KOSHIDO

Hi all, long time no see. Because, you know, dealing with all these new ideas of a new economic system and the strong criticisms of the actual state of affairs, or zeitgeist, I had to really sit, live, take some time to digest all this stuff. It's been a whole reflective journey since I saw Zeitgeist Addendum and it's new free market antithesis was presented to me. And what you do when you have a thesis and an anthesis? obviously Synthesize. Well here is some of my synthesize conclusions I've come to develop, some in favor, and some ... amh, not against, but things to really reconsider about the proposal of this movement. First, I would say that the main attribute of the Free Market is it's social-economic auto-organizing quality. It drives itself, doesn't need any person or institute deciding who gets what, what should become a trend, which technology should be implanted and which discontinued or how does the people should live their lives. Through the concept of price, this society has archived that. Price is not an imposed thing. Price is the reflection, the conclusion of different and at some point complex phenomena happening all at once, from the availability of resources and techniques of production and distribution, to the demand based of people based on education, culture, needs and 'likes', a VERY complex topic. A little example of that is Apple. I don't see how without the mechanisms of the free market, technology like the iPad would come to be, and this accessible. Or more simple, flat screens wouldn't ever replace the old tube tv on grand scale if it was for the free market, definitively. Second. It's been talk a lot about "the collapse": Oil running out, every country in debt with other, resources getting rarer,... You know, the thing about free market is that, like electricity or stream, goes the way through the path of less resistance. What I mean by that is, for example: "oil is abundant?, lets use it! Now it's not? lets use something else". In this simple sentence is a lot of implication: we will use what resources have at hand, exploit them, learn from them, create new thing with them. And then, with the "something else" comes a new wave of innovation driven by itself. While the oil run out, we will invest in new sources of energy and new ways of doing things, simply because the price of oil will become higher and higher, among other things. Debt? what is it? It doesn't exist. The world won't collapse because of that ethereal concept. In any minute we reset our debt accounting program and that's it, while the innovation and achievements will still be here. The proof of this is how easy the government bail out the banks in crisis, like nothing. That's right, credit and debt it's just a mechanism we've develop to boost growth, and it can be reset any minute. Am I sounding to much idealistic? People throwing money on the street I believe is more idealistic, no offense. And resources, again, the other incentive is to innovate into use other, less or any at all. I think Peter talked once about the possibilities of molecular engineering. It's well said in Zeitgeist moving forward: Nature is a dictatorship. We won't be that stupid to destroy what supports us. Here's where Zeitgeist Movement get it right: Human Primary Needs. Free Market doesn't count for the children dying of hunger, or a community suffering from AIDS. We've seen it, credits and loans does not apply in helping a society on serious underdevelopment, something else has to be done. But ditching free market is not the solution. It would create other problems that it already takes care. Here's I think what have to work for as humanity: Education, Smart Consumers, and Free primary needs: like food, water and housing. Maybe, in a distant future a moneyless society will spontaneously arise, but yet, I can't see how, I'm no diviner, but I believe in social evolution.

MARK MAYNARD
Koshido wrote: Hi all, long time no see. Hi

Because, you know, dealing with all these new ideas of a new economic system and the strong criticisms of the actual state of affairs, or zeitgeist, I had to really sit, live, take some time to digest all this stuff. It's been a whole reflective journey since I saw Zeitgeist Addendum and it's new free market antithesis was presented to me. And what you do when you have a thesis and an anthesis? obviously Synthesize. Well here is some of my synthesize conclusions I've come to develop, some in favor, and some ... amh, not against, but things to really reconsider about the proposal of this movement. Okay. First, I would say that the main attribute of the Free Market is it's social-economic auto-organizing quality. It drives itself, doesn't need any person or institute deciding who gets what, what should become a trend, which technology should be implanted and which discontinued or how does the people should live their lives. Yes. That auto-organizing is the seperation of people, i.e. classism. Any system based on barter - whether it be money or resources - leaves the gates open to exploitation. That's why all resources need to be used for the benefit of all and not traded. Tokens, credits, barter, gold standard etc. are all a variation on the same theme and will end up with the same results: haves and have nots, exploitation of the environment and competition based on scarcity. In the free market system there is still a price for human servitude. It does not matter if a 12-year old girl selling her body in exchange for clean water for her family to survive, or if it's a farmer trading milk for electricity. Anything goes. That's why I am so against it. That's why the movement exsists. Through the concept of price, this society has archived that. Price is not a imposed thing. Price is the reflection, the conclusion of different and at some point complex phenomena happening all at once, from the availability of resources and techniques of production and distribution, to the demand based of people based on education, culture, needs and 'likes', a VERY complex topic. See my previous argument. I don't argue, however, that the free market system was completly worthless to human civilization. But its justification was more than 200 years ago, before technology when human labor stood for over 80% of needed involvement in the production of life supporting goods and services. A little example of that is Apple. I don't see how without the mechanisms of the free market, technology like the iPad would come to be, and this accessible. Or more simple, flat screens wouldn't ever replace the old tube tv on grand scale if it was for the free market, definitively.

 1. It's not hard to see that (without a price system involved) 1. 2. 3. If Apple, Intel, AMD, Micrsoft, and so on COLLABORATED instead of COMPETED with each other we would have technology of this kind that would far exceed the capabilities and possibilities of the iPad. Alot more fantastic things like Wikipedia (COLLABORATION) and opensource technology (COLLABORATION) would emerge. The iPad would be upgradeable when a part becomes outdated. 'Cause that does not create piles of scrapped iPads in 5 years. [li]The iPad would be built to last much longer and not break if it came in contact with water or used in cold enviorments (mine broke down because of the cold here in Lule). If you try hard enough to picture a world without the deprevasion the fre market creates in our society, you'd be amazed what is possible today. Read Zeitnews! Second. It's been talk a lot about "the collapse": Oil running out, every country in debt with other, resources getting rarer,... You know, the thing about free market is that, like electricity or stream, goes the way through the path of less resistance. What I mean by that is, for example: "oil is abundant?, lets use it! Now it's not? lets use something else". In this simple sentence is a lot of implication: we will use what resources have at hand, exploit them, learn from them, create new thing with them. And then, with the "something else" comes a new wave of innovation driven by itself. While the oil run out, we will invest in new sources of energy and new ways of doing things, simply because the price of oil will become higher and higher, among other things. I do not agree with the use of words like "the collapse" since it is overly simplified, creates a strange mindset and sounds terrible. Although if humanity does what you suggest we will drill a hole in the boat (the earth) we all sail in. We will leave a poisoned and destroyed world for future generations just because it is profitable (money) to burn fossil fuels and toss away a computer for to buy a new one, today. And to think the free market or any of the "laws" we create would somehow fix that is insanity, 'cause it's clearly not working. Debt? what is it? It doesn't exist. The world won't collapse because of that ethereal concept. In any minute we reset our debt accounting program and that's it, while the innovation and achievements will still be here. The proof of this is how easy the government bail out the banks in crisis, like nothing. That's right, credit and debt it's just a mechanism we've develop to boost growth, and it can be reset any minute. Am I sounding to much idealistic? People throwing money on the street I believe is more idealistic, no offense. True. Although it apparantly is reason enough to put people in jail if they don't pay up. And resources, again, the other incentive is to innovate into use other, less or any at all. I think Peter talked once about the possibilities of molecular engineering. It's well said in Zeitgeist moving forward: Nature is a dictatorship. We won't be that stupid to destroy what supports us.

It isn't the people who are stupid, do not blame individuals. That will lead you away from the root cause. The free market system however promotes and reward all the detremental actions that could possibly make that happen. That is a root cause. Here's where Zeitgeist Movement get it right: Human Primary Needs.Free Market doesn't count for the children dying of hunger, or a community suffering from AIDS. We've seen it, credits and loans does not apply in helping a society on serious underdevelopment, something else has to be done. But ditching free market is not the solution. It would create other problems that it already takes care. Here's I think what have to work for as humanity: Education, Smart Consumers, and Free primary needs: like food, water and housing. Maybe, in a distant future a moneyless society will spontaneously arise, but yet, I can't see how, I'm no diviner, but I believe in social evolution. I urge you to educate yourself more about the effects of the free market. Just because you can't see how today, that doesn't justify you stop looking for the answere I love you, have a great life //Maynard

KOSHIDO
Mark Maynard wrote: 1. It's not hard to see that (without a price system involved) 1. 2. 3. If Apple, Intel, AMD, Micrsoft, and so on COLLABORATED instead of COMPETED with each other we would have technology of this kind that would far exceed the capabilities and possibilities of the iPad. Alot more fantastic things like Wikipedia (COLLABORATION) and opensource technology (COLLABORATION) would emerge. The iPad would be upgradeable when a part becomes outdated. 'Cause that does not create piles of scrapped iPads in 5 years. [li]The iPad would be built to last much longer and not break if it came in contact with water or used in cold enviorments (mine broke down because of the cold here in Lule). Precisely this the point of my first argument. You can not compare cognitive assets like wikipedia and open- source technology with tangible and solid products, just because each one lies in two different realms. The first is limitless, replicable and ubiquitous, the other, is not. You HAVE to be wise allocating the resources to meet all needs, and if you somehow archive that, see if you can then allocate for research or improvements and which ones. This is, I believe, the most difficult task ever. This is just the first part. Suppose that we live in a moneyless collaborative economy: companies like AMD or Microsoft do not exist, people do not have to chose between two different products and products rarely get improved because they work just fine. If the iPad would ever exist in a economy like that, with interchangeable parts and all, it would be 10 times bigger, wouldn't be portable because of it's weight and poor battery life, it would be really awful, with no especial design whatsoever, and few people would utilize it, like scientist or engineers, because the apps wouldn't be very attractive and variant.

Although if humanity does what you suggest we will drill a hole in the boat (the earth) we all sail in. We will leave a poisoned and destroyed world for future generations just because it is profitable (money) to burn fossil fuels and toss away a computer for to buy a new one, today. As time goes by, the clean sources of energy will become cheaper and cheaper, plus with education and awareness creation, the demand will shift toward products with less carbon footprint. True. Although it apparantly is reason enough to put people in jail if they don't pay up. Well, that's a legal issue. In Mexico the people don't go to jail if they don't pay their debts, just become untrusted for credit. The free market system however promotes and reward all the detremental actions This certainly I don't agree with. You are personifying the free market. The free market is a phenomenon that we all do, it's a matter of education. I love you, have a great life Amh... thanks ... I guess. Koshido wrote: Here's I think what have to work for as humanity: Education, Smart Consumers, and Free primary needs: like food, water and housing. I would like to see some feedback about this proposal.

MARK MAYNARD
Hehe, you sound exactly like I did 2 years ago. I had all the same arguments. Try to research some of the videos on the left of the main TZM page. Watch Ben McLeish's Innovation War. Any system based on barter - whether it be money or resources - leaves the gates open to exploitation. That's why all resources need to be used for the benefit of all and not traded. Tokens, credits, barter, gold standard etc. are all a variation on the same theme and will end up with the same results: haves and have nots, exploitation of the environment and competition based on scarcity. In the free market system there is still a price for human servitude. It does not matter if a 12-year old girl selling her body in exchange for clean water for her family to survive, or if it's a farmer trading milk for electricity. Anything goes. I love you, have a good life //Mark

AVASHUROV
Koshido wrote: A little example of that is Apple. I don't see how without the mechanisms of the free market, technology like the iPad would come to be, and this accessible. Or more simple, flat screens wouldn't ever replace the old tube tv on grand scale if it was for the free market, definitively. Apple spends huge amount of the money from their really overpriced accessories on global advertisement to blind you from the reality, that there are other devices that are twice less expensive which functionality exceeds Apples ones like Android free open source phone platform based on Linux kernel and for the most part developed my general people without any of those restrictions imposed on Apple products. Koshido wrote: Suppose that we live in a moneyless collaborative economy: companies like AMD or Microsoft do not exist Ohh, sound so good for my ears, can't wait for it! Microsoft work closely with each computer manufacturing companies to ensure their operating system is enforced on each device they produce and encourage them not to produce open source drivers for Linux publicly developed free open source operating system that despite all Microsoft's effort becoming more and more popular. AMD, well it's just a competition for Intel, to because in free market it's a requirement, otherwise the prices would rise and the progress would stale, that's how the free market work. The free market only slowing development down, if the developers were provided with all required necessaries of life and all the materials and resources required for device production we would see much much better devices and operating system then we see now

KOSHIDO
avashurov wrote: there are other devices that are twice less expensive which functionality exceeds Apples ones like Android free open source phone platform based on Linux kernel and for the most part developed my general people without any of those restrictions imposed on Apple products. Exactly! Competition, choice. The products get better and more accessible. if the developers were provided with all required necessaries of life and all the materials and resources required for device production we would see much much better devices and operating system then we see now. sigh....... allocation of resources

Mark Maynard wrote: Watch Ben McLeish's Innovation War. Thank you, I watched it. Totally agree about the Mind-Lock phenomena. That's why I advocate Education, not as defined in the conference, but in a bigger sense, precisely as the way to overcome that mind-locking. In return the "macket-loking" will totally be overcome, because we'll have a society full of smart consumers. As a side note, I really get amazed that when MacLeish putted as examples of marcket-loking the FM radio and MP3 music distribution, since the FM is the main radio moduled signal and the digital distribution market of music is in growing rapidly (iTunes, Rhapsody, an so on).

SPLINE
Koshido wrote: Koshido wrote: Here's I think what have to work for as humanity: Education, Smart Consumers, and Free primary needs: like food, water and housing. I would like to see some feedback about this proposal. Education is always great, yes. How do you propose we go about giving everyone in the world a stellar education that currently only probably .0001% gets. Good luck doing that in a free market. There is absolutely no incentive to educate anyone in a free market. If all workers are uneducated then there are fewer people to challenge your business. And if all your competitors have access to the same pool of workers as you, then there's no downside to the whole pool being uneducated. Smart consumers - an oxymoron perhaps? I'd like to know exactly what you think a smart consumer is. Maybe someone who only buys what he needs to maintain a high but not excessive standard of living? This goes back to your first post where you said: [The free market] drives itself, doesn't need any person or institute deciding who gets what, what should become a trend, which technology should be implanted and which discontinued or how does the people should live their lives. The free market isn't an entity. It's a group of people. You're fooling yourself if you think that some of these people don't have more say in these matters than others. Advertising works. Hell, I'm an intelligent human being, but I find myself buying brand name instead of generic occasionally - thanks to advertising. So, it's not the free market deciding what becomes a trend or which technologies to implement, it's really a select group of people deciding this. Free primary needs: again - how in a free market? What are primary needs? Would you say every person in the U.S. has all their primary needs met? Hobos can live in derelict buildings, drink rainwater, eat handouts from soup kitchens - is that meeting their primary needs? I think everyone on earth should have at least the

same standard of living that I enjoy which is considerably more than a hobo. I think that would be quite unfeasible in a free market. One of my gripes with money that free-marketeers ignore is how more than half the population (U.S.) is employed just pushing it around. Bankers, cashiers, salesmen, etc. could actually do useful jobs in a RBE.

KOSHIDO
Hi Spline. Thank you for your feedback. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. After exposing my objections about the movement, one thing that we all know here and is clear as water is that the system today doesn't supports the life of all world people, and that mind-locking is a serious progress blocker. So, what I think we should work AS HUMANITY is making of the system a more HUMANE one. One where life is more valuable than objects (I believe Martin Luther King once said something like this). I say as humanity because is what you as a movement are trying to accomplish: that whole humanity understand what a RBE is and implant it in all the world as one... Ok, how to achieve a more humane world? Through education, people to become smart consumers for them to shape the market and no otherwise. And by not making a human life a struggle for survival by giving a chance to grow and develop. Yeah, that may be difficult in a free market, but that's what we gotta work for. Answering your question, a smart consumer is one that is aware of the implications and consequences in the world when buying certain product.

JAIMED
Hi Koshido, A few things to add. Firstly you haven't addressed technological unemployment. This is something that will only increase, conceivably to a point where the majority of people will be unemployed. Here the free market system fails because when people lose purchasing power the cycle of consumption stops. The free market system is based on an infinite growth paradigm. Without growth, unemployment rises and living standards drop. It is impossible for the world economy to grow indefinitely. It is estimated that the Chinese economy needs to grow at 8% per year to maintain social stability. In a free market system profit is the top priority. No amount of education will change this. The companies that achieve the highest profit are the ones that will succeed and unfortunately this has some very negative consequences such as I am sure you are aware of. As long as profit remains the primary motivator, no amount

of education will solve our social ills. Profit requires scarcity and scarcity causes stratification, haves and have nots. Resetting the debt would undermine the whole system. It would remove the incentive to make loans. The ability to loan money is what keeps the system moving, without loans the system would be paralysed. Recession, depression etc. It would not be a free market

KOSHIDO
Thank you jamied, this was the kind of reply I was expecting I started this thread because those two conclusions were roaming my mind (Allocation of Resources and Collapse), and I'm playing the pro free-market man as an exercise because I still don't advocate the movement at all. jamied wrote: Firstly you haven't addressed technological unemployment. This is something that will only increase, conceivably to a point where the majority of people will be unemployed. Here the free market system fails because when people lose purchasing power the cycle of consumption stops. Well, unemployment increased in the Production industry because of automation and will also happen to the Service industry. There still left the "Art" industry, "Fashion" industry, "Vacation" industry and the "Tech Innovation" industry, all of them belonging to a sort of "mind order" (as if production belongs to a "physical order" and services to a "society order"). New unthinkable market niches will open up. The free market system is based on an infinite growth paradigm. Without growth, unemployment rises and living standards drop. It is impossible for the world economy to grow indefinitely. It is estimated that the Chinese economy needs to grow at 8% per year to maintain social stability. Growth means better overall standard of living. Can't world economy grow indefinitely? Why not? In a free market system profit is the top priority. No amount of education will change this. The companies that achieve the highest profit are the ones that will succeed and unfortunately this has some very negative consequences such as I am sure you are aware of. As long as profit remains the primary motivator, no amount of education will solve our social ills. Profit requires scarcity and scarcity causes stratification, haves and have nots. Yeah, profit is the incentive. How, I don't know, ME, would become rich? By being creative and entering the market with something really great and useful. So I'm double motivated: become rich and do something great. Profit is achievable through good prices, and as I addressed before, price is a reflection of many and complex things. A company that is profitable is because is doing things right. And yes, education will solve the problem of companies with bad retroaction. Resetting the debt would undermine the whole system. It would remove the incentive to make loans. The ability to loan money is what keeps the system moving, without loans the system would be paralysed. Recession, depression etc. It would not be a free market anymore.

 Absolutely. I just wanted to point out that the world won't end because of debt.

VOICE OF REASON
Koshido wrote: First, I would say that the main attribute of the Free Market is it's social-economic auto-organizing quality. It drives itself, doesn't need any person or institute deciding who gets what, what should become a trend, which technology should be implanted and which discontinued or how does the people should live their lives. Through the concept of price, this society has archived that. Price is not an imposed thing. Price is the reflection, the conclusion of different and at some point complex phenomena happening all at once, from the availability of resources and techniques of production and distribution, to the demand based of people based on education, culture, needs and 'likes', a VERY complex topic. A little example of that is Apple. I don't see how without the mechanisms of the free market, technology like the iPad would come to be, and this accessible. Or more simple, flat screens wouldn't ever replace the old tube tv on grand scale if it was for the free market, definitively. The first problem with this statement should be a very obvious one and that is the idea that prices or a competitive market drives innovation. The very idea that it does is simply engaging in an a priori conclusion with no real factual basis. Can you prove that a competitive market drives innovation? Assuming that just because certain products would not be made because of a lack of a competitive market is not proof, it is an assumption. If the iPad is proof of anything its that a competitive market reduces the productions of products into redundancy. What is the real innovation of the iPad? Every single technology available in the iPad is available in the iPod touch, nothing is new in it. The only thing they did was to make the screen bigger, so what is the real innovation of the iPad? Well, your going to have to answer that one for me because I have no clue. The second one is pretty much in your face that I cannot understand how you do not recognize the obvious flaw in the logic your presenting; can you prove that flat screens were an innovation driven by a competitive market? You're starting from your conclusion, "I cannot imagine how it would have been replaced if not for the freemarket" is not an answer, its stating a conclusion with no premise to work with. Second. It's been talk a lot about "the collapse": Oil running out, every country in debt with other, resources getting rarer,... You know, the thing about free market is that, like electricity or stream, goes the way through the path of less resistance. What I mean by that is, for example: "oil is abundant?, lets use it! Now it's not? lets use something else". In this simple sentence is a lot of implication: we will use what resources have at hand, exploit them, learn from them, create new thing with them. And then, with the "something else" comes a new wave of innovation driven by itself. While the oil run out, we will invest in new sources of energy and new ways of doing things, simply because the price of oil will become higher and higher, among other things. The problem is also obvious in this statement that it hardly needs much of a paragraph to outline it; what happens when the alternative sustainable energies people want are not profitable? Answer: The market will not care what people want because it is about what is most profitable. So if it is more profitable to ride the waves of the scarcity of oil, while trying to sabotage through legislation, patent ownership and lawsuits any

10

other emerging alternative energy that does not allow for more profit then the market will not move to it. And resources, again, the other incentive is to innovate into use other, less or any at all. I think Peter talked once about the possibilities of molecular engineering. It's well said in Zeitgeist moving forward: Nature is a dictatorship. We won't be that stupid to destroy what supports us. Well accordingly the bottled water industry is doing just that, they are polluting water to make it a scarce resource so that they can make more of a profit from bottled water. Other than that, I cannot make much of an issue with the rest of your statement.

JAIMED
With regards to technological unemployment there is a great deal of evidence that it is happening. When agriculture was mechanised, manufacturing was able to take up the slack. As manufacturing was automated there was a move to the service sector. Now that automation and efficiency improvements are reducing the number of jobs in the service sector there is no major new sector to take up the slack. Maybe you can try to argue an expansion of entertainment, arts, internet but the reality is that these are simply unable to take up the slack. Logic dictates that as automation gets better and better, fewer and fewer people will be required. I have worked in manufacturing for a long time and have seen it happen as an ongoing process. The goal is always to produce more with fewer people. In the short term innovation may stave off the inevitable but whether it's in the next 5 years or next 50... the machines are coming www.ibtimes.com/articles/139065/20110428...-technology-boom.htm www.twincities.com/ci_17986388?nclick_check=1 With regards to growth, the only way the economy could grow indefinitely is if the population grew indefinitely. There are only a finite number of hours in the day and only so many things people can do with those hours. Sure there is still room to grow now but there is a theoretical maximum. After that the only possibility for growth would be after a period of contraction. On the topic of profit - the profit mechanism is great for those who have the ability to exploit it. If you have no empathy for those who don't have that ability or those who suffer as a direct result of the profit system then I doubt my words will change your outlook. Profit systems create winners and losers. The winners will always tell you that the system is fine. With respect to education, no amount of education will change one simple fact - everyone has their price.

SHOGU
Koshido wrote: And yes, education will solve the problem of companies with bad retroaction.

11

 You are just naive here.

SUBSTANCE
Koshido wrote: Answering your question, a smart consumer is one that is aware of the implications and consequences in the world when buying certain product. If consumers become aware of the implications and consequences of their consumerism, then they stop being consumers. If you do not agree with that, then you apparently are not a "smart consumer" since you don't understand the ecological implications of 18.65 million people throwing away their iPhones, 9.02 million their iPods and 4.69 million their iPads in order to get the new versions that are getting released next year. P.S. I am just focusing on one of the more naive and simplistic arguments you made since, you see, I AM educating myself in the lovely but quite stressful field of Physics and I don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Take care and please don't oversimplify things.

KOSHIDO
Voice of Reason wrote: Can you prove that a competitive market drives innovation? Not competitive market but prices (allocation). A company that want to be profitable has to improve their processes for them to be more efficient and less costly, and that's what drives innovation. Have you ever seen that Discovery Channel program about how things are made on a fabric? There is the innovation. What is the real innovation of the iPad? Every single technology available in the iPad is available in the iPod touch, nothing is new in it. Then I put the iPod touch as the example. The point is: better and more accessible products. can you prove that flat screens were an innovation driven by a competitive market? You're starting from your conclusion, "I cannot imagine how it would have been replaced if not for the freemarket" is not an answer, its stating a conclusion with no premise to work with.

12

 I'm not saying that flat screens were an innovation of free market. I'm saying that they would never replace the old ones in a not free market system. Why? simple: no incentive to do it. what happens when the alternative sustainable energies people want are not profitable? Answer: The market will not care what people want because it is about what is most profitable. So if it is more profitable to ride the waves of the scarcity of oil, while trying to sabotage through legislation, patent ownership and lawsuits any other emerging alternative energy that does not allow for more profit then the market will not move to it. The energy crisis is not a matter of profitability, is a matter of sustainability. There are already hundreds of new sustainable alternatives being tested and improved and the more efficient ones will become available to demographic exploitation at time. The oil will run out, the change is inevitable. Well accordingly the bottled water industry is doing just that, they are polluting water to make it a scarce resource so that they can make more of a profit from bottled water. Here in Mexico City many people including me drink from the water of the faucet, because the people demand to the city government clean water. That example is getting old by the way.

KOSHIDO
jamied wrote: Now that automation and efficiency improvements are reducing the number of jobs in the service sector there is no major new sector to take up the slack. Maybe you can try to argue an expansion of entertainment, arts, internet but the reality is that these are simply unable to take up the slack. Logic dictates that as automation gets better and better, fewer and fewer people will be required. I have worked in manufacturing for a long time and have seen it happen as an ongoing process. The goal is always to produce more with fewer people. In the short term innovation may stave off the inevitable but whether it's in the next 5 years or next 50... the machines are coming Yes, the jobs are going I won't come back. There are two position we can assume: let it be and population contraction will happen over time; or reinforce the human right to have a dignified life. With regards to growth, the only way the economy could grow indefinitely is if the population grew indefinitely. There are only a finite number of hours in the day and only so many things people can do with those hours. Sure there is still room to grow now but there is a theoretical maximum. After that the only possibility for growth would be after a period of contraction. Theoretical Maximum? I don't know. If so, I think nations will come up with something (an RBE maybe? Hard to predict).

13

On the topic of profit - the profit mechanism is great for those who have the ability to exploit it. If you have no empathy for those who don't have that ability or those who suffer as a direct result of the profit system then I doubt my words will change your outlook. Profit systems create winners and losers. The winners will always tell you that the system is fine. With respect to education, no amount of education will change one simple fact - everyone has their price. I do have empathy. That's why I advocate universal human rights.

KOSHIDO
Substance wrote: P.S. I am just focusing on one of the more naive and simplistic arguments you made since, you see, I AM educating myself in the lovely but quite stressful field of Physics and I don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Take care and please don't oversimplify things. UH! EXCUSE ME SIR. By the way, I AM educating myself in the lovely but quite stressful field of Telematic Engineering, actually, I am about to end my terminal project to get my degree.

CHICOO
If consumers become aware of the implications and consequences of their consumerism, then they stop being consumers. If you do not agree with that, then you apparently are not a "smart consumer" since you don't understand the ecological implications of 18.65 million people throwing away their iPhones, 9.02 million their iPods and 4.69 million their iPads in order to get the new versions that are getting released next year. if we were ALL smart consumers, believe me, the whole economic structure would collapse! Every big corporation would go down because people will know that fast food is bad for their health, that burning fossil fuels pollutes the environment, that television is a tool for propaganda and so on. And how on earth would you educate consumers to be smart consumers and finally, who's gonna pay for it??

SUBSTANCE
Chicco, that's what I was trying to say. Koshido, is this the only part of my post you wish to comment on? Koshido wrote:

14

P.S. I am just focusing on one of the more naive and simplistic arguments you made since, you see, I AM educating myself in the lovely but quite stressful field of Physics and I don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Take care and please don't oversimplify things.

KOSHIDO
Yes, the jobs are going I won't come back. There are two position we can assume: let it be and population contraction will happen over time; or reinforce the human right to have a dignified life. Theoretical Maximum? I don't know. If so, I think nations will come up with something (an RBE maybe? Hard to predict). I do have empathy. That's why I advocate universal human rights. Please can you clarify "reinforce the human right to have a dignified life" with respect to technological unemployment? I will expand on the Theoretical Maximum. The economy can only expand if people consume more (whether that be food, technology, arts, entertainment etc.). Firstly the earth has a finite amount of resources. These resources are required to manufacture goods. At some point they will run out. If you take the position that in the future we will be able to recycle with 100% efficiency then we will be limited by a maximum rate of recycling. If you like the idea that we may be able to grow resources then we are limited by the amount we can grow. If you think that consumption will grow in the non-tangible realm (entertainment etc.) then each individual only has a maximum of 24 hours in the day with which to be able to consume. So even if you consider the ridiculous scenario of every individual consuming at the highest rate possible 24 hours a day 365 days a year, then there is a limit to the amount they can consume. The only way to increase the theoretical maximum volume of consumption is to increase the number of people. Please can you also clarify "universal human rights"? As discussed - a profit based system ultimately leads to the abuse of human rights, it just depends on whether we agree on what rights that humans have... Consider this statement: We have enough resources to feed, water, cloth and house every human being on this planet, we just don't have enough money. How is a monetary system helping human rights? I forgot to call you out on the debt thing as well - you acknowledged that a market system cannot function without debt. Resetting the debt will cripple the system. Compound interest means that at some point the debt will not be serviceable and also cripple the system. There is only enough money in the system to pay off the principal loan. Payment of the interest is essentially achieved by future productivity. As the size of the repayment grows, the ability to pay it off reduces leading to more defaults, unemployment, homeless, social unrest. Over the last century or so the debt increase has been offset by phenomenal productivity increase but as soon as the rate of innovation / productivity improvement drops (as we have so very clearly seen), then big problems start to arise. Just to add a new strand in: Any profit based system is inherently structured to filter money and resources from those at the bottom of the pyramid to those at the top. Those at the top have the greatest ability to benefit from the system, those at the bottom have the least ability. In a monetary system it is those that require the most help that often get the least.

15

KATASTRON
Hi! To the point: "price" and "ownership". How do you explain these things scientifically? There is no objectivity in all this, no measure, no verification. I've never understood it, and I still can't understand it. Price to me seems like this kid's game where they compete who can come up with the bigger number. Rest assured, the most stubborn kids always "win", because it's essentially a game without rules, it's only about who wants to acquire some sense of social dominance over their peers. (which has no relevance to scientific drive whatsoever) Ownership is very surreal, because all of your body and mind is produced from something else, is being exchanged all the time throughout your life, and after your death. You can't "consume" even the food you eat, it simply becomes food for other vital organisms in your ecosystem. I have no idea how to function within this wonderland of imaginary concepts. p.s. Why did Marie and Pierre Curie give their discoveries to the world for free? Marie Curie was so poor that she had to ask a friend for a second dress to use for her wedding, because she only had one dress, for work. Why wasn't she a "smart consumer", she was a prodigy of exceptional intellect after all? Very simply, because it makes no scientific sense. Because scientific results can't be priced, and the whole patent system is offensive, absurd, and counter-productive. What would have happened if Newton, Lagrange and Gauss were like: "Hey mate, I'd give you this neat method of integration, if you give me that tricky rule of differentiation. .. No, no, I want that constant too. No, constant and a half..." You see, the fact is that you can trick people, but you can't trick natural laws, and there's no point trying. And every price mechanism is a trick, make believe, it doesn't exist. But people once believed also that some of them were meant to be slaves, so it's some kind of similar delusion, which culture reiterates.

KOSHIDO
Chicco wrote: If consumers become aware of the implications and consequences of their consumerism, then they stop being consumers. If you do not agree with that, then you apparently are not a "smart consumer" since you don't understand the ecological implications of 18.65 million people throwing away their iPhones, 9.02 million their iPods and 4.69 million their iPads in order to get the new versions that are getting released next year. If we were ALL smart consumers, believe me, the whole economic structure would collapse! Every big corporation would go down because people will know that fast food is bad for their health, that burning fossil fuels pollutes the environment, that television is a tool for propaganda and so on. Substance wrote: Chicco, that's what I was trying to say. Koshido, is this the only part of my post you wish to comment on?

16

Yes, that was the only part I wished to comment on because you seem to be very busy with your studies and so easily declared that "I don't understand" what perceived obsolescence is. Chicco. Are fast food, fossil fuels and entertainment television corporations all corporations there are? You see, companies are form to satisfy what people demand. If people demand healthy and sustainable things then sustainable and healthy things are offered. That's the principle of smart consumerism. And how on earth would you educate consumers to be smart consumers and finally, who's gonna pay for it?? As I mention before, is a task we have to endeavor as humanity.

KOSHIDO
jamied wrote: Please can you clarify "reinforce the human right to have a dignified life" with respect to technological unemployment? Sure. In the actual "state of affairs", people need to earn money to survive, but if there are not jobs then they will suffer from hunger, ignorance, and all sort of diseases. What I mend by dignified life is to avoid that perish to a human life, for them to not be abused because of his essential needs, and to have an opportunity to grow and develop. I will expand on the Theoretical Maximum. The economy can only expand if people consume more (whether that be food, technology, arts, entertainment etc.). Firstly the earth has a finite amount of resources. These resources are required to manufacture goods. At some point they will run out. If you take the position that in the future we will be able to recycle with 100% efficiency then we will be limited by a maximum rate of recycling. If you like the idea that we may be able to grow resources then we are limited by the amount we can grow. If you think that consumption will grow in the non-tangible realm (entertainment etc.) then each individual only has a maximum of 24 hours in the day with which to be able to consume. So even if you consider the ridiculous scenario of every individual consuming at the highest rate possible 24 hours a day 365 days a year, then there is a limit to the amount they can consume. The only way to increase the theoretical maximum volume of consumption is to increase the number of people. Mmmm, Ok... This is too much theoretical. Please can you also clarify "universal human rights"? As discussed - a profit based system ultimately leads to the abuse of human rights Only if the human rights are not respected. Again, a matter of education. Consider this statement: We have enough resources to feed, water, cloth and house every human being on this planet, we just don't have enough money. Really? Back to the first argument: allocation of resources.

17

 How is a monetary system helping human rights? Is not. We have to work on making of the system a more humane one. I forgot to call you out on the debt thing as well - you acknowledged that a market system cannot function without debt. Resetting the debt will cripple the system. Compound interest means that at some point the debt will not be serviceable and also cripple the system. There is only enough money in the system to pay off the principal loan. Payment of the interest is essentially achieved by future productivity. As the size of the repayment grows, the ability to pay it off reduces leading to more defaults, unemployment, homeless, social unrest. Over the last century or so the debt increase has been offset by phenomenal productivity increase but as soon as the rate of innovation / productivity improvement drops (as we have so very clearly seen), then big problems start to arise. You are right. innovation and productivity is a must in the free market system. But isn't it the very purpose of life? be better and better? improve and develop over and over? Any profit based system is inherently structured to filter money and resources from those at the bottom of the pyramid to those at the top. Those at the top have the greatest ability to benefit from the system, those at the bottom have the least ability. In a monetary system it is those that require the most help that often get the least. Yes. As some people still can exploit someone else because of their needs the pyramid will continue getting thiner at the top and wider at the bottom.

KATASTRON
By the way, sure, you may not have iPads, but you may have something much better. Say, every wall in the infrastructure could be possible to interact with, as a terminal for you on the go, so you don't even have to carry an iPad, because it's essentially built in wherever you go. There are many such optimizations of the infrastructure which are hard to achieve under competitive self-interest paradigm, and which are both more efficient, and less resource-costly.

KOSHIDO
katastron wrote: Hi! To the point: "price" and "ownership". How do you explain these things scientifically? There is no objectivity in all this, no measure, no verification. I've never understood it, and I still can't understand it.

18

 Science eh? You like physics? Then you know that for the man to understand different physical phenomenons had to come up with something to measure and abstract them. Well, price is just that, a measurement, an abstraction, of how much resources are available and how are allocated. Ownership is not a scientific term. Is a social convention. You don't get it? Surely you can understand many other social conventions since you live in a society.

KATASTRON
Koshido wrote: Well, price is just that, a measurement, an abstraction, of how much resources are available and how are allocated. Agreed, sir. Even though it's still not scientific, meaning objective, it's still based on subjective whims - but on the level of 2 farmers trading apples and tomatoes it makes somewhat sense. However, as you indicated earlier, we are now entering completely artificial markets, of services and pure creativity. This is where this paradigm (which was already ill-defined) completely loses any sense. So I proved a theorem, and you proved another theorem. So how it is decided whose* theorem is worth what? Then, in a century, the other guy's theorem turns out a lot more useful, but he's already dead. See, the consumerist concept also requires immediate evaluation, which again seems to work only on the farmers level. (somewhat) About ownership, I'm simply pointing out that it's an artificial concept, as you agreed. In fact no one possesses anything, or at least I can't imagine possessing anything. The only physical notion about it is the physical force (punishment) exerted over people who violate this artificial concept. So, a system of ownership is a system based on punishment and coercion, inherently. Its origin is the time of tribal bloodsheds over territories, and not surprisingly nations are still doing exactly that. /* of course, as you probably notice, I actually wouldn't even call their theorems "theirs", because there is no clear moment when the processing of external information becomes original, and because people actually come up with the same or similar ideas independently all the time, resulting in endless patent wars - but I'm using the ownership concept still here to illustrate yet another of its absurdities/

KOSHIDO
katastron wrote: By the way, sure, you may not have iPads, but you may have something much better. Say, every wall in the infrastructure could be possible to interact with, as a terminal for you on the go, so you don't even have to carry an iPad, because it's essentially built in wherever you go. There are many such optimizations of the infrastructure which are hard to achieve under competitive self-interest paradigm, and which are both more efficient, and less resource-costly.

19

With this statement seems to me that you don't quite understand the delicate balance of allocation, production and innovation. However, as you indicated earlier, we are now entering completely artificial markets, of services and pure creativity. This is where this paradigm (which was already ill-defined) completely loses any sense. "Non artificial" markets will always be open because people will always demand physical things. Besides, prices are also good in promoting and discarding services on the society. About ownership, I'm simply pointing out that it's an artificial concept, as you agreed. No, I didn't. I see you use the word "artificial" or "subjective" often. If something is not strictly scientific is it artificial and unimportant? Then also we can care less about intuition, love, spirituality, values, culture, art, music, and so on. The only physical notion about it [ownership] is the physical force (punishment) exerted over people who violate this artificial concept. So, a system of ownership is a system based on punishment and coercion, inherently. Its origin is the time of tribal bloodsheds over territories, and not surprisingly nations are still doing exactly that. This a very reductionist argument, based only on a "physical notion".

KATASTRON
Koshido wrote: With this statement seems to me that you don't quite understand the delicate balance of allocation, production and innovation. Certainly - I explicitly indicated so. Koshido wrote: I see you use the word "artificial" or "subjective" often. If something is not strictly scientific is it artificial and unimportant? Then also we can care less about intuition, love, spirituality, values, culture, art, music, and so on. Of course we can care about it, but not measure it, and not put prices on it. Which we are forced to do today, unfortunately. Koshido wrote: "Non artificial" markets will always be open because people will always demand physical things. Besides, prices are also good in promoting and discarding services on the society. That doesn't answer the question how much does it cost to prove the Fermat Theorem, and what if another proven theorem turns out of universal importance for humanity in a century. How do you measure contributions, when they are not of the type "I give you apple, you give me tomato", but a lot more abstract

20

and of non-immediate evaluation? If doing such evaluations made any sense, then Einstein, Curie, Grothendieck should have left multi-billion fortunes, instead of Steve Jobs (who is actually more skilled at creating a brand, a style, a cult out of already known methods, than at true innovation). Also, even though you criticize my inability to understand allocation of resources (in today's practice), I hope you won't disagree that many public services are a lot more efficient, resource-wise, and access-wise in terms of convenience - if they are implemented publicly for shared use, instead of on individual consumerist basis. Chomsky gives some examples here, towards the end: http://www.youtube.com/v/w0ijFJIhzLc Other examples are maglev trains, deep turbine systems for cleaning the oceans, enhanced geothermal systems etc; solutions on very large scale, which make a lot more efficient use of resources than what a competitive corporation, even a large one, could produce. So, sure, if we are still only working on the level of tool craftsmen and farmers, then the free market (somewhat) works, but that has become inefficient long ago. A lot of tools today don't have to be personal, it's not even convenient, in addition to being inefficient. It's like carrying a waggon of books everywhere, instead of using a library.

SUBSTANCE
I think both of you guys focus on rather small trivualities that are completely unimportant when you consider the bigger picture. Personally, I don't think Koshido is right about innovation and that there would't be much innovation in a moneyless RBE and even if he was right, I'd still choose the one over the other. The reason is that, you know, if you call the whole iPad business innovation, then I choose not to indulge myself in those things while knowing how much suffering is going on around the globe in the very same time. This suffering won't ever stop in the predatory system of the "free" market and I think even the slightest possibility for us to overcome these problems should outweigh any small trivialities auch as the design on a potential tablet device and any rational person simply has to agree with me on this one.

JAIMED
Koshido wrote: Sure. In the actual "state of affairs", people need to earn money to survive, but if there are not jobs then they will suffer from hunger, ignorance, and all sort of diseases. What I mend by dignified life is to avoid that perish to a human life, for them to not be abused because of his essential needs, and to have an opportunity to grow and develop. How do you propose to do this if there is mass unemployment due to technological advances? Socialism (i.e. the antithesis of free market capitalism)? Mmmm, Ok... This is too much theoretical.

21

 O.k. Forget theoretical. I was just trying to show that there is a limit to growth. In reality there are more practical limits. Really? Back to the first argument: allocation of resources. Again you seem to be proposing socialism rather than free market capitalism. Is not. We have to work on making of the system a more humane one. But the fundamental mechanics of a free market system prevent this. You are right. innovation and productivity is a must in the free market system. But isn't it the very purpose of life? be better and better? improve and develop over and over? I agree but innovation and productivity improvements cannot sustain the growth required in the long run and will actually lead to more problems as technological unemployment increases. Yes. As some people still can exploit someone else because of their needs the pyramid will continue getting thiner at the top and wider at the bottom. Yes - and also the redistribution of the wealth from the bottom to the top happens more and more to the benefit of fewer and fewer people.

SUBSTANCE
On a side note, how can a pyramid get thinner at the top and wider at the bottom at the same time?

OTED
I strongly recommend you, if dared, to join the teamspeak server. and ask your questions there.

AVASHUROV
Substance wrote: I think both of you guys focus on rather small trivualities that are completely unimportant when you consider the bigger picture. Personally, I don't think Koshido is right about innovation and that there would't be much innovation in a moneyless RBE and even if he was right, I'd still choose the one over the other. The reason is that, you know, if you call the whole iPad business innovation, then I choose not to indulge myself in those things while knowing how much suffering is going on around the globe in the very same time. This suffering won't ever stop in

22

the predatory system of the "free" market and I think even the slightest possibility for us to overcome these problems should outweigh any small trivialities auch as the design on a potential tablet device and any rational person simply has to agree with me on this one. That basically makes the case and about innovation, it's not going to be a problem in RBE, thanks Trom's Documentary I never understood, why I hated so much programming for money, I even prefer to work on car-wash and think of what ever I want while working, go home write it down and share with the world, then write what they paying my for. Most if not all of the scientists new, they not going to make any money from their inventions, they wasn't even sure they going to be accepted in their lifetime. Think of it, are we here for monetary reward?

KATASTRON
It's just that I tried to go from the very root of things - "price" and "ownership". Putting prices on things that: 1) are arbitrarily categorized into separate entities, instead of analyzing them from a systematic point of view; 2) are arbitrarily assigned numbers of "value" without any clear reasoning behind it. And when did we, as babies, signed an agreement that all kinds of arbitrary objects, imagined numbers and pieces of the Earth's surface are going to be associated with us at random, and we should beat up whoever else tries to use them. Because that's ownership. It's not just that it's overwhelmingly unjust, but it's simply absurd. And it doesn't even benefit the so called "successful" people like Gates & Jobs; they would live much better in a more efficiently organized society. Currently they have to put up with being surrounded by waste, hazards, wars and hostility.

SUBSTANCE
avashurov, that was an amazing video clip! Very creatively drawn and narrated. I never heard of this documentary till now, definitely have to check it out!

KOSHIDO
jamied wrote: Koshido wrote: Sure. In the actual "state of affairs", people need to earn money to survive, but if there are not jobs then they will suffer from hunger, ignorance, and all sort of diseases. What I mend by dignified life is to avoid that perish to a

23

human life, for them to not be abused because of his essential needs, and to have an opportunity to grow and develop. How do you propose to do this if there is mass unemployment due to technological advances? Socialism (i.e. the antithesis of free market capitalism)? A mass crisis of technological unemployment is still far from where we're at, so much has to be done before humans are not longer needed in the production industry. In the mean time, as the world changes its oil based energy infrastructure to a sustainable one (around 20 years or more) we can work on reinforce those universal human rights. You are right. innovation and productivity is a must in the free market system. But isn't it the very purpose of life? be better and better? improve and develop over and over? I agree but innovation and productivity improvements cannot sustain the growth required in the long run and will actually lead to more problems as technological unemployment increases. Probably yes, in the long run. And how many years is this "long run" I believe is a very long one, in the order of decades (and decades) Is not. We have to work on making of the system a more humane one. But the fundamental mechanics of a free market system prevent this. Please elaborate Substance wrote: On a side note, how can a pyramid get thinner at the top and wider at the bottom at the same time? Fewer people at the top, More people at the bottom.

SUBSTANCE
Koshido wrote: Substance wrote: On a side note, how can a pyramid get thinner at the top and wider at the bottom at the same time? Fewer people at the top, More people at the bottom I actually meant it in a geometrical sense but never mind that. I urge you again to consider the bigger picture and stop dwelling upon small trivialities and technicalities.

24

KOSHIDO
"The delicate balance of allocation, production and innovation" I should probably have to write a paper about this. But certainly I don't have the time right now so I will present the idea like sort of a slide presentation. Maybe next month I can write something more detailed and documented, and upload it to scribd. Here it goes: Societies demand resources for it's fundamental functioning. The growth of a society is limited by the amount of resources it can get. A single "piece" of resource is not ubiquitous, in other words, it can not be used in two different products. The resources has to be wisely allocated to maintain a "social homeostasis". If resources are used where aren't needed the society will break down. Only a stable society can produce specialist, like doctors, engineers or artists. The betterment of production is carried by a diversity of specialist. Only a society with massive production of goods and services can grow on a massive scale (relative to pre- industrial revolution era). The differentiation and diversity of people in a massive population society makes it a complex system. An input on a complex system produces unpredictable consequences. A complex system can not be orchestrated, only monitored. Price is an indicator of how resources are obtained and demanded in the complex society. So, price is a society's tool for allocation. The unpredictability coupled with a good allocation of resources makes of the society a rapid evolution entity, meaning, innovative. MARK MAYNARD What is the real purpose of this thread, Koshido? SUBSTANCE Koshido wrote: An input on a complex system produces unpredictable consequences. A complex system can not be orchestrated, only monitored. Price is an indicator of how resources are obtained and demanded in the complex society. So, price is a society's tool for allocation. I agree with you on all of your points except those two. A complex system CAN be orchestrated and CAN be predictable, that's one of the main pillars on which an RBE will stand. Also price is an arbitrary indicator that can be easily omitted if the above point is fulfilled. You don't have to leave everything to chance and people's opinions/ambitions. The system for production and allocation can be

25

built in such a way as to monitor exactly how resources are obtained and demanded and allocate them accordingly. SHOGU Koshido wrote: Hi all, long time no see. First, I would say that the main attribute of the Free Market is it's social-economic auto-organizing quality. It drives itself, doesn't need any person or institute deciding who gets what So far so good. Koshido wrote: what should become a trend,which technology should be implanted and which discontinued or how does the people should live their lives This part is just untrue. Trends are made by markets to create needs for products. People actually doesnt need most of the stuff they buy, there were rise to belive they do. There is a reason why 60 - 90 % costs of avarge product is a marketing. There is a reason why companies spend millions of dollar on reaserch how to "marketize" better , for example how use colors with conjunction with light in certain way in order to trigger desired emotion. Peole are being programmed like a machines. It is the money that tell us what we should do , whats should happen, which technology should be applied. In past we have many documented technological hold backs , just becuase it threthened allready established industries. For example FM broadcast bands. Just imagine how many didnt "see a day light" Koshido wrote: Through the concept of price, this society has archive that. Price is not a imposed thing. Price is the reflection, the conclusion of different and at some point complex phenomena happening all at once, from the availability of resources and techniques of production and distribution, to the demand based of people based on education, culture, needs and 'likes', a VERY complex topic Price system is full of flaws , like speculators, cartels , or the fact if you dont have a purchasing power you cant tell the market you want something. Koshido wrote: A little example of that is Apple. I don't see how without the mechanisms of the free market, technology like the iPad would come to be, and this accessible. Or more simple, flat screens wouldn't ever replace the old tube tv on grand scale if it was for the free market, definitively. So you claim that in RBE there is no technological progress. Where did you get that idea from ? No in fact you claim that technological progrees can only happen in free market, that is even bolder claim.

26

Koshido wrote: Second. It's been talk a lot about "the collapse": Oil running out, every country in debt with other, resources getting rarer,... You know, the thing about free market is that, like electricity or stream, goes the way through the path of less resistance. What I mean by that is, for example: "oil is abundant?, lets use it! Now it's not? lets use something else". In this simple sentence is a lot of implication: we will use what resources have at hand, exploit them, learn from them, create new thing with them. And then, with the "something else" comes a new wave of innovation driven by itself. While the oil run out, we will invest in new sources of energy and new ways of doing things, simply because the price of oil will become higher and higher, among other things. Yes and no. Market system will never guide us into abudant energy sources becuase that means no profit. When oil runs out we will use different resources and comapnies will figure other way to keep energy sources under control and energy will never be basiclly free , the way it could be. Tesla's free energy work was destryed by JP Morgan not becuase they could make so much money on its invention. Koshido wrote: Debt? what is it? It doesn't exist. The world won't collapse because of that ethereal concept. In any minute we reset our debt accounting program and that's it, while the innovation and achievements will still be here. The proof of this is how easy the government bail out the banks in crisis, like nothing. That's right, credit and debt it's just a mechanism we've develop to boost growth, and it can be reset any minute. Am I sounding to much idealistic? People throwing money on the street I believe is more idealistic, no offense. Resseting debt would destroy the economy,how is that not a problem ? In fact resseting debt would means end of fiat money , and changing the rules of money for the 4th time in the last 100 years. Thta means global wealth transfer , some people loosing evertyhing comminintg suicides etc. Also resseting debt is just asking for a global war. Do you think China will be happy that USA will not pay them back ? Koshido wrote: It's well said in Zeitgeist moving forward: Nature is a dictatorship. We won't be that stupid to destroy what supports us. Perpetual increase of resource consumption , oil spills , nuclear reactors meltdown with ultra deadly plutonium in it , tells me otherwise. Koshido wrote: Here's where Zeitgeist Movement get it right: Human Primary Needs.Free Market doesn't count for the children dying of hunger, or a community suffering from AIDS. We've seen it, credits and loans does not apply in helping a society on serious underdevelopment, something else has to be done. But ditching free market is not the solution. It would create other problems that it already takes care

27

 Here's I think what have to work for as humanity: Education, Smart Consumers, and Free primary needs: like food, water and housing. Maybe, in a distant future a moneyless society will spontaneously arise, but yet, I can't see how, I'm no diviner, but I believe in social evolution. Sory free market is at the terminal stage of the cancer , no amount of chemioterapy or surgeries can help it. Althoug i must admit that scandinavian model is doing very good regardless. It is a mix of free market with income redistibution. But they have diiferent social values , their social capital is huge and corruption low. KOSHIDO Mark Maynard wrote: What is the real purpose of this thread, Koshido? Hey Mark, welcome back. The real purpose? I think I stated it in the first post of this thread, but, why you ask? SUBSTANCE

Koshido wrote: Mark Maynard wrote: What is the real purpose of this thread, Koshido? Hey Mark, welcome back. The real purpose? I think I stated it in the first post of this thread, but, why you ask? I think what he and Acme might be thinking is that from your posts one could conclude that you haven't watched any of the Zeitgeist movies and one might even wonder how you passed the test to enter the forums, unless of course you lied at some questions. I'm not saying that this is the case, all I am saying is that the purpose of this forum is not to discuss if money and the "free" market are the root causes of our problems but it is rather assumed that all forum members already agree on this issue and this was intended as a place where we could discuss methods of bringing awareness about these problems and the actual transition into an RBE.

28

 KOSHIDO Substance wrote: A complex system CAN be orchestrated and CAN be predictable, that's one of the main pillars on which an RBE will stand. Also price is an arbitrary indicator that can be easily omitted if the above point is fulfilled. Yes, if the society can be orchestrated we would not need to use price. But that's the thing: a complex system by definition can not be orchestrated and can not be predicted what new outcomes may arise. Thats why in history central planed economies have failed. You can research the work of Ken Wilber about the "dominance hierarchies". Basically tells that a orchestrated systems can not evolve and deteriorates over time. KOSHIDO avashurov wrote: Unlike RBE, none of these points are in favor of monetary system Why are you still continuing this, don't you see the bigger picture, the monetary system is a slow variation of pyramid scheme and needs to go! This thread is about Free Market, not the precisely about the monetary system. However I will state this: The monetary system is only a TOOL of the free market. Is it perfect? No, as societies are not perfect, but can be improved. MARK MAYNARD What is your stance on private ownership? KOSHIDO Shogu. Debt, Collapse, Technological Unemployment, Sustainable Energy Souces, Market Locks and Education are all topics already discused along the thread. Please review before posting. shogu wrote: Peole are being programmed like a machines

29

 That's a bold statement. So you claim that in RBE there is no technological progress. No, I don't (Balance) Perpetual increase of resource consumption , oil spills , nuclear reactors meltdown with ultra deadly plutonium in it , tells me otherwise. Part of the road of progress."With no pain no gain". As humans we do things, make mistakes, learn from them, and keep going. So do societies. Although i must admit that scandinavian model is doing very good regardless. It is a mix of free market with income redistibution. But they have diiferent social values , their social capital is huge and corruption low. Exactly, thank you. The solution of the actual problems are matter of Education, ie, values. SUBSTANCE EDIT: my video link doesn't seem to be working so just play the first video from 2:05:49, that's the place where I was intending to link to. About innovation and incentives: About your supposed stagnation and deterioration of orchestrated systems About the your "definition" of a complex system and it's properties: see below Your assumption that a complex system (whatever you think constitutes "complex") cannot be orchestrated is by definition erroneous. The reason for this is that every natural science is based on the idea of being able to predict and control. If you cannot predict how a physical system will look at least in some infinitesimal interval of time or if you cannot make any prediction about the outcomes of an experiment, then your work has no meaning, it is not scientific. If you build your social system based entirely on scientific principles (The scientific method) taking human opinion out of the equation, then naturally science's ability to predict and control becomes a feature of your social system. Think about this. KOSHIDO Substance wrote: I think what he and Acme might be thinking is that from your posts one could conclude that you haven't watched any of the Zeitgeist movies and one might even wonder how you passed the test to enter the forums, unless of

30

course you lied at some questions. I'm not saying that this is the case, all I am saying is that the purpose of this forum is not to discuss if money and the "free" market are the root causes of our problems but it is rather assumed that all forum members already agree on this issue and this was intended as a place where we could discuss methods of bringing awareness about these problems and the actual transition into an RBE. Believe me, I've watched the movies, read the materials and seen different videos. I do understand what a Resource Based Economy is and stands for. AND I THINK IS GREAT, in fact, I think awesome. But... the thing is that... is just a theory . As a movement you can not expect the world to change his whole economic system based on just a theory. YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT. Why does a RBE have to be implanted in the whole damn world?!. It's extraordinarily ambitious. If a RBE is that good it must be holographic, in other words, it can be implement regardless of the available territory. So, PLEASE make a favor to the world and PROVE YOUR THEORY. Pick an extensive place, like an island, acquire it with donations, make your central system, build your super city, automate all production, fulfill the needs everyone in there, and innovate without external input. Then we'll see if an RBE would work in the whole world. If you do so I'm in. And with these words I'm making my contribution to the movement. KATASTRON Alright, so - it seems - you like the Scandinavian model, but you like the concept of "free market", and would like to somehow combine the two? But the Scandinavian model is as successful as it is, because it also has a lot of intelligent central planning in it. Infrastructure is built to be durable for example, and many services are public, or shared, or free, which isn't what "free market" usually means. They also have very high taxes, and "free market" usually is described as having very low taxes, because of very small basic government. There is also no clarity how the competitive element of the free market will function to manage the Earth's resources efficiently. Cradle-to-cradle design now becomes popular, because it is concerned with more systematic approach than just "you get iPod 4 this year, next year you must buy iPod 5 because it's just fantastic, and nobody cares about the pile of waste growing". The more such regulations are developing - and they develop, because they are desperately needed for the survival of the species - the more corporations are no longer really "free" competitive entities. Rather, corporations become bound by scientific measurements of human concern, and required to work in accordance with the bigger systematic picture of all the other economic processes. In other words, in reality they have to approach a co-operative scientific management of the Earth's resources, which is very close to TVP. You also seem very fond of specialization, but it produces a lot of inefficiency, especially in a competitive society, because essentially you get people who have limited viewpoint based on their special area, and fight for economic share with people from other special areas, without understanding their importance for the system. That's not a very intelligent social design, and is bound to chaotic crisis outbursts. As an example, the specialists who built Oil companies, fought the specialists who built electric cars, and the result was inefficient use of the Earth's resources.

31

 KOSHIDO Substance wrote: Your assumption that a complex system (whatever you think constitutes "complex") cannot be orchestrated is by definition erroneous. Is not what I think what "complex" is. Complex Systems is an area of science, part of the Systems Theory a RBE would be based on. The reason for this is that every natural science is based on the idea of being able to predict and control. If you cannot predict how a physical system will look at least in some infinitesimal interval of time or if you cannot make any prediction about the outcomes of an experiment, then your work has no meaning, it is not scientific. If you build your social system based entirely on scientific principles (The scientific method) taking human opinion out of the equation, then naturally science's ability to predict and control becomes a feature of your social system. Think about this. An experiment is something made on isolated environments and replicable. We are taking about societies here: subjective, exposed, with thousands of variables on game. AND THAT'S GOOD. Is what drives evolution. Addendum: Have you heard of about Chaos Theory? It basically states that even if we have a perfect mathematical understanding of some phenomenon we cannot predict its outcome when there are three or more codependent variables. So, if you cannot predict the outcome it doesnt mean it is not scientific. SUBSTANCE That is your contribution to the movement? Wow, thanks for wasting my time with your thread and the time of some other people who have bothered trying to answer your questions, which by the way have been answered over and over in the forum and in various Zeitgeist materials like the movies, the orientation guide and the orientation video. I will respond to you one last time so that you don't get the idea that my silence is a form a of agreement with your naive arguments. RBE is not a theory. It is based on proven scientific facts. Every single attribute and feature of an RBE as a general idea is based on FACTS. Please, try to educate yourself a bit about the current state of science. You can use any science news website or just try ZeitNews - where I and some other 30 people try to spread awareness about this very same thing every day donating time from our own private lives. Can we monitor the availability of resources on a global scale? YES, private companies and governments all over the world are doing it right now, they just don't share the data publicly and they don't cooperate very much.

32

Can we really automate all redundant jobs? YES, we are doing it and recently even jobs from the service sector are being successfully done by machines. Ever shopped in a Tesco Express if you've been to the UK? Can we build the super-computer needed to monitor all resources, production and allocation of goods and services? Oh, boy, do we! I don't think you really are aware of the capabilities of CURRENT supercomputers, not to mention the untapped potential of quantum computing... I'm not even going to bother with more examples. Do your research, I'm not going to do it for you. Bottom line: this is no theory, this is a proposition based on facts! Now if you want me to prove this proposition to you, that's not going to happen. How do you propose for me, a nobody, to gather donations to BUY land and then HIRE scientists and construction companies to build a fully automated city somewhere? How is it going to be exempt from the country's laws and regulations where it's built? How is it going to prove ANYTHING if it doesn't have access to all of Earth's resources resources? What if the land I bought doesn't happen to have titanium deposits underneath and that's a material I need? You are either really naive or just acting stupid because of lack of good arguments. If you don't have anything of real VALUE to contribute, do us a favor and don't waste our time anymore. Thanks in advance. MARK MAYNARD Just to enlighten you...the whole market system you come here and promote is based on John Lockes and Joseph Smith's untested, unscientific philosofies. In those philosofies there is the idea of an 'invisible hand' that makes supply and demand equilibrium work. Also John Locke said that it is perfectly natural that the children of those who are unable to preform labour is supposed to perish. A resource based economy is exactly what it sounds like. Instead of basing resource allocation on some fictional thing, we base it in whats real. KATASTRON A single "piece" of resource is not ubiquitous, in other words, it can not be used in two different products. Solution: not everything is a "product", in a clear market sense ("I give you, you give me"). A giant maglev train around the globe is not really a product in a market sense, because it serves humanity as a whole, and has no clear buyer and seller. Same applies to every "library"-like model. By refusing to work on such solutions, because they are not applicable to the market model, even though we have the resources, we hold back our development. Price is an indicator of how resources are obtained and demanded in the complex society. So, price is a society's tool for allocation. And it has always been completely speculative, which is why in every contemporary developed country - including USA - price has always been centrally regulated. Of course, that still doesn't solve the problem, but

33

helps a little. And if anything, it indicates that by using scientific evaluation price can be replaced by more efficient mechanisms, eg: time-usage measurements. KATASTRON I'd also like to ask how the "free market" deals with: orphans, invalids, poor people in urgent need of very expensive medical procedure (note that due to the interacting conditions of their poverty, they are also more likely to need it more often), and in general, the proven higher social stress and crime rate in societies of higher income inequality. Providing basic income, and basic public necessities, is a step in the right direction, but still far from addressing these issues, and they, in turn, propagate further unnecessary social problems. (eg: an orphan with higher likelihood cannot fit successfully within the educational system, grows up with limited education, has children and can't raise them in a healthy environment, so they in turn have educational problems and so on) SHOGU

Koshido wrote: Shogu. Debt, Collapse, Technological Unemployment, Sustainable Energy Souces, Market Locks and Education are all topics already discused along the thread. Please review before posting. There is plenty of your posts in this topic i dont feel like digging them all out. I wish you would just answered my points. Koshido wrote: shogu wrote: Peole are being programmed like a machines. That's a bold statement. Well i told how much money comapnies spend on marketing department. The reason is THIS works. Koshido wrote: Or more simple, flat screens wouldn't ever replace the old tube tv on grand scale if it was for the free market, definitively. Look at CCCP. It was state capitalist dictatorship ( nothing to with the free market) Yet they manage to send te first man into space , faster then free market USA.

34

 Invention is not an feature of free market at all. Perpetual increase of resource consumption , oil spills , nuclear reactors meltdown with ultra deadly plutonium in it , tells me otherwise. Part of the road of progress."With no pain no gain". As humans we do things, make mistakes, learn from them, and keep going. So do societies. What do you think atmoist lobbiest have learned form nuclear distaster ? ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. They try to say to public opinion that radiation is good for you. You dont understand power behind BIG money. You know what BP done after oil spill ? It defientlly didnt learn anything , the just used corexit even bigger posions to clean up their mess. Koshido wrote: Exactly, thank you. The solution of the actual problems are matter of Education, ie, values. You understand the education as it is now is hijacked by big capital? Proper education and capitalism are two exactly opposite forces that will fight off each other. You cant have both. KOSHIDO katastron wrote: Alright, so - it seems - you like the Scandinavian model, but you like the concept of "free market", and would like to somehow combine the two? But the Scandinavian model is as successful as it is, because it also has a lot of intelligent central planning in it. Infrastructure is built to be durable for example, and many services are public, or shared, or free, which isn't what "free market" usually means. They also have very high taxes, and "free market" usually is described as having very low taxes, because of very small basic government. I actually don't know much of the scandinavian model, sorry, I have to research a little. There is also no clarity how the competitive element of the free market will function to manage the Earth's resources efficiently. Companies that offer sustainable products are entering the market, and more and more of these companies will continue arising, and with education and... why not, advertisement, the demand will shift to those sustainable products. The more such regulations are developing - and they develop, because they are desperately needed for the survival of the species - the more corporations are no longer really "free" competitive entities. Rather, corporations become bound by scientific measurements of human concern, and required to work in accordance

35

with the bigger systematic picture of all the other economic processes. In other words, in reality they have to approach a co-operative scientific management of the Earth's resources, which is very close to TVP. I Agree. You also seem very fond of specialization, but it produces a lot of inefficiency, especially in a competitive society, because essentially you get people who have limited viewpoint based on their special area, and fight for economic share with people from other special areas, without understanding their importance for the system. Yeah, this was an issue some years ago, thats why something called "interdisciplinarity" arose. Now the academic institutes recognize that and have develop interdisciplinary career pads. Im actually studding a interdisciplinary career called Telematics Engineer, in which the fields of communications, electronics, informatics and control are bound. As an example, the specialists who built Oil companies, fought the specialists who built electric cars, and the result was inefficient use of the Earth's resources. Probably yes, but at least we make a lot of advancements in combustion powered engines, which is knowledge we can use for other more sustainable things. DUKEBERT hogu: Proper education and capitalism are two exactly opposite forces that will fight off each other. You cant have both. Indeed, the profit motive is simply not in line with the OP's solutions: "Education, Smart Consumers, and Free primary needs: like food, water and housing." In other words it is not profitable to have smart people and free stuff around. KOSHIDO Jeez Substance, seems like I touched a nerve. Substance wrote: That is your contribution to the movement? Wow, thanks for wasting my time with your thread and the time of some other people who have bothered trying to answer your questions, which by the way have been answered over and over in the forum and in various Zeitgeist materials like the movies, the orientation guide and the orientation video.

36

I'm not asking questions, I'm presenting my conclusions. RBE is not a theory. It is based on proven scientific facts. Every single attribute and feature of an RBE as a general idea is based on FACTS. So as any other great idea, and then what you do? You test it. You see, a RBE is a new economic model, and it has to be tested before the world accept it. And that's that. How do you propose for me, a nobody, to gather donations to BUY land and then HIRE scientists and construction companies to build a fully automated city somewhere? How is it going to be exempt from the country's laws and regulations where it's built? How is it going to prove ANYTHING if it doesn't have access to all of Earth's resources resources? What if the land I bought doesn't happen to have titanium deposits underneath and that's a material I need? Sure as a global movement you can acquire some piece of land and start an RBE. You don't have to hire scientist and construction companies to build a city, you do it yourself and all the volunteers that would work on the project, surely there will be scientist. And as I said before, if a RBE is that good, it can be implanted anywhere regardless of the available resources, the purpose is administer those resources and build a stable society. KOSHIDO katastron wrote: A single "piece" of resource is not ubiquitous, in other words, it can not be used in two different products. Solution: not everything is a "product", in a clear market sense ("I give you, you give me"). A giant maglev train around the globe is not really a product in a market sense, because it serves humanity as a whole, and has no clear buyer and seller. Same applies to every "library"-like model. By refusing to work on such solutions, because they are not applicable to the market model, even though we have the resources, we hold back our development. mmmm ... a communal product sharing economy. I think Cuba and China have something like that. Price is an indicator of how resources are obtained and demanded in the complex society. So, price is a society's tool for allocation. And it has always been completely speculative Please elaborate.

37

KOSHIDO shogu wrote: There is plenty of your posts in this topic i dont feel like digging them all out. I wish you would just answered my points. Well Shogu, I don't feel like repeating myself. Peole are being programmed like a machines. That's a bold statement. Well i told how much money comapnies spend on marketing department. The reason is THIS works. Of course, you gotta make your product known. I personally don't have any issue with marketing and advertisement, I find it amusing, but that's me. Look at CCCP. It was state capitalist dictatorship ( nothing to with the free market) Yet they manage to send te first man into space , faster then free market USA. What do you think atmoist lobbiest have learned form nuclear distaster ? ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. They try to say to public opinion that radiation is good for you. You know what BP done after oil spill ? It defientlly didnt learn anything , the just used corexit even bigger posions to clean up their mess. I see you throw around many examples. I will stick to be big picture. You dont understand power behind BIG money. Oh yes I do. It's a double-edged sword. How is used is a matter of values. KATASTRON How about a public library? How about Scandinavian geothermal plants, which kept them stable during times of energy crisis, because they have planned and invested for very long-term efficiency, as opposed to the immediate cyclical consumption profit mechanism in less centralized economies? Price is an indicator of how resources are obtained and demanded in the complex society. So, price is a society's tool for allocation. And it has always been completely speculative

38

Please elaborate. Bargaining. Now, if there was a way for price to be determined without bargaining, by some kind of objective measure, then it would be scientific. Meanwhile, in a model based on access centers (similar to public library) there is a proper measure, and it's how much time something is being used, a time measure, which determines how much of it is needed, so adjustments can be made by transferring between access centers. This model has problems without high degree of automation of the production, but luckily we have that. KOSHIDO katastron wrote: Peole are being programmed like a machines How about a public library? How about Scandinavian geothermal plants, which kept them stable during times of energy crisis, because they have planned and invested for very long-term efficiency, as opposed to the immediate cyclical consumption profit mechanism in less centralized economies? Price is an indicator of how resources are obtained and demanded in the complex society. So, price is a society's tool for allocation. And it has always been completely speculative Please elaborate. Bargaining. Now, if there was a way for price to be determined without bargaining, by some kind of objective measure, then it would be scientific. Meanwhile, in a model based on access centers (similar to public library) there is a proper measure, and it's how much time something is being used, a time measure, which determines how much of it is needed, so adjustments can be made by transferring between access centers. This model has problems without high degree of automation of the production, but luckily we have that. You're right. This model is really promising. SHOGU

Koshido wrote: Of course, you gotta make your product known. I personally don't have any issue with marketing and advertisement, I find it amusing, but that's me.

39

 Thin only tells me how little you know. KATASTRON Another problem we didn't discuss enough - there are a lot of important useful human activities which do not answer directly "demand". Eg: In free market it is very successful job to do something that has flow (because of the cyclical consumption) - fixes, repairs, patching. Because this way you get clients every day. But what if your "clients" are hard to identify or to pinpoint in time --- if you are designer, planner. There is no way to assess how many human lives a designer has saved, because of preventing problems. Free market is better attuned to "solving problems" than to "preventing problems", because the former can be assessed more clearly under the demand paradigm, and the latter can't be assessed that well (their contribution usefulness may grow indefinitely over time, but that doesn't cause a flow of income). I think this issue is extremely serious, and goes beyond the market paradigm, even to our notion of ethics and helping each other. We praise a savior, one who acts after a trouble happened, but we have no way to evaluate a preventer that well. That's one of the reasons why evaluating people (not just monetarily) gradually deteriorates our social efficiency, and we better try to move away from this paradigm. (and this aspect was not covered by lectures before) - not just planners; but also the opposite type of actors: transmitters. There are people whose contribution is in the middle of the whole supply and demand concept. Say, who propagate ideas around (check Paul Erdos). Then, they may inspire others to come up with new ideas, but this act of sharing and inspiration can't be accounted for, and shouldn't be attempted to get accounted. Yet, it is very useful, on some occasions even crucial for the advancements of the species. So, these two types of agents, roughly put - planners and transmitters - just do not fit the market paradigm properly; it is not designed with them in mind; it ignores them completely. But they exist and are important. You just can't put an "exchange lock" on every important human activity, and that's what markets try to do. And that's why they are deadly, especially when pushed to extreme. JAMIED Hi Koshido, You seem to have your ideas stuck between a socialist system such as found in Scandinavia and a Free Market system such as (partially) implemented by the US. Unfortunately these are two opposed systems. You need to resolve this before further discussion!

40

 AMONETARISTE Acme wrote: This thread is waste of time. I have to agree with Acme and Substance on this. There is only one perspective on the so-called "Free Market" and that is that it has never been tried and, if it was, it would be a nightmare society where everything had a price-tag and we'd all be reduced to isolated social atoms competing against each other and who only came into contact with each other as buyers and sellers of one sort or another. This forum has been set up for those who want to avoid this and get away from the state-regulated market system we live under now and don't want to make it worse as under your proposal. In any event, the whole "free market" ideology is a fraud, perpetuated and financed (through such bodies as the Cato Institute, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, and the Adam Smith Institute) by big corporations to create the intellectual climate and lobby to be be freed from government regulations so they are free to pursue their profit-making in ways they judge best suited to maximise profits for their shareholders. These are our enemies. It's a pity that you seem to have been duped by them. KATASTRON

The rich always try to teach the poor how to be rich which only makes the rich richer. I'd add the Ayn Rand Institute, which donates 400 thousand copies of Atlas Shrugged to schools yearly.. then brag about it being a best-seller.. kinda L.Ron Hubbard-esque situation. But I wouldn't call these organizations or people "enemies". They cling to an inefficient system/(counter)religion; it's inefficient for them too and for their children even more so. Its ideology is only reactionary towards religion, thus creating a god out of the self, but none of these mystical concepts are useful in the study of nature. BEN MCLEISH Hi Koshido, The reasons I placed FM and mp3s into my collage of examples of block against innovation were two-fold. First, they are both examples of technology that are "better" - in that what they offered society or at least their respective mediums. FM was not welcomed as an innovation at that time, to the point at which its inventor Edwin Armstrong, was literally destroyed by the process of its deselection and blocking by RCA. I explicitly

41

admit that ten years after Armstrong's death FM was the widest radio format. As for mp3s (or digital music in general), its adoption amidst distributed networks on the internet was met by rhetoric from Jack Valentio, who stated that downloading was his own "terrorist war." These are all powerful examples of the current paradigm against the new. The more we block, and the longer we block it, the more society in general is retarded in its growth. At the same time the longer we block individual innovators, the worse we are off as well. KOSHIDO Hi all I'm back, after an intense month finishing my career's final project and another of having some well deserved vacations. I'll continue this discussing this thread. Everyone's welcome KOSHIDO katastron wrote: Free market is better attuned to "solving problems" than to "preventing problems", because the former can be assessed more clearly under the demand paradigm, and the latter can't be assessed that well (their contribution usefulness may grow indefinitely over time, but that doesn't cause a flow of income). In the "demand paradigm" what's demanded is what is offered. If durable things are demanded so they will be offered. KOSHIDO amonetariste wrote: the so-called "Free Market" ... has never been tried How is that? In any event, the whole "free market" ideology is a fraud, perpetuated and financed ... by big corporations to create the intellectual climate and lobby to be be freed from government regulations so they are free to pursue their profit-making in ways they judge best suited to maximise profits for their shareholders. Yeah, well, not exactly free market but neoliberalism. I just read the "Manifesto of the Appalled Economist"

42

written by 4 french economist in 2010 and recently became best seller after the polemic related to public debt financing in USA and France. In short, what it states is the wrong assumption that the financial market works as good as the normal market, and it's consequences, particularly in the European Union. Because in the financial market if a price rises it keeps rising, because of the speculation, making it a economy destabilizer, whereas the normal market if a price suddenly rises the dynamics of demand and offer tends to stabilize it. Since companies now are financed by shareholders, their priority is to satisfy certain ROE which actually slows economic growth. Besides, by promulgating the excellence of financial markets, governments keep on reducing taxes, which makes them have deficits and makes companies profit more, in return governments have to get finance by selling bonds that are bought by those companies, so is a "jackpot effect". The document proposes several measures to counter this effects. ARCADIAN The notion that monetary incentive creates innovation has been empirically falsified by psychological research. The research has shown that people driven by monetary incentive tend to think in a linear fashion, and they can't think creatively as if they are wearing "mental blinders." Because they have their "eyes on the prize," their focus is too narrow to think outside the box. People who are motivated by other factors, such as self-actualization and the desire to contribute to humanity, tend to engage in "divergent thinking" - thinking which engages multiple routes to multiple solutions, bypassing the functional fixedness of those driven by money. "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" --Douglas Adams ADRIEN D Koshido wrote: Ok, how to achieve a more humane world? Through education, people to become smart consumers for them to shape the market and no otherwise. And by not making a human life a struggle for survival by giving a chance to grow and develop. Yeah, that may be difficult in a free market, but that's what we gotta work for. Answering your question, a smart consumer is one that is aware of the implications and consequences in the world when buying certain product. That would be fine if companies didn't have huge incentive to fool people about the worth of their product and there is almost no incentive to expose the disinformation. Nowhere near the incentive to create it. Another big problem with the whole "if only people became smart consumers" thing is that you can't consume intelligently if you have to save money.

43

Poor people, however smart they wish to consume, cannot afford to and in this way are coerced into buying cheap and crappy products. Supply only takes care of demand for as long as the demanding party has money to pay for it. Making this system more humane only works for as long as effort is put into it and because of the profit motive capital owners will always try to gain an edge by any means possible. The companies that play the CC- PP game the best are the most competitive, so you'll always have an evolution towards undoing the humane work. And since there is little monetary incentive to humanize the system, it's likely going to keep deteriorating no matter what monetary system you put in place. VOICE OF RESON You've been away from the forums doing other things but let's see what you replied with. Not competitive market but prices (allocation). A company that want to be profitable has to improve their processes for them to be more efficient and less costly, and that's what drives innovation. Have you ever seen that Discovery Channel program about how things are made on a fabric? There is the innovationz Um... what? You do realize that you just stated prices = incentive right? This statement is nothing more than a non sequitur. Prices an attribute of value, not an incentive. An incentive has to come from something other than the price. After all, what is the incentive for me to buy a pair of shoes if the prices are low but I need some new books instead and have a pair of shoes already? You also made the claim that you're not talking about a competitive market, then why the hell talk about a free market to begin with?! I mean a free market is the exact equivalent of a competitive market, you cannot have a free market without competition. Also you seem to make the idea of separating the statements of "more efficient" and "less costly" without realizing that the two are interchangeable and thus your statement makes no sense. I put the iPod touch as the example. The point is: better and more accessible products. You totally missed the point, I asked you specifically the following, "Can you prove that a competitive market drives innovation? Assuming that just because certain products would not be made because of a lack of a competitive market is not proof, it is an assumption." You just reworded your assumption without giving a real answer of proof. Also the example you gave of the iPod touch is a shitty example. (Don't mean to be rude, I'm just being blunt). I'm not saying that flat screens were an innovation of free market. I'm saying that they would never replace the old ones in a not free market system. Why? simple: no incentive to do it. Please tell me you're not serious with that argument? Of course there is plenty of incentive to do so but something you don't seem to grasp is that incentives to do anything are contrasted by something called opportunity costs. What is the incentive for me to buy a plat screen tv in contrast with me keeping my old one for a few years till the prices go down as opposed to the opportunity cost I loose to getting those pair of shoes I buy added into the factor of the unforeseen (e.g. tv craps out, shoes tear off and get ruined, friend gives me a new surround sound which will only work on a flat screen, etc...). In order to make a good analytical

44

statement about the free market and its relation to flat screen tv's and incentives to buy them, you have to understand both how incentives work, how advertising functions and something called opportunity costs (which is what I just laid out to you). It doesn't even matter if you have a Free Market system or a Socialist system or even a Communist system, for the incentives will pretty work out in the exact same way as relation to the flat screen tv. The only difference is what is the mechanism for the prices to fall in contrast with the amount of innovations made to flat screen tv's. Here is where your argument should focus on, not on the consumer's "incentive to buy something" which will play out in the exact same way regardless of what system your working under. The energy crisis is not a matter of profitability, is a matter of sustainability. There are already hundreds of new sustainable alternatives being tested and improved and the more efficient ones will become available to demographic exploitation at time. The oil will run out, the change is inevitable. That was not the point of what I stated, my point is that IT IS GOOD FOR THE MARKET TO NOT SWITCH OVER TO NEW ENERGY SYSTEMS AS LONG AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE PROFIT LOSS INVOLVED!. Here in Mexico City many people including me drink from the water of the faucet, because the people demand to the city government clean water. That example is getting old by the way. Did I say this was happening everyone and in places where government water sanitation is going on? In a world where dogmatic views persist and lack of analytical thought permeates, there is a need for a voice of reason to come forth, I am that voice. If I am a little harsh on people, then be assured that it is well deserved. SOLTAN GRIS Let me throw my 2 cents in the fire here: - Free market - indeed it doesn't exist. The basic concept of free market implies an equal opportunity for competition between existing and new companies, which in practice doesn't exist. In theory, a new company would enter the market with its innovations and greater effectiveness, and force the older companies to improve in their turn in order to compete with it. What happens in practice is that the older companies simply play 'dirty' with the new ones - they use their influence to block access to resources, advertisement, they try to steal the talented employees of the new company by offering better salaries, etc. If all this fails, they simply take over the new company financially. In modern history, there are only a handful of examples when new companies survived and thrived, most of them in the Internet niche (which is a brand new market anyway). Furthermore, the big players in the market use politicians as their hidden assets to help them in many ways. This is totally against free market. Finally, stock exchange speculation further destroys any attempt at fair competition, by introducing an entirely new level in the game where you could lose simply because you're outnumbered and outwitted in a game that doesn't have anything to do with real life. - Innovation Koshido, you claim that the current system is the only way people will have the incentive and drive to innovate and improve products. I disagree. When people have time on their hands, when they are genuinely interested in what they do, they take a product, or service, or process, and improve it simply because they can, not because somebody is requiring it, or they anticipate payment for it.

45

Let's take your iPad example: you say in a RBE economy (or at least a non-free market economy) it would be 10 times as heavy, and with low battery duration. Why? When you take it in your hand, won't you realize that it's too heavy? That there is a way to make it lighter? Then why wouldn't you make it lighter, if you have nothing else to do? You go to the laboratory, you do the necessary research and experiments, you requisition the necessary materials (all this would be available for free in an RBE, if you've taken the time to learn about it). At the end you make it lighter, upload the new design in the database and voila! The same goes for the battery. Show me one good reason why such a scenario wouldn't happen. I'm not saying that flat screens were an innovation of free market. I'm saying that they would never replace the old ones in a not free market system. Why? simple: no incentive to do it - excuse me, but you're making assumptions without any grounds. The incentive to do something doesn't necessarily have to come from money, it could come from any other number of sources. Like reason, for example. Or maybe you're assuming that without the money as incentive, people will lie in the bed the whole day..... well, with today's education and mindset, maybe most will. But as a kid, were you waiting for somebody to give you money to go and to stuff? To play with others? To explore the neighborhood? To dismantle a toy and then try to reassemble it? To try to find new ways to use your LEGO? OK, all we need in education is to preserve this natural drive towards curiosity and action into adulthood. Once you have that, along with decent access to education, and you'll be swept away at the amount of innovative ideas that will sprout without anybody having to do anything to 'incentive' them. - Energy The energy crisis is not a matter of profitability, is a matter of sustainability. There are already hundreds of new sustainable alternatives being tested and improved and the more efficient ones will become available to demographic exploitation at time. The oil will run out, the change is inevitable. Yeah, I agree here, the change is inevitable. But why did we need to get to this point? Humanity hasn't really done any meaningful research in energy for half a century, we simply stopped at Nuclear power plants level, and we didn't improve even that. Instead, the great Free Market system is improving TV technology, communication technology, cosmetics (OK, computers and the Internet are one big achievement, but that would've happened even without the market system).... also, the system educates advertisers, economists, lawyers, financial specialists, communication specialists, all of them incredibly useful in finding the solutions to our grave, technical problems like resource utilization, energy production research, alternative transportation research, etc. etc. etc. Also, might I point out that the greatest barrier to sustainable energy sources today are exactly money? We have all the tech to implement sustainable energy (even though it needs improvement), we also have the resources, but there are no MONEY to do it. The current debt crisis has frozen all state-driven projects for renewable energy, and who knows when they'll be unfrozen when all the politicians think about is debt and the economy? And where are the private energy companies to do that instead of the state? I hope you get what I'm trying to say: yes, the system will do what needs to be done at the end, simply because there would be no alternative whatsoever. But it will be like trying to steer away from its course an enormous elephant, with its tiny eyes fixed upon the food in the distance. And sorry to rain on your optimistic parade, but look at what's happening with our environment, and the rate at which it is happening! Storms everywhere, droughts, floods, earthquakes.... We might not achieve the necessary change in time! Do we have to eradicate half the planet while we wait the Free Market system to come around and do what needs to be done?

46

 HELLGORAMA For the innovation bit, I would simply point out open-source software, nuff said. TALON SILVERCLOUD Money blocks innovation as much as it supposedly encourages it. I work for a company that basically does security consultation and business analysis. In the business analysis sector, a big part of where we help a business is getting them sustainable, or efficient, or automated, or all 3. In other words, getting them green. Trust me, 'cost' inhibits the perlative majority of good ideas, and the cheaper option is often the one taken. Regardless of how much money a business would save in the short or long term, cost tends to keep the better options a the far far end of the table. Plenty of inventions don't receive funding due to the barriers of entry. It isn't cheap at all to prototype something. It isn't cheap at all to put something through a bunch of tests. Heck, safety testing alone is crazy expensive. Not everyone has the money to get an idea off the ground. And then we have copyrights for those ideas. Securing a patent or copyright is surprisingly expensive, and defending your patent/copyright/trademark is even more expensive. Then look back to cost. If the cost of implimenting your innovation is too high, no one does. OR We can take money out of the equasion here. People free to come up with ideas and research them and try them out? Check. Innovations are easier to adapt and impliment? Check. No need to defend innovations beyond the scientific principles on which it is built AKA testing and Peer Review? Check. Objective Peer Review and other forms of evaluation due to non-monetary competition? Check. Does this lead to more innovation on the whole? I'd wager yes.

47

"I don't have faith in humanity making the right choices. Ever. But I do have hope that they might eventually."~~Me "Well, if those were paid trolls sent by the NWO all I can say is I was seriously whooping some troll ass."~~Mezocosm SHOGU hellgorama wrote: For the innovation bit, I would simply point out open-source software, nuff said. Creativity comes from autonomy , self-mastery and sense of purpose. Money as incentive numbs down creativity . Scientifically validated up to this day. + Open source as empirical evidence , indeed nuff said. GALVIN PALMER 1984 I think many people uphold a modern concept of money and prices - as it relates to our current economy. But consider alternative concepts of money and prices - then the rhetoric begins to change.

48

KOSHIDO (ADDENDUM) Soltan Gris said: The basic concept of free market implies an equal opportunity for competition between existing and new companies, which in practice doesn't exist. In theory, a new company would enter the market with its innovations and greater effectiveness, and force the older companies to improve in their turn in order to compete with it. What happens in practice is that the older companies simply play 'dirty' with the new ones - they use their influence to block access to resources, advertisement, they try to steal the talented employees of the new company by offering better salaries, etc. If all this fails, they simply take over the new company financially. In modern history, there are only a handful of examples when new companies survived and thrived, most of them in the Internet niche (which is a brand new market anyway). Yeah, this discussion is about economic models. I cannot claim that free market is completely applied, and it shouldnt be, the State has to regulate it so it becomes a fair game for everyone. Also, much of the depravation can be solve with education, i.e. smart consumerism. Soltan Gris said: Finally, stock exchange speculation further destroys any attempt at fair competition, by introducing an entirely new level in the game where you could lose simply because you're outnumbered and outwitted in a game that doesn't have anything to do with real life. I agree. Please read the Manifiesto from terrified French economists. Soltan Gris said: Koshido, you claim that the current system is the only way people will have the incentive and drive to innovate and improve products No, I dont INNOVATION: In this thread when I refer to innovation, I'm referring to the innovation in production not in the innovation in products. These are very different thing. In the former, things are more didactical, we take on some problem, make our research, gather resources and build something new or better, a prototype In the innovation in production there are more constraints: you want to produce something, maybe that same prototype, repeatedly using the resources available, so you improve your production processes, times and movements so to make the most of what you have, and as you do so you're innovating. The unseen consequence of this production innovation is that the people gets their hands on the final product and two thing happen: the producer receives feedback on grand scale so the product is improved even more, and the costumer can come up with other new ideas based on the product (i.e. innovative iPad apps). Talon Silvercloud said: Plenty of inventions don't receive funding due to the barriers of entry. It isn't cheap at all to prototype something. It isn't cheap at all to put something through a bunch of tests. Heck, safety testing alone is crazy expensive. Not everyone has the money to get an idea off the ground. ALLOCATION: Here we define where do we use what. Certainly there may be many many good prototypes, but for them to be helpful to society they have to be produced and distributed. What if some prototype is incredibly good, but it uses some scarce resource and it can not be replicated as much as we want, but not just that, what if that very same resource is used in another prototype for another purpose, and it happens to be a

49

little more important to society than the other prototype. But not just that! There are a number resources needed for the production of the prototype that are needed for the production of other prototypes. See the complexity of this? How do we resolve what gets what, how many we have to make and how and where are used? The concept of price answers those questions. And before you reply that a planned economy would address that, I bring back the point that society is a complex system, it can not be orchestrated, only monitored, the outcomes are unpredictable, and trying to control it prevents its evolution. ENERGY: Soltan Gris said we simply stopped at Nuclear power plants level ......O.o....SIMPLY! You think that harvesting energy from the fission of atoms and making it available to the society is a SIMPLE advancement? Energy is nothing less than the blood of the society. Building the society we have know took centuries, and changing the blood, the infrastructure, the motor of the contemporary society in a few years is not only a difficult task, is unrealistic. So yes, we based our infrastructure on oil based energy, it have had its pros and cons, and we will eventually change it, and this change will happen in a matter of decades, don't expect it to be a quick process.

50