Zeitgeist Movement along with the Venus Project

[LibertarianCowboy]

Can I have a pet unicorn in this utopia?

[yuberries]

Okay continuing the transcript

a complete coincidence, that technologicalization, coupled with the emergence of an abundance of energy thats cheap all over the planet, has coupled with the advent of this economic system called the market system. Now, I know right now all the monetary [indocnitive?] individuals that support this system are chomping at the bit right now, at the edge of their seats, going ‘But wait a minute, the reason we’ve had progress in technology is because competition has motivated that progress!’ Well, is that really true? Is there any evidence for that really? Have any of the major contributions of technology come from people that have been outspoken about their interest to make money off of it? I don’t think so. If you research Daniel Pink and his work on motivation which is basically a compilation of numerous psychological studies about what it means to be creative versus what it means to be mechanical, we tend to find that creativity, hence technological inovation, is actually driven not by competition whatsoever.

On the other side of the spectrum, it’s very very clear at this point, that technological inovation is currently being hindered by the market system, and the values, and the processes therein; with the need for scarcity, with the need to maintain the establishment. We have such profound technology today sitting on the sidelines that will not come to fruition because it will override existing establishments, and it is simply not profitable to create the type of sustainability that these new technological advents create.

So, three points:

A- The greatest contributors of scientific innovation have not done it for money - and you can research that thoroughly.

B- Psychological motivation is not driven by competition for creative invention

And C- Right now we live in a state of social evolution within market theory that is actually hindering technological process, because of the very dynamics of the system itself.

Monetary economics exists in the same form it has always existed, as nothing more but a religion. It’ s based on closed presuppositions which are essentially immutable in the eyes of those who practice it. Going back to Adam Smith and the quote “Invisible Hand”. What the hell is that? The invisible hand? That… that’s it? Pf, I mean, you gotta be kidding me. Is there any way to test this invisible hand? No, not at all. It’s a presupposition of some type of monetary god, and it’s absolutely insane, it operates with circular reasoning in a closed kind of [mind-logged?], just like any other religion. And it’s absolute blasphemy of course when you choose to articulate anything out of the presuppositions of that belief system.

Now please note that I don’t mean to be insulting towards those minds - I mentioned Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Friedman - they’re very brilliant individuals, within the confines of the variables they choose to acknowledge. Just like there can be very brilliant individuals within any religion, within the confines of the philosophy that they choose to accept, while they blinker out everything else. But the bias is so transparent! I have a book by Ludwig von Mises called “The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality”. Now, just the name of that, just, reeks of outrageous presuppositions and arrogance, does it not? The very statement, “The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality” presupposes, that anyone who’s against of the capitalist system, or the market system, must of a particular form of preconditioned “mentality”. And therefore, any objective and tangible open conversation is imediately void, because it’s just a mentality. If that isn’t religous stigma, I don’t know what is.

Now, I wanna be clear here because, if you read the Mises work, and the defense of the capitalist system by many different economists, they actually support it very well… within the confines of the arguments that they choose to recognize. I wanna clearly point out that the Zeitgeist movement, and the resource-based economy, what our angles are, what our problems are, are in fact very very different from any other objections to the economic theories put forward. While there are certainly overlaps, ours is explicitly different, and I have yet to hear any economic rebuke of anything we say that isn’t simply a projection of earlier arguments which they feel have already been previously debunked.

It is nothing more than a religion and I wanna make sure everyone thoroughly understands that, and when you approach people that believe in these ideas, you have to understand that, very often, your logic will be cut off, because they will blinker out information in their own schemata, whether they’re even conscient of it or not. That’s the power of belief, and unfortunately some people really will never understand rational associations because of their prior conditioning in life. But that’s for another conversation.

Okay, that’s enough of that, I apologize for that tangent, let’s uh.. let me get back on track here and talk about a resource-based economy, because once you understand the ground-up approach of a resource-based economy, it immediately makes void all notions of prior economic monetary theory, because it simply doesn’t make any sense otherwise. […]

Thats just 18:26 of 56:44, and man, I feel bad already :(. The guy tries to be the victim so hard that it’s sad. Then he goes on and does what he accuses “monetarists” of doing… eh.

In the rest of this he explains how the central plan works, basically, 1- global resource (supply) evaluation, 2- global demand evaluation, and 3- distribution means. I think the biggest problem is that he has no methodological approach to evaluate demand, nor to really determine the infrastructure. He just says “well just look at inventory like a supermarket does”, no sir, it’s much harder than that w\o prices, and I think he’s just not looked into the calculation problem (or he pretends he hasn’t at least).

There’s one point in this lecture where he says that he tries to defend centrally planned economies in like 3 sentences, saying like “cars are centrally planned too!” and “we never had a properly centrally planned economy!”… kiiiind of weak.

Meh

[yuberries]

@LibertarianCowboy

Can I have a pet unicorn in this utopia?

Peter also hints that the kind of abundance that capitalists wish, won’t be available to them, like having multiple cars, because it’s just inefficient and “irresponsible”.

What the criteria for “irresponsibility” is, well, I guess it would be up to the computers to determine and manage everything

(and consequently, the central planners who write the A.I. at the very least)

I won’t be transcribing past the introduction, the rest is just “we could do this! oh but wait, we could do that! amazing!” (does having good ideas entitle you to plan the universe lol?)

[Roan_Carratu]

If you want to imagine it will be a utopia, you can certainly imagine that you have a unicorn there also. lol

[LibertarianCowboy]

Sounds lovely and all but… and this may come as a shocker… I like to work and I like the things I acquire from working. I like “MY” land, my horses, my guns, my vehicles. I like what is “mine” and I want more!

How much am I allowed to have in this utopia?

[Esuric]

How much am I allowed to have in this utopia?

No more than anyone else (zero)!

[mattm]

How much am I allowed to have in this utopia?

He who controls the robots wins…

[liberty_student]

@LibertarianCowboy

Sounds lovely and all but… and this may come as a shocker… I like to work and I like the things I acquire from working. I like “MY” land, my horses, my guns, my vehicles. I like what is “mine” and I want more!

Comrade, you will have to be re-educated!

[mamo]

After reading this: The Menace of the Space Cult

I can’t help but think of the Zeitgeist Movement as the same thing.

[SirThinkALot]

Eleminating money, while perhaps ‘radical’ is not a new idea, socalists have been advocating that for over a century.

Mises would say the same thing to the Venus project people as he did to the socalists of his time…

[SirThinkALot]

"Perhaps I have an excellent grasp of economics, which is why I find it a naive and foolish paradigm. Can you honestly tell me that the wealth in real terms which has been generated in the last hundred years came from money? Or did it come from applied technology? Do you think we cannot have one without the other? "

Nobody here is going to claim that money is in itself representitive of real wealth. That was the flaw of the Merchantilists, and continues to be the flaw of certain versions of Keynesiam. However while money =/= wealth, money serves an important function in helping to coordinate the use of resources in order to produce wealth.