have scarcity because there is no money. Same trick as communism. Really, this Venus project stuff is nonsense. It’s not even in the realm of serious economic theories.
There is neither scarcity nor a calculation problem for an economy of agents “persuaded” to only need what is distributed to them by a central body (computer, committee). As I already noted, the problem vanishes when you turn individuals (each with their own subjective preferences) into sheep (with simple, predictable, and objectively discernable needs). The sheep wanting more than what has scientifically been established that they “really” need (or ought to need given the resources available), will be taken to the woodshed and shot after been booed away by the herd. Communism, TVP, and TZM are exactly the same.
Are you being sarcastic or do you mean that? Because there is always scarcity, even if our wants do not exceed production. And there will always be a calculation problem, even to allocate a limited about of the same goods. Sheep that want what the computer tells them to want would make central planning a lot easier, but it would still not be possible unless huge inefficiency is accepted. And what would be the point of such inefficiencies in the name of abolishing money? Once all wants can be fulfilled, everything will be affordable in a capitalist economy as well. Paying for stuff would not be a problem any more. It could happen automatically via computers, and for our purposes everything would be free. Abolishing money to create a free lunch is counter-productive as long as there is scarcity, and pointless once there isn’t.
P.S. Anyone else chuckle at the notion that allocating all goods through a supercomputer would not be central planning? In practice, obviously, there would have to be a technocratic ruling elite that manages this computer and enforces it’s decrees. Just because the central planners use calculators doesn’t mean it’s not statism.
Nero, I was both sarcastic and serious. Sheep don’t seem to be having any calculation problems under a central planner without exchanges or money. Dead people, too.
@ Emperor
I am not so sure if I saw a sentence from Z yet that has not some sarcasm or irony (though mostly sarcasm) in it… Actually I think he makes good use of it
skylien, come on now, no one can be that consistent.
Z, a bit of an exaggeration adds just the right amount of emphasis, you should know Maybe a disclaimer like this in your signature could help avoid future misunderstandings:
This is PJ’s response to Molyneux. I meant to post that originally. *I’ve changed my original post to include the link as well.
You realize that you are assuming, a priori, the “logical framework”, right? The method itself is an assumtion on which all other knowledge gained from the scientific method is based. If we take away this assumption, the whole thing falls apart. This is, I think, what Caley was getting at.
Well this is getting interesting.. You may be right.. Excellent point, Caley’s silence tells me that was probably what he was thinking ;p. The results are based on a sound methodological internal consistency though.. Our understanding of objective reality may not be complete, but that’s not b/c it’s failing to meet impossible standards.. I don’t see how it could be, I guess there’s always that small chance.. Praxeology is interesting, but I’m not convinced that it’s a real Scientific Discipline… It’s a whole new method, which departs from the scientific method itself, and becomes something pseudo-scientific. Not so great, as civilization strives for technological advancements, exacerbating the enormous fissures in the foundation.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_objectivity
Scientific objectivity is one of the many realities that adherents of pseudoscience complain about. For instance, they claim that science is heavily influenced by political leanings.[1] Although the funding of scientific endeavors, policy implementations based upon scientific findings, and personal opinions of individual scientists may be subject to bias, science as a discipline is inherently objective and generally indifferent to political boundaries.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The scientific method is an epistemological system for deriving and developing knowledge. It is considered the best method for making useful and practical additions to human knowledge, and has resulted in the technological leaps made since it developed in the western world.[2] At the core of the method is the idea that the truth value of a hypothesis, theory, or concept is best determined by its ability to make falsifiable predictions that can be tested against an empirical reality. This is in contrast with other schools of thought that do not suppose that truth can be tested, and can merely be asserted or derived with sufficient “thought” or other ways of knowing.
However, there could be a problem w/the currently accepted economic techniques . As their seems no other explanation other than economically orginating failures for these problems, not the scientific method. The failures is what the scientific method tells us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology#Praxeology_in_economics
Like other members of the Austrian School, von Mises rejected the standard scientific approach of relying upon empirical observation in the study of economics
{{{praxeology is the study of those aspects of action that can be grasped a priori}}}… It’s an entirely distinct method from the scientific method . It’s no longer actual science. I’m still reading through this PDF.. Sorry if I appear to be jumping to conclusions too much.
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/long.pdf
I know scientific experiments can be corrupted (“The World According to Monsanto” comes directly to mind) , but that corruption seems motivated by money (which as so far as I’ve seen, implies poverty, assumes or even manufactures scarcity, inequality on every level).. ..
Science is self-correcting if done properly. Is economics the same way? No. I would say, the natural hierarchy does not favor economics over scientific investigation itself. Only the discipline of scientific investigation can make valid method correction for economic studies. At best, praxeology seems like a hypothetical approach to economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
On another note: "In monetary economics, fiat money is an intrinsically useless good used as a means of payment."
https://wiki.freecapitalists.org/wiki/Fiat_money
Well, what are we actually planning to do about the fact that all modern money is fiat? ?
The capitalist utopian notions of free market aren’t panning out so well, as I’ve seen it. . Even the content providers of this website recognize that.
http://mises.org/daily/4631
. . . our system is tragically absurd .
A central bank is a person or group that produces fiat money for exchanges performed within a certain territory and uses it in exchange or credit transactions on the market. The government uses aggression in order to prevent any other person or group from producing money that looks just like the fiat money produced by the central bank and could thus be used in exchange transactions.
So Capitalism is almost like an utopian / dystopian ideology?
A list would be handy right now, as to how Praxeology and the Scientific Method are similar and how they are different.
EIRMOS (aka edaptmogen on TZM forums),
The scientific method tells the Detroit auto worker the most efficient way to build a Coupe de Ville Cadillac with gold plated hardware.
The economic system tells the Detroit auto worker whether or not he should build a Coupe de Ville Cadillac with gold plated hardware.
It would be nice if the world ran on love and caring for their fellow man. The next time you sit down and have steak and potatoes ask yourself if the cattle rancher in Texas got up at 5 AM in the dead of winter to feed his cattle did so because he loved you. Ask yourself if the Idaho potato farmer that got out and toiled in the midsummer heat with sweat dripping from his brow and dirt under his finger nails did so because he loved you.
It is Capitalism with its promise of rewards for the worker producing the goods you want that puts the food in your belly, it’s not love. Like it or not, the public good is best promoted by private interest.
So you think the Federal reserve created by congress stemmed from a capitalist utopian notion of free-markets?
hello again,BTW-thanks for the conversation so far, it’s been interesting.I appreciate that there is a forum where I can readily interact and access such a high quantity of information for free.
I don’t remember talking about love or mere personal preference/bias.. anyway ur argument is a bit of a strawman. And reducing arguments to ridiculously oversimplified and therefore insignificant situations is useless. Maybe if you understood how any of that actually worked, and why, I would not be saying this, which I of course, assume you do not.
So far, we can see that the system is based on blind faith, “trust” that your efforts aren’t in vain. “What is most efficient-scientific method”, and “what one should do- economics” sounds to me something of a fallacy, something like false dichotomy. However social contructs seem real enough . . . Decisions based on abstract information of who needs what .. . Maybe more like “How am I to obtain resources to live or for my loved ones to live, or live better”? I know exactly what you all are talking about.. .
Empirical reality is what verifies anything in alignment w/the Scientific Method (SM). The social construct can become the empirical reality one’s hypothesis is tested against. --SM would determine whether or not to make the cars w/gold plating, not just how to build them most efficiently.. Thereby it’s a fact that goes pretty far to already falsifying the premise of your argument. Economization implies the determination of most efficient ways to, ulimately, meet human needs. If the economic system is to be replaced, it will be by something closer to SM, clearing up misconceptions..
Something kinda’ poetic I came across →
A specialist fielding an island of logic - their mind isolated from the mainland.
Their behaviour determined by their mind.
The task of regulation given to island inhabitants.
The effects of the inhabitants work - felt by all planetary citizens.
Truly held locally rational misconceptions -
the individual actually believes in a misconception.The solution to the problem
- to encourage the Islanders off their Islands - and into a tour of all other territories.
The elimination of truly held local misconceptions occurs naturally as the mind is exposed to vistas new.
Around the internal world (our species level ‘internal’ structure or mind which seeks to understand our entire (including ‘external’ context)) in 80 days ?
A market-based system distributes health care as a commodity according to the ability to pay, instead of as a social service distributed according to need. Yet, there’s an inverse relationship between one’s ability to pay for health care and one’s medical needs.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/truth-about-drug-companies
It’s only Capitalism that puts food in my belly, b/c that’s the economic paradigm, giving rise to the social construct I live in.. What puts food in my belly, is provably, not necessarily Capitalism. All I would have to do, in order to get to the point where I am not exchanging monetary value for my daily food, and more efficiently than especially Capitalism for it to be falsified.. I really hope you all are confident in your positions on this.. Social service and goods distrubuted according to need seems, more realistic than, ability to pay. .
Why do you ask, auctionguy10?
The economics we use, is based on misconceptions .. I just called it utopian / dystopian as it’s failures are obvious in real life. If it was ever believed to work, apparently that was just blind faith or biased. Prone to corruption, despite good intentions if ever they were there. Structurally flawed by default. It leads to the following realization. .
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
Just as the Fed can create money by loaning it to banks or other federal agencies, it is utopian thinking that this is actually sustainable, that some made up force will make it all ok . .
That’s my whole point- the Federal Reserve(and Central banks in general) are Anethema to free-market capitalism- it is a government created monopoly- it has nothing to do with capitalism as people see it here on Mises.org .
There’s plenty of articles on the subject on this website regarding money and why the Government Federal reserve system can cause so many economic imbalances. You’re arguing against a ghost if you think anyone here thinks the Fed is a free-market invention or part of the “capitalist system”. When money itself is controlled by the government - this cannot possibly be considered an argument against capitalism.