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.

VTV - Why are you wasting your time with this? ;0 I commend your fortitude but c'mon you know you are talking to brick walls. These kids will use the same ignorant refusals to relate over and over again. They have no interest in understanding - The entire game is to win - and their rhetoric proves it.

A RBE is indisputable in its physical foundation. The human attribute is more complex and, in the end, is irreverent to the need for intelligent management. And this trite crap about "That'd mean running simulations, publishing studies, engaging in academic discourse and finally trying a TVP economy in a secure environment" is so hilarious because it shows that those who ask such questions refuse to examine the component processes which have already gone through those tests and have been proven a 1000 times over to be successful and applicable. A RBE is not some pure total "experiment" that simply "works or fails" and anyone who uses that argument has no idea what we are even talking about. What needs to be tested is the nature of the combination of components and those problems will NEVER rule out the systems approach as a whole without overriding the entire underpinning of physical science and systems theory - it isn't going to happen!

I'll put it this way - if any of you out there think you can survive as a human/species without a detailed and intelligent management of the earth's (your environment's) resources which you need to survive- organized in a systems approach (inventory tracking) so everything is accounted and maintained - limiting pollution and waste (which can hurt you) --- you can only be defined as seriously intellectually deprived, decoupled from reality, and mentally damaged - hence having no grounding on anything related to anything with regard to what keeps you alive and keeps society going.

So- VTV - Everybody - don't waste your energy - Let them continue to assume we have no foundation for anything. Who cares? It is time to stop battling with those who are too deranged/conditioned to see the obvious. It is a big world out there and most will eventually see the simple truth as the current system continues to fail. As for the others - the biosocial pressures coming will force their reality on its own - no need to try and "reason" with them anymore.

Nature doesn't argue.

peterjoseph wrote:
is so hilarious because it shows that those who ask such questions refuse to examine the component processes which have already gone through those tests and have been proven a 1000 times over to be successful and applicable.

Can I ask what those tests were exactly?

We are eventually going to need to create some sort of flow chart, or far more advanced explanation of the proccesses in a RBE. "Where Are We Going" is a great lecture, but we need something equivalent to the graphs that Aegis presented. Maybe similiar to the diagrams on this wiki - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_engineering

peterjoseph wrote:
is so hilarious because it shows that those who ask such questions refuse to examine the component processes which have already gone through those tests and have been proven a 1000 times over to be successful and applicable.

Can I ask what those tests were exactly?

No, you can't - because anyone who asks such a blanket question has obviously not read/understood anything about what we are talking about - material which I have spent hundreds of hours addressing for 2 years.

Do you have a specific component question? If not - then I can't help you. If you don't understand systems theory- look it up. I don't have time for this beginners stuff anymore. I do my best to route people but now I work with those that are more advanced. Sorry- that is the nature of my time.

We are eventually going to need to create some sort of flow chart, or far more advanced explanation of the proccesses in a RBE. "Where Are We Going" is a great lecture, but we need something equivalent to the graphs that Aegis presented. Maybe similiar to the diagrams on this wiki - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_engineering

Only the non-foundational details with regard to exact technical application need to be charted/quantified - once the carry capacity of the earth is assessed and the resources are plotted. But then it is simply a matter of strategic application with the relevant variables. In other words- it is self-evident in its unfolding.

But yes- I intend to make a chart soon when I create the KB entry for my 2nd lecture. If any of you here haven't heard that talk go here and listen to it before making any other posts on this subject:
www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph/2010/...-2-a-resource-based-

peterjoseph wrote:
VTV - Why are you wasting your time with this? ;0 I commend your fortitude but c'mon you know you are talking to brick walls. These kids will use the same ignorant refusals to relate over and over again. They have no interest in understanding - The entire game is to win - and their rhetoric proves it.

First insulting paragraph in this thread.

I'll put it this way - if any of you out there think you can survive as a human/species without a detailed and intelligent management of the earth's (your environment's) resources which you need to survive- organized in a systems approach (inventory tracking) so everything is accounted and maintained - limiting pollution and waste (which can hurt you) --- you can only be defined as seriously intellectually deprived, decoupled from reality, and mentally damaged - hence having no grounding on anything related to anything with regard to what keeps you alive and keeps society going.

Nobody is arguing against a sustainable, rational and healthy way to organize life on this planet, we're arguing against the mechanics you propose - which are basically nonexistent. We're not saying that planes can't fly, we're saying that you can't build planes.

It has been shown in numerous studies that money-free societies tend to break down, when they increase in size to a level where people no longer have emotional connections to everybody in the group - I believe that occurs somewhere between 150 and 200 people, but don't quote me on that.

Furthermore, it might be possible to give the most basic of human needs away for free, but there is no data to prove that this can extend to goods beyond that - so money becomes once again useful for you to choose your share of the production intelligently, would you rather have a guitar or an iPad? The cost of production can be expressed in money (...if you have an economic system to begin with) and if the system is allocating this money fairly, everybody can choose something w/o any risk to ruin the whole system.

Nowhere does this mean that you have to produce for profit or that money will "corrupt" people. Give everybody an equal amount and reward manual labor so it gets done faster, and you're set.

The problem arises with the need to organize production itself - is it worth 50% higher cost to lower pollution by 25%? Is it worth it to increase cost again by 50% for another 25% in reduction?
Should we increase cost by 1200% to eliminate pollution completely?

Should we increase automation rather than social services, or both 50/50?

We have only X of a non-renewable resource, should we use it? Should we set a limit on it for future generations? If we use it, is it worth an 80% increase in cost to create a product that can 99% recycled vs. 80% recycling for no cost?

We've produced goods, how should we distribute them? Who should get them first?

The city next to us is demanding a lot of resources, but it seems it would be able to produce them on its own. Should we deny the request and call them out on it?


You'll find scientists who disagree on any of these questions at any given time, so you'll need a systematic approach - and solely saying that isn't a systematic approach.

You'll need cybernetic processes for computers and mathematical models for people to work with.


I don't have anything to gain by arguing here, what would a "You're right!" give me? Jeez, I don't even know you guys in person. Just think about where you are and where you want to be, that's all. If you think there'll be a collapse, you'll need to move fast, and having a working system in place seems a bit more important to me than having millions of members.

That's all.

Once again, there is science to back up a lot of our theories. There are also examples of communities that have done things very similar to what we propose on a smaller scale. I have suggested you review the material and your refusing to do so.
I have reviewed the material. I was required to review the material extensively before I was allowed to post, including videos and 80+ page PDF documents, which were supposed to encompass everything in this movement. I am asking you for the science. I am also aware of "off the grid" living, and the communities who do so. They do not base their living off of the Venus Project.

TVP is suggesting a scientific approach to dealing the problems of mankind as opposed to waiting around for it to be profitable to solve them. That's all we have ever said it was.
No it isn't. It has claimed from the very beginning to be a movement based 100% in scientific research. You have claimed that you have proven that removal of money from the system would produce certain benefits. Where is the science? Where is your research? What do you have to show that this isn't something you just made up off the top of your head?

You have gone farther than just saying the current system is flawed. You have taken the additional step of proposing an alternative. If you are to propose an alternative based on science, it has to be based on science. Not untested hypothesis, not conjectures thrown out on a whim, hard scientific facts.

I have looked through all the paperwork. I have watched the videos. I have not found the science. When I asked for it, I am greeted with statements like these:
No, you can't - because anyone who asks such a blanket question has obviously not read/understood anything about what we are talking about - material which I have spent hundreds of hours addressing for 2 years.
This is absurd. I am asking very simple, basic questions. I am being run around in circles, and nobody is willing to show a shred of actual research. What is going on here? Why is it so difficult to simply see the science that it is all supposed to be based off of? It took me a grand total of 3 posts to fully explain the reasoning behind the model that I follow.

peterjoseph wrote:
peterjoseph wrote:
is so hilarious because it shows that those who ask such questions refuse to examine the component processes which have already gone through those tests and have been proven a 1000 times over to be successful and applicable.

Can I ask what those tests were exactly?

No, you can't - because anyone who asks such a blanket question has obviously not read/understood anything about what we are talking about - material which I have spent hundreds of hours addressing for 2 years.

Do you have a specific component question? If not - then I can't help you. If you don't understand systems theory- look it up. I don't have time for this beginners stuff anymore. I do my best to route people but now I work with those that are more advanced. Sorry- that is the nature of my time.

Sorry for asking such a "blanket" question. I guess I just wanted to be assured that such an RBE system would work.

I understand that the mechanics behind the existing system have inherent flaws and it will inevitably result in failure regardless of how it's applied, as there are far too many variables that lead to failure. The methods described within today's economic books proposes a black and white system of how the economic system in todays monetary world should be applied, however they do not take into account the greed and corruption encouraged by the system itself.

This is a fallacy, the use of the apple is nutrition, not taste. Taste is a matter of luxury and is subjective. The pure Utility of the apple is the nutrient it supplies. the Utility is both. Utility is both subjective and objective, unless you are going to argue that you don't get any benefit out of eating something that tastes good. Your utility curve is based off objective and subjective values, and everybody's utility curves are different. However, you can still add them together for the economy as a whole and get demand curves, which is what you use for application. As you add the millions and billions of utility curves together, the resulting demand curve smooths out the differences between them into a standard, which you can use.

I believe here the lifespan of the car is relative to it's total usefullness, in that the functionality of the car diminishes with time, so if one was to wait one year to get said car, then one year would be added to the functionality of the car for that person from the date of the desicion to buy the car or not. You get the car today, and you still have to expect the lifetime of the car to be the same as if you got the car a year from now. That year isn't added to the functionality, that year was already in the functionality. You are losing a year's worth of utility by waiting to get the car, and you can discount the useful life of the vehicle over any period of years that you want. So if you wait a year to buy a car, it would be because the utility you would receive from buying it would be less than the discounted cost of the vehicle for that year. I'm not saying that everybody should be buying everything always, only that rational decision makers balance the benefit of what they are doing against the cost. I think you can agree to that.

The first statement in this quote makes no sense to me? I could be misunderstanding, it would not be the first time I misundrstood something.It also seems to directly contradict your first statement about apples, in which you made the assertion that the more you had, the less utility the apple had. I must say that Utility in itself cannot be cross compared, for an items utility is specific to the task it performs. So you can only compare the relative utility of two items that have the same function. I mean that the total utility goes up, even if the utility per apple is going down. For example, the first apple gives a utility of 1, the second apple gives a utility of .9, the third gives a utility of .8, ect. As you keep adding apples, the total utility keeps going up, but by a smaller number each time.

Opportunity cost is a moot factor when the most efficient use of a resource is the determining factor in it's use. it isn't moot, it is the core of the matter. The most efficient use of a resource is the use that has the lowest opportunity cost in relation to the utility it provides; providing the most benefit at the least relative cost.

ConceptDestiny wrote:
peterjoseph wrote:
peterjoseph wrote:
is so hilarious because it shows that those who ask such questions refuse to examine the component processes which have already gone through those tests and have been proven a 1000 times over to be successful and applicable.

Can I ask what those tests were exactly?

No, you can't - because anyone who asks such a blanket question has obviously not read/understood anything about what we are talking about - material which I have spent hundreds of hours addressing for 2 years.

Do you have a specific component question? If not - then I can't help you. If you don't understand systems theory- look it up. I don't have time for this beginners stuff anymore. I do my best to route people but now I work with those that are more advanced. Sorry- that is the nature of my time.

Sorry for asking such a "blanket" question. I guess I just wanted to be assured that such an RBE system would work.

I understand that the mechanics behind the existing system have inherent flaws and it will inevitably result in failure regardless of how it's applied, as there are far too many variables that lead to failure. The methods described within today's economic books proposes a black and white system of how the economic system in todays monetary world should be applied, however they do not take into account the greed and corruption encouraged by the system itself. Keep in mind that saying that one system is incorrect, and so the other option must be correct is a logical fallacy known as False dilemma. Even if they were able to prove that the system I am advocating is inherently flawed, which as of yet they have not done, it does not mean that the system that they are advocating is any better. That would mean that there were only two options, which we all know is not the case.