I didn't miss the point. It was a logical trap. The statement needs to be phrased as an argument in order to judge it on its merits as an argument. So I guess the answer would be no, it is not an argument for slavery because it is not an argument at all.

I'm not going to answer any personal questions because that only invites ad hominem attacks. I'm sure you can appreciate my reasoning.

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.
I highly encourage you to revise this statement. The Venus Project is supposed to be based on the Scientific Method.



The most important part of the Scientific Method is experimentation. If you do not have any experimentation, and the data that it creates, you would not at all be able to arrive at a conclusion. If you have not already arrived at a conclusion, the Venus Project would not exist. If you were able to arrive at a conclusion with which you based the Venus Project without any experimentation and subsequent data, it would not be based off of the scientific method at all.

aegis wrote:
I didn't miss the point. It was a logical trap. The statement needs to be phrased as an argument in order to judge it on its merits as an argument. So I guess the answer would be no, it is not an argument for slavery because it is not an argument at all.
I rephrased the question and you still dodged it, as predicted.
Let's try again...answer the question!
Does the previous statement of fact somehow condone/support/advocate the continued use of slavery? Yes or no??

I'm not going to answer any personal questions because that only invites ad hominem attacks. I'm sure you can appreciate my reasoning.

Stating your age is too personal?? Really??? Why? It lends to the level of sophistication in understanding (or lack of it) about the information being offered as counter points to what your depositing here - which is quite relevant to the discussion.

I assure you, this thread is being monitored by the moderation team and VTV has already made it clear (in his reply to Shawn) that ad homs will not be tolerated in this thread, so you have nothing to fear (which I sense is the real motivation behind your refusal). So, no, I can't appreciate unsound, subjective, fear-based reasoning...sorry.

I'm unable to find any major theoretical conflict between economic theory and the goal to create a sustainable society here.

Aegis has provided a correct introduction to economics, and explained in detail why ignorance or nonobservance of these models will not lead to a better result.

VTV - and most other members - have made many emotionally charged arguments, that do in fact not violate anything expressed in these graphs, but the way they are used at the moment.

Our current understanding of economics does treat all demands (which are wants or needs backed by capital) the same, and if you follow this model, you'll also be best served following the first Production Possibilities Curve in aegis post (PPCv.png, post #295616, page 2).

If you do not - that is, if you think that the demand for food is more important than the demand for bio fuels, or if you think that the demand for reliable process control systems is more important than the demand for iPads, influencing the economic process, either through taxation & subsidies in a private economy or through regulations in a public economy, is completely possible.

Still, increasing the production of food (product X, graphic PPCv3.png, same post) will decrease the capacity to produce bio fuels (product Y, graphic PPCv4.png).



None of this suffices as an argument for profit, privately owned means of production, and I don't see why this should be part of the discussion.


The problem that TVP has is - as a lot of people on the Colbert forums already assessed - it's utter lack of any coherent economic process.

It is believed on faith that (over)confidence in the scientific understanding of any given time will suffice to create abundance of every good needed for human survival, and that every other good can either also created in abundance, or simple "outgrown", which is also believed on faith.

There are two options:

a) TVP can go the scientific route and find "real" economic models that a society can use and test them in an experimental environment.
What will make product X more important than product Y?
How should environmental, social and technological benefits and harms be accounted for?
How will trade with other countries, systems or cities be handled?
How will the system react to possible causes of corruption or unforeseen challenges?

b) TVP can hope that somebody else will do it for them, once you gain millions of members. I'd bet my net worth that this isn't going to happen, but I've been wrong before.


That's all, sorry to interrupt.

aegis wrote:
How are you going to objectively make those statements? What is the difference between "artificial" demand and real demand?

I have already explained this three times.

excuse me, but that is a straw man attack. I was under the impression this was supposed to be a proper debate.

It is. You tried to dismiss my point about how any system that leaves as many people to die as this one is not a functioning system. You tried to say it is functioning. I said sure, if you consider it that way a concentration camp is functioning. It's not an attack on you it's an attempt to help you see the point I am trying to make which is that it is obvious your view of what "functioning" when it comes to social systems is different then mine. Mine including a great deal more care for humanity as a whole.

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).

Interesting. The political system you claim is working fine made laws that require companies to practice inhumane working policies. Thank you for further proving the system is not working.

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.

You didn't show me anything. You drew some graphs. Profit maximization also includes reducing if not eliminating wages which in turns wrecks the economy.

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 don't have to provide evidence. It's pretty clear that banks are for-profit businesses or else they would not exist, and the people who own and operate them would not be rich.

I said:
I need to provide ample sources for everything I listed above?

You said:
yes.

The proof of everything I claimed as far as the detrimental effects of the profit motive and money can be found on my website in the "Must See TV" section. I suggest you watch "Century of Self", "Psywar", "Consuming Kids", "Why we fight", "Iraq for Sale", "The future of food" just to get started. Get back to me when you have. I am not going to type out all of that nor should I have to. Honestly I was hoping you were being rhetorical and it astounds me that you could actually not be aware of those things.

yes. You have to demonstrate that the pollution created would not be better addressed through taxation than it would scrapping the entire system.

Tell you what. I am going to start feeding you rat poison. I will agree to pay a fee for it. (By the way, I don't think this is going to solve the problems your going to have when I poison you. But hey, taxation is better...)

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 I won't. I suggest you look at the material I just suggested. There is a very clear tend that wars are fought over resources and money. And are often instigated by people intent on making more money. You cure war by getting rid of any point to fight over anything.

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.

If this were true you should of provided those studies in the first place.

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.

Lets remember the chronology of events here. You stated you had emphatic proof that our system would not work and you would demonstrate it. The problem is if you are asking me for this information you are already demonstrating you don't even understand what we propose in the first place and are therefore not in a position to be telling us what is wrong with it. I cannot vouch for what people have told you outside of this forum. I am an "Official" spokesman for a reason. I have reviewed all of the information and proven to the right people that I am competent. The data your looking for is available in the various FAQs, films, articles and such that have been provided on this website. One of the reasons this forum is generally only for members is none of us have the time to sit here and educate every single person who comes in here with the latest ill-founded argument that we are wrong.

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.

Your initial point was that somehow we would still be hunter/gatherers if not for advertising. This statement makes no sense at all.

Advertising has been FAR MORE then just telling people your product exists for hundreds of years. It's full of propaganda, and applied psychology/sociology to not only adequately present your product, but to entice and manipulate people to desire it even if they have no use for it. You cannot defend this. As it is obviously despicable.

so you are denying that the end consumers are deriving any utility from these products?

Depends on the product. However the standards set by people intent on making profit are to maximize profits regardless of the functional utility of the product in question. There is no real purpose for ciggarettes. But Cigarette companies like money so they research how to get inside the minds of their "customers" to get them to buy their dangerous product that they INTENTIONALLY design to cause addiction in their customers, thereby forcing them to buy more of it. You cannot defend this as it is obviously despicable.

I said:
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"?

Then you said:
yes.

Well I declare victory on this point then. As it is absolutely irrational that you should think that what I mentioned above is not a clear and present danger to the genuine freedom of anyone in a monetary system. Simply ignoring this point does not give you anything but obvious failure to make your point.

I said:
The way our society has been engineered people are inclined not to even pay attention to politics in the first place

You said:
*citation needed

Somebody already linked the two films I would suggest you watch that provide all the "citation" you need on this topic.

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.

You came here with the grandiose claim that you had all the data required to state that our system would not work. Obviously if you are asking me to explain it to you then you already have a flawed understanding of it and have failed in what you set out to do. It is not my job to do the research for you.

My advice to you would be not to claim you can emphatically prove something will not work without actually knowing what your talking about.

aegis wrote:
I didn't miss the point. It was a logical trap. The statement needs to be phrased as an argument in order to judge it on its merits as an argument. So I guess the answer would be no, it is not an argument for slavery because it is not an argument at all.

I'm not going to answer any personal questions because that only invites ad hominem attacks. I'm sure you can appreciate my reasoning.

Let me break this down for you.

You stated that it's perfectly fine that so many people are still in a state of poverty. Because after all, their lives are (In your opinion) significantly better then they were before. (Even though they are still terrible. At least they are not quite as terrible)

So someone else pointed out to you that the lives of slaves improved as well. That doesn't mean that is somehow an improvement when you consider they are still slaves in the first place.

Just like you stating when I pointed out that the system is not functioning if so many people are left to starve. You countered by saying it was in fact still functioning.

The reason I then stated that by that logic a concentration camp is still "functioning" is to point to the obvious total lack of humanity in your understanding of the situation.

CyborgJesus wrote:
I'm unable to find any major theoretical conflict between economic theory and the goal to create a sustainable society here.

Aegis has provided a correct introduction to economics, and explained in detail why ignorance or nonobservance of these models will not lead to a better result.

VTV - and most other members - have made many emotionally charged arguments, that do in fact not violate anything expressed in these graphs, but the way they are used at the moment.

Our current understanding of economics does treat all demands (which are wants or needs backed by capital) the same, and if you follow this model, you'll also be best served following the first Production Possibilities Curve in aegis post (PPCv.png, post #295616, page 2).

If you do not - that is, if you think that the demand for food is more important than the demand for bio fuels, or if you think that the demand for reliable process control systems is more important than the demand for iPads, influencing the economic process, either through taxation & subsidies in a private economy or through regulations in a public economy, is completely possible.

Still, increasing the production of food (product X, graphic PPCv3.png, same post) will decrease the capacity to produce bio fuels (product Y, graphic PPCv4.png).



None of this suffices as an argument for profit, privately owned means of production, and I don't see why this should be part of the discussion.


The problem that TVP has is - as a lot of people on the Colbert forums already assessed - it's utter lack of any coherent economic process.

It is believed on faith that (over)confidence in the scientific understanding of any given time will suffice to create abundance of every good needed for human survival, and that every other good can either also created in abundance, or simple "outgrown", which is also believed on faith.

There are two options:

a) TVP can go the scientific route and find "real" economic models that a society can use and test them in an experimental environment.
What will make product X more important than product Y?
How should environmental, social and technological benefits and harms be accounted for?
How will trade with other countries, systems or cities be handled?
How will the system react to possible causes of corruption or unforeseen challenges?

b) TVP can hope that somebody else will do it for them, once you gain millions of members. I'd bet my net worth that this isn't going to happen, but I've been wrong before.


That's all, sorry to interrupt.

No I didn't just rely on emotional responses. In fact I didn't make any. His graphs were pictures he put together himself citing no actual statistics.

I also pointed out that he cannot make graphs based on any data for a RBE because no such data exists yet.

VTV wrote:
shawn111 wrote:
Economics is based off of scarcity (supply and demand) and the monetary system. We have the technology to remove scarcity (of the necessities of life) for everyone. The monetary system is an out-dated social construct that was only useful in allowing humanity to progress this far. Both Scarcity and The Monetary System are now irrelevant. Therefore --> Economics is now irrelevant.

You inevitably will defend economics since you have likely invested much time and effort into learning. I challenge you to be objective in your assessment of this topic instead of fervently defending your area of so-called "expertise". Try to re-read this post without any personal bias. If you have questions about any of the specifics of this post, I (we) would be more than willing to explain to you why they are accurate.

Shawn111, while I understand where you are coming from, saying that he will defend economics soley because he has invested so much time in it is an ad hominem. Please don't do that.
I do not like quoting wikipedia but…
Wikipedia: The ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

This thread is a waste of time, space, and evidently some pretty decent brainpower. These forums do not need to be filled with irrelevant banter. This debate is not useful for educating people about the movement. I tried to move the focus towards education about TZM/TVP but it was ignored. If you need entertainment, there are plenty of other places. There is too much noise here. In fact, the forums need a good cleaning before ZG3 comes out. This would be a great project for bored admins.

There is no debate. There is only argumentation. If you think a debate is a good way for TZM/TVP to be promoted, do it in a public forum. It has no use here. This website is for information flow and education.

shawn111 wrote:
VTV wrote:
shawn111 wrote:
Economics is based off of scarcity (supply and demand) and the monetary system. We have the technology to remove scarcity (of the necessities of life) for everyone. The monetary system is an out-dated social construct that was only useful in allowing humanity to progress this far. Both Scarcity and The Monetary System are now irrelevant. Therefore --> Economics is now irrelevant.

You inevitably will defend economics since you have likely invested much time and effort into learning. I challenge you to be objective in your assessment of this topic instead of fervently defending your area of so-called "expertise". Try to re-read this post without any personal bias. If you have questions about any of the specifics of this post, I (we) would be more than willing to explain to you why they are accurate.

Shawn111, while I understand where you are coming from, saying that he will defend economics soley because he has invested so much time in it is an ad hominem. Please don't do that.
I do not like quoting wikipedia but…
Wikipedia: The ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

This thread is a waste of time, space, and evidently some pretty decent brainpower. These forums do not need to be filled with irrelevant banter. This debate is not useful for educating people about the movement. I tried to move the focus towards education about TZM/TVP but it was ignored. If you need entertainment, there are plenty of other places. There is too much noise here. In fact, the forums need a good cleaning before ZG3 comes out. This would be a great project for bored admins.

There is no debate. There is only argumentation. If you think a debate is a good way for TZM/TVP to be promoted, do it in a public forum. It has no use here. This website is for information flow and education.

If you don't like the debate, don't participate.

Secondly, my point about the fact that your claiming the reason he feels the way he does is solely because he has invested a lot of time in it is implying that he is arguing completely from an emotional attachment to his position. How much time he has spent on his position is not relevant. Only the validity or lack there of his points.

VTV wrote:
No I didn't just rely on emotional responses. In fact I didn't make any. His graphs were pictures he put together himself citing no actual statistics.

You'll find similar graphs in any economics 101 course, and while I think that the concept of utility is misleading, he/she did a good job representing it - and comparing it to TVP.

I also pointed out that he cannot make graphs based on any data for a RBE because no such data exists yet.

Then you don't have anything to stand on. You can't say "flapping your arms is a good way to fly, because cars kill people". You'd have to test the former, and you'd have to test TVP, if you expect scientists to subscribe to it, not simply state that the status quo is bad and we gotta try something else.

That'd mean running simulations, publishing studies, engaging in academic discourse and finally trying a TVP economy in a secure environment. I don't mean to be rude, but - none of you is doing any of this.