Squander? That would be using resources in a way that is not required for anything outside of vanity. The desire for vanity being artificially created.
How are you going to objectively make those statements? What is the difference between "artificial" demand and real demand?

Right. I suppose when you put it that way a concentration camp "functions". excuse me, but that is a straw man attack. I was under the impression this was supposed to be a proper debate.

It is by no means irrelevant who owns the means of production. It puts them in a position to determine if other people will have access to the goods in question, or access to jobs to be able to find a way to be useful to your system so that I can afford to buy the goods in question. When someone owns the means of production they have a great deal of power over other people that nobody should have in the first place. you cannot maximize profit by not maximizing profit. You are required, by law, to follow profit maximization policies in order to keep your firm a "going concern" (meaning you aren't planning on going bust, thereby defrauding your investors). I already showed you how following the profit maximization function results in an efficient allocation of resources to best satisfy all demands across an economy. You have yet to provide any contrary evidence.

No. Interest is the means by which people who loan money get profit for the loan in question. And in the fractional reserve system they get profit by no productive means whatsoever short of punching in some numbers in a computer or printing some useless paper. The fact that any goods or services can be awarded to anyone solely through this ludicrous means is another reason for the total corruption of any such system.
The bank's only profit go back into the creation of more loans, which are in turn backed by real, tangible resources in the economy. The fractional reserve system is irrelevant; there are several economies which operate with no reserve requirement at all. What matters is the backing of the currency with value. Interest is only used to gauge opportunity cost. Please provide some evidence to the contrary before continuing down this path.

I need to provide ample sources for everything I listed above? yes.
Profit leading to pollution? Profit leading to war? The system being corrupted? Seriously you want me to give you ample sources of all of these blatantly obvious things? yes. You have to demonstrate that the pollution created would not be better addressed through taxation than it would scrapping the entire system. You would have to show that war would be eliminate if it were not for money. Since war has existed longer than money, you are going to have a very difficult time proving that one.

No, you drew up a graph that was not based on any statistics and are now claiming it is a "source"
Oh? I used a generalized model which assumes rational decision making. It is backed through decades of market research, plus market data from specific firms. I can provide them if you like. However, you still haven't provided any contrary information, such as how your economic model is supposed to function. The reason I decided to come here to begin with is because no one I talked to was able to provide any mathematical modeling with which your Venus Project would function. The claim was that it is based off of the "scientific method", but as of yet, no one has been able to provide me with any of the science.

Huh? Advertising and brainwashing tactics didn't get us out of the hunter/gatherer phase. No, but they did allow the boom of the past 150 years or so take place. It is hard for people to know that they want something if they don't know it exists.

I totally disagree that it is "moot". You cannot declare intentional marketing strategies wherein someone is creating social benefits to their products artificially as a "moot point". Leaving out the fact that the way that people get to smoking in the first place is generally due to the social associations with it (considering they have never been exposed to the drug in question) is extremely flawed logic. so you are denying that the end consumers are deriving any utility from these products?

OH COME ON! REALLY? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Your just going to try and marginalize if not outright ignore the effects of money on the government? And act as though lobbyists are actually acting in the interest of telling people what the "problems are"? yes.
The way our society has been engineered people are inclined not to even pay attention to politics in the first place
*citation needed
The burden of proof is not on me Yes, it most certainly is. The venus project is supposed to be based on the scientific method. I would like to see the science. You cannot go around saying that the status quo is inferior to an alternative without first demonstrating that the alternative genuinely is superior.

What on earth are you basing this on? Mankind is almost infinitely better off than it was just 300 years ago. The global poverty rate has been driven down every single year. In the United States and Western Europe, it is impossible to starve to death. What metric are you using that says people are not doing better?


The life of the average slave was better in the 1800s than the 1700s. Is this an argument for slavery?

TZMRevolution wrote:
What on earth are you basing this on? Mankind is almost infinitely better off than it was just 300 years ago. The global poverty rate has been driven down every single year. In the United States and Western Europe, it is impossible to starve to death. What metric are you using that says people are not doing better?


The life of the average slave was better in the 1800s than the 1700s. Is this an argument for slavery?

Hi-5! lol.

please go back a few pages and watch the video's i listed, you are really missing the point of the current reality completely.

Plenty of evidence is provided in these video's for what you are looking for or failling to see.

I am accounting for it. It shouldn't exist in the first place. that is not accounting for it.
You drew up some graphs based on no data, set up circumstances to prove a point also based on no data, that did not take into account any form of variables as you put it, "generic models" that don't even address the issue. Then you "declared victory". You didn't present any evidence of your point at all. All of my graphs and models are based on full sets of data. I am working on compiling the data sets right now, but as you can imagine it is going to take a bit of time.

You utterly failed to address my point. Unless we are to assume you "love" the idea that the rich corporations can control our lives by controlling the government through money. If that were the case, then the massive set of financial regulation passed last year would have been impossible. I love the fact that I personally knew my congressman for several years, and I could write him with just about any question or concern and get a response. I recently moved, and so I have to build up that relationship all over again.

Because coal is a non-renewable resource and is therefore not a viable sustainable solution in the first place.We currently have enough coal in our crust to last us several hundred years. First, I will say that I support renewable energies over coal-fired plants personally, but you seem to ignore the fact that you must demonstrate the superiority of the renewable method before you would rationally switch to it. Using your logic, it would make no sense to switch to renewable energies until we ran out of fossil fuels, since it would take more resources to re-tool the power grid to get the same result, when we have basically free (it takes fewer resources to extract coal, and run a coal-fired plant than it does to create a sustainable geothermal plant) coal sitting around for the time being.

But lets extrapolate this thinking to a different area, because I do not like defending fossil fuel use. Tin is not a renewable resource, there is only so much and we can never get more (unless we mine other planets). However, it is used in pretty much all electronic devices. Since we cannot get any more tin, and it is not renewable, then eventually we will run out, even if we recycle every atom of it. As such (following your line of logic), we should not build any electronic devices that require tin.

A geothermal plant's output will outdo anything based on coal. And the resources you would have to spend to maintain it in a state of not polluting in the long run is far more expensive then building a power plant that does not pollute in the first place. Your also not taking into account the impact that coal mining has on the environment. Please provide a source of the cost of producing one megajoule of geothermal power versus producing one megajoule of power using various other energy methods. Keep in mind that there are more than a few geothermal plants already in use, and so you have real data to obtain, not just hypothetical postulations.

It's not just about doing "better". So now some of the people in the majority of the planet on the bottom are eating a little better? its not about doing better? Then what the hell is supposed to be the point of the venus project in the first place? Doing worse?

Aegis you also got to understand that the very basis (the main pillar) of monetary economics is scarcity. However thanks to advancements in technology. Scarcity of resources can be vastly reduced if not eliminated. Think about, there are planets orbiting outside Earth with ALL of its resources untapped and intact. Not only that since they are lifeless, so there are no processes involved with life that would break down those resources.

The last sentences of my paragraph may sound futuristic, but the fact is if NASA is already thinking of building bases on the moon then building industrial bases on Mars or Venus or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn aren't as far-fetched as many think.

check these out:
www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/why_moon.html
settlement.arc.nasa.gov/

Nasa even holds contests for designs regarding moon settlements. Once we have access to immense amounts of resources, the notion of scarcity that monetary economics is founded will become moot. Remove advertising, and the demand curve will fall, since even demand is a changing variable, not a constant. It can go down and it starts with showing people that they do not need the garbage that is advertised to them, in order to live a good life. I will try to dig up some info regarding this but my time is short .

No we wont run out of Sn if we recycle every atom of it, besides we can make more using nuclear fission and separating heavier elements to make 2 or more lighter elements that have the same mass as the heavier element when combined.

TZMRevolution wrote:
What on earth are you basing this on? Mankind is almost infinitely better off than it was just 300 years ago. The global poverty rate has been driven down every single year. In the United States and Western Europe, it is impossible to starve to death. What metric are you using that says people are not doing better?


The life of the average slave was better in the 1800s than the 1700s. Is this an argument for slavery?It isn't an argument at all, it is a statement of fact.

However thanks to advancements in technology. Scarcity of resources can be vastly reduced if not eliminated. Think about, there are planets orbiting outside Earth with ALL of its resources untapped and intact. Not only that since they are lifeless, so there are no processes involved with life that would break down those resources.
I agree, through advancement of technology you can indeed reduce scarcity and approach the point where demand is fully satisfied. I explained how this comes about in my second post on the 3rd page, and I explained why it cannot come about through the methods advocated by the Venus Project in my third post on the second page.

No we wont run out of Sn if we recycle every atom of it, besides we can make more using nuclear fission and separating heavier elements to make 2 or more lighter elements that have the same mass as the heavier element when combined. even if you recycle everything, there is no guarantee the demand for the element will be less than the total supply. The technology of creating one atom out of another does not exist, except for atoms that are already extremely large and unstable. Perhaps it will in the distant future, but using that hope as basis for our actions now don't make any sense. I may as well say that sometime in the future, we will develop a machine that can make coal out of trees and turn all the pollution into food for squirrels. It makes no sense to base our current decisions on what might be an option in the future.

aegis wrote:
All of my graphs and models are based on full sets of data. I am working on compiling the data sets right now, but as you can imagine it is going to take a bit of time.

Well, I wouldn't waste too much time on it. Because your not going to be able to compile graphs with data about Resource Based Economies because they haven't been tried yet. So your data is going to be irrelevant.

If that were the case, then the massive set of financial regulation passed last year would have been impossible. I love the fact that I personally knew my congressman for several years, and I could write him with just about any question or concern and get a response. I recently moved, and so I have to build up that relationship all over again.

Yes yes. Massive regulations, then massive de-regulations, then massive regulations. In a roller coaster. Yet for some reason there are still tiny pockets of rich and huge pockets of poor. And the wealth gap just keeps on increasing, and unemployment just keeps on climbing. The system is meant to make us feel we are accomplishing something when we are not. I garantee you that you didn't mean anything to your Congressman anywhere near as much as the corporations that put him in office. Unless you happened to be lucky enough to be in Kucinich or Paul's districts.

We currently have enough coal in our crust to last us several hundred years. First, I will say that I support renewable energies over coal-fired plants personally, but you seem to ignore the fact that you must demonstrate the superiority of the renewable method before you would rationally switch to it. Using your logic, it would make no sense to switch to renewable energies until we ran out of fossil fuels, since it would take more resources to re-tool the power grid to get the same result, when we have basically free (it takes fewer resources to extract coal, and run a coal-fired plant than it does to create a sustainable geothermal plant) coal sitting around for the time being.

Geo-thermal is already proven more efficient then coal. The costs of coal and oil are also compounded on by the cost of energy and resources to harvest them. Not to mention the costs to clean them up in general maintence or when stupid things like the BP oil spill happen.

But lets extrapolate this thinking to a different area, because I do not like defending fossil fuel use.

Well that's good at least. But fossil fuels are very profitable. And it's very easy to manipulate the markets and create false scarcity bubbles for both of them that lead to more profits. (Gas prices go up, the company says it's because of a shortage yet they report record profits... hmmmm.)

Tin is not a renewable resource, there is only so much and we can never get more (unless we mine other planets). However, it is used in pretty much all electronic devices. Since we cannot get any more tin, and it is not renewable, then eventually we will run out, even if we recycle every atom of it. As such (following your line of logic), we should not build any electronic devices that require tin.

We should find an alternative. And in the meantime recycle what we have.

Please provide a source of the cost of producing one megajoule of geothermal power versus producing one megajoule of power using various other energy methods. Keep in mind that there are more than a few geothermal plants already in use, and so you have real data to obtain, not just hypothetical postulations.

You are the one who claimed that coal was in some way superior to Geo-Thermal.

It's not just about doing "better". So now some of the people in the majority of the planet on the bottom are eating a little better? its not about doing better? Then what the hell is supposed to be the point of the venus project in the first place? Doing worse?[/quote]

No. What I am saying is that "better" is not sufficient. As someone else pointed out in this thread, slaves did better in the 1800s then they did in the 1700s. This does not somehow mean slavery is acceptable in the first place. If we are in a system where the vast majority of people are doing doing very well then the system is a failure. Period.

TZMRevolution wrote:
The life of the average slave was better in the 1800s than the 1700s. Is this an argument for slavery?
aegis wrote:
It isn't an argument at all, it is a statement of fact.

Either you missed the point, or you're purposely sidestepping/avoiding answering the question...a tendency I saw coming before this even got started.

Obviously it was a statement of fact...answer the question!

Would that "fact" be a viable reason for keeping slavery in existence? Yes or no??

Also, just out of curiosity...from your brief college bio, would it be accurate to assess your age at around 22-23?