AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-01-30, 18:17   Link #41
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
The empty six pack of beer next to him.

You're talking nonsense Sugetsu.
What none of your ilk seem to take into consideration is the possibility that Peter and Jacque aren't being honest with you.
You don't know these men personally, and they've done nothing to prove the sincerity of their claims.

In fact, they've done the oppposite.
At the Zeitgeist forum, anyone who questions the Zeitgeist movement is banned.
This movement has shown itself to be very thin skinned when someone gives a proper critique of it.
That shows a weakness in the strength of the ideology and a fear of exposure.
Omg seriously would you cut the conspiracy theory crap? Have you even visited the forums yourself? Have you even attended a conference from Jack and Peter? No. But You rather believe what a random nobody guy posts in youtube with no comments allowed, as well as the alex jones crowd. Stop thinking that everything that proposes a radical change to your world view must have a nefarious alter motive. Do you know what that is called? Schizophrenia.

Instead of wasting time and energy searching for dark intentions why don't you address the idea itself. In any case, I am not here to convince you. You are free to believe whatever you want.


Quote:
With that I have a very difficult question for you Sugetsu.
What are you going to do about the rebels and dissidents that will surely resist this society with every ounce of their being?
The movement doesn't seek to impose their beliefs upon anyone, specially when it comes to religion. If some people don't want anything to do with it they are free to do so. The main concern of the movement is to demonstrate that we are living in an unsustainable manner as well as offer an alternative on how to create sustainable system. Jack fresco has said many times that the Venus Project is just a good idea but he doesn't rule out that there might be even better solutions... the problem is very few people bother to ask themselves that question.

Last edited by Sugetsu; 2011-01-30 at 18:28.
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 18:20   Link #42
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Because everything has a nefarious ulterior motive. That's just how the world works. Altruism doesn't exist.

Edit: You still never answered my question!
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 18:48   Link #43
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Because everything has a nefarious ulterior motive. That's just how the world works. Altruism doesn't exist.
I guess you are being sarcastic? Althrough true altruism does not exists because we always seek pleasure in the things we do it doesn't mean that some people don't try to help others.

Quote:
Edit: You still never answered my question!

Which is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
You just described my viewpoints on those issues too. Not everyone is so easy to categorize, though that's how people are made out to be in casual conversation, the media, etc... 'Red' or 'blue' are both the same crooks most of the time anyways.
Our brains have an associative system that is constantly classifying exterior elements. There is nothing wrong with this mechanism in "its natural state", such as in children for example, the problem arises when we hold strong beliefs because then we start filtering all the information obtained from the environment we live in, which ultimately leads to labeling. When we start to label all that we see every object of our observation loses its uniqueness, thus we end up being able to see its true form. Our current system exacerbates this problem of course.

Edit: Fresco explains the associative system beautifuly in this video, skip to 10:50.


Last edited by Sugetsu; 2011-01-30 at 19:14.
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 20:13   Link #44
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
I don't see any possibility of creating competing products without a strong reason to do so (a profit motive).
Competing products as we understand them today? No clue. I won't claim to be that prophetic about the future. I do know that many inventions and advancements we enjoy today weren't really motivated by profit, but through curiosity, a desire to help others, and/or necessity. Competition has done wonders for refining products over time, but sometimes competition has also worked against advancement. For example the Tucker was an incredibly advanced car for its time, sporting air bags, seat belts, even headlights that turned in the direction your car was turning...all standard. The Chevy Volt, while a better quality product than the original GM electric car, isn't really that much more advanced design-wise either.

That isn't to say that profit motive hasn't helped advancement, but I personally think that it isn't the end all be all of human motivation either.

The profit motive has also produced many generations of inferior products as well. For instance American automakers nearly went bankrupt due to their production methods creating shoddy vehicles for nearly three decades. In comparison the Japanese and European automakers took great pride in creating vehicles that were built and designed with quality and longevity and as a result became dominant players in the market. While American cars were cheaper, foreign cars had better reliability and resale value. They were also able to hire more workers and pay them well even though GM was shedding jobs and blaming costs on the unions (ignoring the fact that Asian and European automakers also dealt with unions).

Profit motive has influenced other sectors as well. Watch Food, Inc. for a good example of how cost cutting and other market influences have changed food production in disturbing and unhealthy ways. It has provided abundance, but not without drawbacks.

I'm sure some laziness and greed will happen in a system like a RBE, but ultimately I think the overall impact will be minimal. Greed for instance would eventually be pointless, since even a greedy person would eventually realize there would be no point to hoarding something you can get anytime you want. Laziness is usually the result of disinterest, and one could argue people are just as lazy now, doing the bare minimum just to get paid. I don't expect it would be any different in a RBE, but I do note that when people find something they truly enjoy doing money ceases to be the primary motivator and people are usually more productive. It ceases to be a "job", and becomes something more personally fulfilling.

In a way though, you are right. Nature is rather efficient. Economies should be too. So should people. I personally think there is no bigger waste of human potential or promoter of undesirable behavior then people being forced to spend most of their day in a job they hate simply to exist until the next paycheck. Or people going to school for a degree they don't want because it has a higher earning potential based on current market conditions.

@GundamFan - Every major social shift has been marked with strife. People hate change, and especially hate change they don't agree with. There will always be people in the system who are afraid of change too. Many women during the woman's rights movement spoke out against those who protested. They were afraid that the backlash would be horrible if the movement failed, and that they'd lose what little rights they had at the time. Thankfully, the movement prevailed, and many women owe their progress to those who dared to fight against a system they saw as oppressive.

On the other hand, no one was prepared for the horrors of Mao and Lenin, who used communism as a tool for dictatorship while pretending they were for the people who had lifted them to power.

Change goes both ways, unfortunately, but without the constant drive to fight inequalities and improve the well being of our species countries like America wouldn't even exist. Laws protecting minorities wouldn't exist. Scientific progress wouldn't exist. Good intentions can be subverted but they can also be great tools for progress.

Without those ideas or intentions however, nothing can advance because the discussion wouldn't even exist.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 21:04   Link #45
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
Omg seriously would you cut the conspiracy theory crap? Have you even visited the forums yourself? Have you even attended a conference from Jack and Peter? No. But You rather believe what a random nobody guy posts in youtube with no comments allowed, as well as the alex jones crowd. Stop thinking that everything that proposes a radical change to your world view must have a nefarious alter motive. Do you know what that is called? Schizophrenia.

Instead of wasting time and energy searching for dark intentions why don't you address the idea itself. In any case, I am not here to convince you. You are free to believe whatever you want.
Sugetsu, before you throw around a technical term like Schizophrenia, I strongly suggest you learn what it means first.

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

Quote:
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes it difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences, to think logically, to have normal emotional responses, and to behave normally in social situations
Considering that I have addressed Zeitgeist succinctly and deconstructed it by peeling away the outer coating of Utopian nonsense and showing what lies beneath through examples of other cults that have come before it, I find it inane of you to make such an accusation against me personally.

I've watched the movies, interviews, and read the articles on the website.
I've seen the users get banned (some are reinstated when they agree to conform) on the Zeitgeist forum for asking the same types of questions or pointing out the same facts that have been addressed here.

Unlike Zeitgeist's forum, this website allows for the general exchange of differing viewpoints and ideologies.
Provided things don't get too personal.
My own forum is even less strict than this one.

I've not made a direct personal attack against you in our discussion here.
To do so would cause me to forfeit the argument, in the same manner as you have just forfeit the debate with your puerile comment.

I understand that it may be irritating and frustrating for Zeitgeisters like yourself to deal with the fact that this movement is nothing new, and is just another in a long line of Socialistic movements.

However, don't take your angst out on me simply because you cannot provide a proper counter argument to the evidence I've presented.

Zeitgeist is, by it's own admission, a Utopian Socialist movement.
It's purpose is to abolish all forms of tangible money, private property, individual rights, and put the entire world into a fantastical Resource-Based-Economic system.
Fresco has said (in so many words) that every person would be "given" what he/she needs according to their abilities.
Marx said nearly the same thing.

The Resource-Based-Economy that Jacque and Peter keep blabbing on about is essentially what Henri de Rouvroy proposed:

Here is a brief summation of his proposed economic system:

Quote:
Saint-Simon's future society is above all one of productive achievement in which poverty and war are eliminated through large-scale "industrialization" (a word he coined) under planned scientific guidance. It is an open-class society in which caste privileges are abolished, work is provided for all, and rewards are based on merit. Government also changes from a haphazard system of class domination and national rivalries to a planned welfare state run by scientific managers in the public interest.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/claude-...#ixzz1CZZmgiwQ
That's essentially the origin of the concept of Technocracy and is a Utopian Socialist system.

The main difference between Henri de Rouvroy's system and Zeitgeist is that Saint-Simon wanted his system to be based on a heavily distilled Christian moral set (an odd form of secular-Christian belief).
While Zeitgeist doesn't propose a moral set for its proposed society (as of yet anyway).

Let me put this another way.
Zeitgeist is proposing a Technocracy, there's no doubt about it.
Comte de Saint-Simon Henri de Rouvroy (ah the days of really long French names ), was the father of Technocratic theory and is a Utopian Socialist according to both Marx and Engles.
Therefore, the core of Zeitgeist (the Resource Based Economy) is EXACTLY the kind of system Henri de Rouvroy was proposing in 1817.

NOW, is that in plain enough english for you to understand it?

Quote:
The movement doesn't seek to impose their beliefs upon anyone, specially when it comes to religion. If some people don't want anything to do with it they are free to do so. The main concern of the movement is to demonstrate that we are living in an unsustainable manner as well as offer an alternative on how to create sustainable system. Jack fresco has said many times that the Venus Project is just a good idea but he doesn't rule out that there might be even better solutions... the problem is very few people bother to ask themselves that question.
Let me get this straight.
You said in a previous post that Zeitgeist requires the resources of the whole world to be redistributed to the world at large equally.
That would require a Global government system to implement.
How are people under this system going to be able to live as they please?

If Zeitgeist is calling for an end to money, who gets to determine the basic programming algorithm for resource distribution?

And what about familial life?
Assuming there's still marriage, how many children will people be able to have?
Will parents be able to raise their children themselves, and teach them their values?
How will Zeitgeist deal with families or people who defy this New Technocratic Order?

Those are all rhetorical questions.
I don't need your answers.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Tito, have already answered them for me in the past.

Solace posted:
Quote:
@GundamFan - Every major social shift has been marked with strife. People hate change, and especially hate change they don't agree with. There will always be people in the system who are afraid of change too. Many women during the woman's rights movement spoke out against those who protested. They were afraid that the backlash would be horrible if the movement failed, and that they'd lose what little rights they had at the time. Thankfully, the movement prevailed, and many women owe their progress to those who dared to fight against a system they saw as oppressive.

On the other hand, no one was prepared for the horrors of Mao and Lenin, who used communism as a tool for dictatorship while pretending they were for the people who had lifted them to power.

Change goes both ways, unfortunately, but without the constant drive to fight inequalities and improve the well being of our species countries like America wouldn't even exist. Laws protecting minorities wouldn't exist. Scientific progress wouldn't exist. Good intentions can be subverted but they can also be great tools for progress.

Without those ideas or intentions however, nothing can advance because the discussion wouldn't even exist.
Change I can handle, but making the same mistakes of the past I cannot.

There is no way to properly implement this Zeitgeist system without the institution of a totalitarian system.
We've seen what totalitarian collectivist states do to their citizenries.
I'll post it again for good measure:



Do we really want that kind of change?

If change is the only criteria for advancement, then let's try something that has never been tried before.
How about an actual Liberal [Laissez-Faire] economic system?
We've never lived under that.
No nation has...ever.
Let's abolish the international debt-money system, set up a value money system, anti-monopoly laws, and illegalize usury.
At least the proletariat will still have a chance to become bourgeoise, and the aristocracy (if there even is one) will be significantly smaller and far less powerful (the wealth disparity between proletariat and aristocracy will be much smaller).
__________________

Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2011-01-31 at 01:33.
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 21:05   Link #46
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
The American auto industry isn't a good example to use, Solace. They were enabled by bailout funds. They should have gone out of business, thus completing the economic life cycle. Due to corruption (unions, government, upper management) and corporatism, the American automakers continued to exist long after they should have either adapted or died.

In a free-market economy businesses are like people--they are born, they live and then they die. Death can come naturally, or it can come as a result of foolish behavior, just like a human's life can end for doing something stupid.

In our corporatist mixed-economic state, large corporations aren't like people. They're immortal, like vampires, and much like vampires, they suck the life from everything they touch. The "too big to fail" organizations can do tremendous damage to the economy, to the consumers and to the nation as a whole, yet because the natural checks and balances of the market do not affect them, they cannot be selected against.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-31, 01:34   Link #47
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Just as a historical note: Ford Motor Company was not bailed out by the Federal Government.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-31, 02:18   Link #48
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Very important, everyone please read! I just realized that most of the questions and opposition to the ideas of the movements are transition related. This is why some people believe that the Venus project being implemented is way too much fantasy and there is no way we can get there. I sympathize with this feeling because I consider that the weakest point of this idea is the transition itself. Taking this point into account I have found a very crucial lecture by Peter Joseph on the transition itself. I highly encourage everyone to listen to it as much I encourage everyone to watch the movie, because it addresses many if not most of the questions being posed in this thread.

If you don't have an hour to listen to the whole thing you can save yourself 10 minutes by skipping directly to the minute 10:25. I have also provided the direct link to the audio file so that you may listen to it on your portable devise on your way to work (like I did).



http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph (Under episode: 10/27/10 - Peter Joseph: 8 Lectures- #4: "The Transition", click the download button)

After listening to this broadcast you can pretty much make up your mind on what your stance on the movement is because I am sure it will address most the questions asked here directly. If you don't find it you are welcome to check out the other lectures.

Edit: I should point out that watching the video on how debt works that I posted on my first post of this thread, as well as reading on the dynamics of debt, also on the first post, will probably make the lecture much easier to understand for when he discusses economics.

I have also found an excellent link where Peter, Jack and Roxane directly answer the questions of users. Please do check it out:
The Venus Project/FAQ Suppliment

Link to original QandA on the zeigeistmovement.com
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/...d=28&Itemid=66

Link to new QandA on thevenusproject.com
thevenusproject.com/introFaq.php

Last edited by Sugetsu; 2011-02-18 at 17:32.
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-31, 15:56   Link #49
hashem
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
If change is the only criteria for advancement, then let's try something that has never been tried before.
How about an actual Liberal [Laissez-Faire] economic system?
We've never lived under that.
No nation has...ever.
Let's abolish the international debt-money system, set up a value money system, anti-monopoly laws, and illegalize usury.
At least the proletariat will still have a chance to become bourgeoise, and the aristocracy (if there even is one) will be significantly smaller and far less powerful (the wealth disparity between proletariat and aristocracy will be much smaller).
You have some excellent points - well thought out (if somewhat emotionally charged). I can't help but wonder how on earth a Laissez-Faire system can work once you abolish interest rates. In fact I can't understand how any monetary system could work without interest rates.

If I ask you what you'd prefer:

a) 100 units of specie money now OR
b) 100 units of specie money 1 year from now,

You'd pick a). You'd keep picking a) until I slowly increased the amount in b) to something that would accurately reflect b)'s time value of money.

If you have a monetary system, you will have people borrowing and lending money. They will need to be compensated for this - thus interest rates. If there was zero interest rates, then the total amount of money in the system is fixed and there would be no incentive to borrow or lend - where will the money for profit come from? (I'm assuming the goal here is still to turn a profit).

Also, I still do not understand how to overcome what I percieve to be biggest problem with Capitalism - the fact that unless something is profitable, it never gets done. I suppose under a Laissez-Faire system, anything worth doing is worth doing at a profit?
hashem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-31, 17:20   Link #50
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by hashem View Post
Also, I still do not understand how to overcome what I percieve to be biggest problem with Capitalism - the fact that unless something is profitable, it never gets done.
This isn't a problem with capitalism. It's a problem with life.

To do something, to "get something done," energy must be expended. No animal or plant will expend energy without some sort of return. With animals, so long as the mind is intact and functioning normally, no action will be taken, no energy will be expended for nothing.

Sure, humans do volunteer work, or spend loads of time and energy on things that are unprofitable, but they're profiting in ways other than monetary.

I spend lots of time on personal technology projects because I gain knowledge and experience as a result. I don't get paid, but it helps me do better work, so that later, when I am doing work for compensation, I do it better and faster (and I can command a higher price as a result).

People who volunteer to help the less-fortunate or disadvantaged--they aren't making a profit of money. They're making a profit of feeling good about themselves. We're taught that helping others is good, and by doing it, we feel good about ourselves.

I don't understand why people consider being compensated for your work to be a problem. Why is it so bad to be fairly paid for the work you do? Why is it such a bad thing to make a profit?

tl;dr version: Altruism doesn't really exist. Everything we do is for some sort of gain.

Edit: "Fun" is a valid gain.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-31, 18:08   Link #51
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by hashem View Post
You have some excellent points - well thought out (if somewhat emotionally charged). I can't help but wonder how on earth a Laissez-Faire system can work once you abolish interest rates. In fact I can't understand how any monetary system could work without interest rates.

If I ask you what you'd prefer:

a) 100 units of specie money now OR
b) 100 units of specie money 1 year from now,

You'd pick a). You'd keep picking a) until I slowly increased the amount in b) to something that would accurately reflect b)'s time value of money.

If you have a monetary system, you will have people borrowing and lending money. They will need to be compensated for this - thus interest rates. If there was zero interest rates, then the total amount of money in the system is fixed and there would be no incentive to borrow or lend - where will the money for profit come from? (I'm assuming the goal here is still to turn a profit).

Also, I still do not understand how to overcome what I percieve to be biggest problem with Capitalism - the fact that unless something is profitable, it never gets done. I suppose under a Laissez-Faire system, anything worth doing is worth doing at a profit?
Excellent questions, I'm glad you asked.
I'll answer them as best I am able, and in a long winded manner of course.

1) The question of how to have an interest-free monetary system:

Adam Smith would have agreed with you that interest rates are unavoidable in a monetary system.
However, VonMises would disagree as he dismissed Smith's vision of the Real Bills Doctrine as being nothing more than allowing Banks to create money "out of thin air" based on interests charged due to speculative futures.
VonMises maintained that interest charged to compensate for perceived future prices of goods and services was not the same as a fee to loan or exchange monies.

From Human Action:

Quote:
Interest is a homogeneous phenomenon. There are no different sources of interest. Interest on durable goods and interest on consumption credit are, like other kinds of interest, an outgrowth of the higher valuation of present goods as against future goods.
Milton Friedman, many Keneysians, and other economists in turn disagreed with the Austrian model.
Here's a modestly easy to read blog on the subject.
http://monetaryfreedom-billwoolsey.b...d-natural.html

I think that a workable model is somewhere in between Milton and Mises and can be found in one of the most unlikely of places.

The best banking system model I've seen which deals with the problem of interest effectively would be the Islamic Banking models used by Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Quatar, and other Arab countries.

Islamic Banking in a nutshell:
Quote:
Islamic banking has the same purpose as conventional banking except that it operates in accordance with the rules of Shariah, known as Fiqh al-Muamalat (Islamic rules on transactions). The basic principle of Islamic banking is the sharing of profit and loss and the prohibition of riba (usury). Common terms used in Islamic banking include profit sharing (Mudharabah), safekeeping (Wadiah), joint venture (Musharakah), cost plus (Murabahah), and leasing (Ijar).

In an Islamic mortgage transaction, instead of loaning the buyer money to purchase the item, a bank might buy the item itself from the seller, and re-sell it to the buyer at a profit, while allowing the buyer to pay the bank in installments. However, the bank's profit cannot be made explicit and therefore there are no additional penalties for late payment. In order to protect itself against default, the bank asks for strict collateral. The goods or land is registered to the name of the buyer from the start of the transaction. This arrangement is called Murabaha. Another approach is EIjara wa EIqtina, which is similar to real estate leasing. Islamic banks handle loans for vehicles in a similar way (selling the vehicle at a higher-than-market price to the debtor and then retaining ownership of the vehicle until the loan is paid).
Proponents of this system claim the following, from Wikipedia (even though I am loathe to use that site as a source, just FYI):

Quote:
In 1972, the Mit Ghamr Savings project became part of Nasr Social Bank which, currently, is still in business in Egypt. In 1975, the Islamic Development Bank was set-up with the mission to provide funding to projects in the member countries. The first modern commercial Islamic bank, Dubai Islamic Bank, opened its doors in 1975. In the early years, the products offered were basic and strongly founded on conventional banking products, but in the last few years the industry is starting to see strong development in new products and services.

Islamic Banking is growing at a rate of 10-15% per year and with signs of consistent future growth.[12] Islamic banks have more than 300 institutions spread over 51 countries, including the United States through companies such as the Michigan-based University Bank, as well as an additional 250 mutual funds that comply with Islamic principles. It is estimated that over US$822 billion worldwide sharia-compliant assets are managed according to The Economist.[13] This represents approximately 0.5% of total world estimated assets as of 2005.[14] According to CIMB Group Holdings, Islamic finance is the fastest-growing segment of the global financial system and sales of Islamic bonds may rise by 24 percent to $25 billion in 2010.[15]

The Vatican has put forward the idea that "the principles of Islamic finance may represent a possible cure for ailing markets."[16]
The Islamic banking model would solve many, if not all, of the interest problems that would occur in a Laissez Faire system which outlawed usury.
However, we would first have to actually set up a Laissez Faire system by abolishing the private central banking institution (The Federal Reserve in the US), and place national power over money back under government control (i.e. back under the US Treasury).
However, that seems to be beyond what you asked so I'll move on to your next question.

2) How will profit be made from an interest-free economic system?

Again, I'll defer to VonMises since he dealt with this problem in a very effective manner.

The Long Answer.

The short answer:
Quote:
Many errors concerning the nature of profit and loss were caused by the practice of applying the term profit to the totality of the residual proceeds of an entrepreneur.

Interest on the capital employed is not a component part of profit. The dividends of a corporation are not profit. They are interest on the capital invested plus profit or minus loss.

The market equivalent of work performed by the entrepreneur in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs is entrepreneurial quasi-wages but not profit.

If the enterprise owns a factor on which it can earn monopoly prices, it makes a monopoly gain. If this enterprise is a corporation, such gains increase the dividend. Yet they are not profit proper. Still more serious are the errors due to the confusion of entrepreneurial activity and technological innovation and improvement.
Profit is not dependent on interest, it is simply dependent on how well an entrepeneur can judge the price a product should be set at in order to cover the expenses for the products or services plus a gain.
In other words, if you buy X number of copies of Code Geass box sets at a cost of Z, you must have the foresight (by studying the desire/need for the box sets) to know how much of a margin to place over your cost, we'll call this Y.
If Z is $35.00 per box set, and you've bought 100 of them, it cost you $3500.00.
You then have to tally up all of your expenses (taxes, shipping, handling, employee costs, bills for storage, plus a paycheck for your own personal needs) and set a price.
First you'd set the minimum you have to get out of the product to cover your costs and expenses.
Then you set the Profit Margin so that you can buy more product, and expand your business.
If you've found that the Code Geass box sets are desireable, you set the margin high (50-100% of your initial cost), so $52.00-$70.00.
If you've found that you've made a mistake and desireability is low (because Gundam Unicorn just came out), you set the margin accordingly (say 10-30%), so $38.00-$45.00.
In the current system people would borrow money from a bank and use something of their own as collateral.
In Laissez-Faire you have to have the money to start the business and thus don't need a bank.
If you fail, you fail.
If you succeed, you succeed.
That's what losers hate about Laissez-Faire, the fear of being a loser (THAT IS NOT directed at anyone here).
Therefore, to answer your question, NO, interest is not required to turn a profit, but risk is considerably higher.
However, from a moral standpoint, Laissez-Faire is fair while the current corporatist system and socialism, are not.

3) Is anything worth doing for any reason other than profit in a Laissez-Faire economic system?

synaesthetic already answered this, but here's my take on it...

First we must define what is a Laissez-Faire economic system?
VonMises definition is somewhat long, so here is the basic meaning of the term:

Quote:
Laissez faire means: Let the common man choose and act; do not force him to yield to a dictator.
His detailed definition can be read about here.

Therefore, laws that protect the basic principle of "my rights end where yours begin" is integral to a Laissez-Faire system.
Anticorporate laws, anti-monopoly laws, etc. would all come into play to protect the rights of individuals from the avarice of other individuals.
Copyright, Patent, and Trademark laws would have to be rewritten to end current monopolistic practices much in the same way that socialist systems do.
Government policy would have to have a "hands off" approach to restricting small business, and a "proactive" role in encouraging competition.

Profit plays a major role in any human system, we are animals after all with the desire to propagate, feed, and survive; we are also thinking and spiritual creatures capable of overcoming the "call of the wild" to the best of our ability.
However, unlike Zeitgeist, we must realize that the animal will always be there inside us.
Even in so called socialist countries wealth accumulation and thus banking have forced their way up through the cracks of collectivist-concrete poured over them.
Freedom is like a weed, you can stomp it out, pave over it, and poison it, but it will almost always survive and come back stronger than before.

I posted earlier in this thread that Classical Liberalism (i.e. Laissez Faire economics) is a good place to start, but it is by no means the destination point.
What Laissez Faire economics can be is a very effective foundation for a new economic system.
Will banking be involved?
Invariablly.
Is profit the only reason to make anything?
Depends on what you consider profit.
If by profit you mean simply the acquisition of money, then no.

However, if you mean any form of gain, then yes, of course.
Here's an example of gain to further clarify my point:

My Example;
Quote:
If by making weapons you are able to defend yourself and your kin from invaders, then you've gained a profit.
You invested in the production of an intrument (incurring cost in both time, and resources) in order to produce a product with which to use at a future time.
If the invaders attack, and you have the weapons, you stand a chance of surviving.
If you don't make the weapons, and they invade, your chances of dying at the hands of an invading force greatly increases.
The profit is that if you defeat the invaders you've just put fear of your people into them and thus they will hesitate to attack again, that's a gain.
If you fail, then you're dead, that's a loss.
If they win and you get enslaved that's breaking even.
Thus everyting in human experience, from war to peace, love and sex, etc. can all be considered a "for profit" motive built into us by an evolutionary need to survive, conquer, and compete.

I hope my humble explanation has answered your inquiry adequately.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-31, 18:47   Link #52
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
A system that defies the basic natural laws of survival of the fittest (or natural selection) on a per individuum basis is extreme but not entirely impossible in my oppinion.

Example:

What you need is to limit almost every sign of individuality of individuums. For this you could use a strongly connected network that links and trains/influences the thoughts of all people. Basically like the internet but more of a mandatory thought control system (that rewards its users with a fantasy world, that you could describe as Utopia). In such a system the single individuum is completely equal with its peers (I don't like star trek references for the lack of scientific background in the series but I think the idea of the borg hive is fitting - which imo is feared because it does take away your freedom of individualism - which funny enough, you wouldn't miss if you were not individual to begin with... okay that was besides the point).

Some sort of superintelligence would have to govern this apperatus (hive mind). This superintelligence would have to be altruistic in the modern philosophical sense. I could imagine an artificial superintelligence that is either born out of or starting a technological singularity (I know this article borders much on esotherics, but it also makes a little sense when we assume that the superintelligence is created in ever faster developing evolutionary process that is not bound to human intelligence which would limit the superintelligence entropy-wise (information theory - not thermo dynamics is meant here). Still human intelligence would likely be/provide the seed for that process.
What happens to humans after this point is beyond my imagination. The closest function I could see them good for is to be sophisticated random thought generators. I could imagine there is some benefit for a superintelligence if it can datamine all the random thoughts, brains are very effective (cheap) analog processors, just a little limited in interconnection and compexity (in comparison to a superintelligence).

Okay that is not exactly the Zeitgeist Utopia, but very close to it in my oppinion. My example uses a very short transition rate and features the key element of Zeigeist: the system will be completely resource based (also including humans as resources).
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-31, 18:51   Link #53
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
To your average human, such a future is repulsive and horrifying, closer to The Matrix than to Star Trek, honestly.

The Borg aren't a collective superintelligence nor are they a true hive mind--the drones are merely script-controlled meatbags that can be (but are usually not) directly controlled by the Queen, but don't seem to have any processing capabilities of their own. This is why the Borg are pretty ineffective in general and only due to ST's bad writing are they considered such a feared enemy.

But not too far away from ZM...
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-31, 20:42   Link #54
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
As many would ask...what would be the point in living if we all thought the same way or were even just one mind? You have a gaint superintelligence...and what? Our species is superfluence at that point. Each one a brain cell at best.

Who's to say we wouldn't cause ourselves to have a gaint case of Schizophrenia?
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-01, 04:09   Link #55
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
To your average human, such a future is repulsive and horrifying, closer to The Matrix than to Star Trek, honestly.
Honestly, I was considering the matrix example. But the matrix universe has a very serious flaw, it still promotes individuality of individuums. The matrix is a world like we know it today (almost). So I ruled it out for an imo better example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
The Borg aren't a collective superintelligence nor are they a true hive mind--the drones are merely script-controlled meatbags that can be (but are usually not) directly controlled by the Queen, but don't seem to have any processing capabilities of their own. This is why the Borg are pretty ineffective in general and only due to ST's bad writing are they considered such a feared enemy.
See, this is why I said I don't like to use examples from ST. I think in the Voyager series with 7of9 tried to portray the borg collective a little bit different. Anyway, even though the example is not perfect it comes closer to what I meant than The Matrix does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
But not too far away from ZM...
Now I am curious, what is ZM?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
As many would ask...what would be the point in living if we all thought the same way or were even just one mind?
Well, I don't know whats the point. I just tried to find a way to make Zeitgeist work, and this was the first thing that came to my mind (its an example, a scenario).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
You have a gaint superintelligence...and what? Our species is superfluence at that point. Each one a brain cell at best.
For people who believe in almighty beings there would not be much of a difference. Besides, I think, you cannot know if we are truely superfluent by then. We are just as clueless as we were before the technological singularity. I guess, if we were able to seed a superintelligence, we were at least good for something. We, could seed another superintelligence... this creates diversity. What I basically wanted to express (with reference to Zeitgeist) is, that if the superintelligence is altruistic, then superfluence might not be the worst thing that can happen to mankind (I mean the main argument against Zeitgeist in this thread is the not so unlikely assumption, that humankind will not able to live in a Zeitgeist utopia because of constraints stemming from the human "nature" - I tried to find a way to conveniently solve this problem... to make Zeitgeist possible... well I admit there are side effects, but that was to be expected).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Who's to say we wouldn't cause ourselves to have a gaint case of Schizophrenia?
Don't worry the altrusitic superintelligence will take care of it. *pun intended*
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-16, 10:36   Link #56
risingstar3110
Dead Master ★ BRS
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Just watched this movie, and i would say that overall it's great. Left a lots to think about and ideas to form on (etc...)

Spare me the long discussion, since frankly it's boring and repetitive. You hardly can convince people through forum debate anyway and i learnt it the hard way.
__________________
risingstar3110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-16, 12:17   Link #57
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Yeah sure, I like a good Amazing Story type movie every now and then myself.

Zeitgeist ranks right up there with The Man Who Saw Tomorrow.




The only difference is that Nostrodamus was more grounded in reality.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-16, 15:22   Link #58
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by risingstar3110 View Post
Just watched this movie, and i would say that overall it's great. Left a lots to think about and ideas to form on (etc...)

Spare me the long discussion, since frankly it's boring and repetitive. You hardly can convince people through forum debate anyway and i learnt it the hard way.
Glad you enjoy it. The purpose of the movie is to make you question the world we live in and make people understand that this system is unsustainable.


Quote:
Yeah sure, I like a good Amazing Story type movie every now and then myself.

Zeitgeist ranks right up there with The Man Who Saw Tomorrow.

The only difference is that Nostrodamus was more grounded in reality.
It is quite disappointing of you to say that, you got no credibility left. I bet you didn't even check the videos and links in my last post.

I tell you what is unrealistic and unreasonable; your proposal of a Laissez-Faire economic system. It completely dismisses the most basic ethical and spiritual principles. If you had checked my last post Peter Joseph would have told you why it is so:

"Put a pack of hyenas in a small room with a dead cow in the center. The cow can feed everyone equally and prevent their starvation. Do you think that the hyenas will share the cow equally? Of course not. They will form small groups and alliances against each other so that only a small fraction will eat most of the cow, which leaves the majority with just scraps to survive."

In case you missed the point I'll state the obvious: Competition breeds violence and injustice. This is an spiritual law and it is irrefutable. Linking and siting economists and to argue otherwise will still prove you wrong because you can't dispute reason.

I still think that you should move to Rapture city. Liberty City is also a good option. You would love either one
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-16, 17:32   Link #59
GuidoHunter_Toki
Wiggle Your Big Toe
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Age: 24
Well I wasn't planning on getting involved with this thread since I already had a field day with one of the earlier ones, but after reading through the thread and watching some of the videos I've just got the itch again. I don't plan on replying extensively, but who knows if that'll last.

Anyways onto my response...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
Competition breeds violence and injustice.
And it also breeds progress and success. Competition itself doesn't have to be bad, once again it comes down to what people themselves do.

I know I argued this point to death in the other thread, but; These "things" that this movement seems determined to fix all come down to humans themselves. To achieve such goals you must change what makes us human, essentially.

The idea of a perfect world may appeal to others, but not to me. The general picture of such a world, how it would operate, and what we'd need to do to get there sickens me. For this I give an appropriate quote...

"The world is not beautiful, therefore it is."
__________________
GuidoHunter_Toki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-16, 18:38   Link #60
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
It is quite disappointing of you to say that, you got no credibility left. I bet you didn't even check the videos and links in my last post.
What?
Do you actually believe the crap you post?
Who are you to judge my credibility?
If anyone here has made a fool of him/herself Sugetsu it is you.
Your blatant inability to deal with informed and accurate criticism of this Zeitgeist nonsense is proof positive of that.
I exposed Zeitgest for what it is, Utopian Socialism, and you couldn't (and still can't) handle it.


Quote:
I tell you what is unrealistic and unreasonable; your proposal of a Laissez-Faire economic system. It completely dismisses the most basic ethical and spiritual principles. If you had checked my last post Peter Joseph would have told you why it is so:

"Put a pack of hyenas in a small room with a dead cow in the center. The cow can feed everyone equally and prevent their starvation. Do you think that the hyenas will share the cow equally? Of course not. They will form small groups and alliances against each other so that only a small fraction will eat most of the cow, which leaves the majority with just scraps to survive."

In case you missed the point I'll state the obvious: Competition breeds violence and injustice. This is an spiritual law and it is irrefutable. Linking and siting economists and to argue otherwise will still prove you wrong because you can't dispute reason.
So now you're denying Darwinian evolution?
I realize that this might come as a shock to you, but I have news for you dear.
Competition is also known as natural selection or as Darwin and Wallace termed it Survival of the Fittest.
Competition is what created the industries that your precious Zeitgeist needs to implement their Technocracy.
Without competition mankind would have died out long ago because it would not have strived to survive and thus evolve technologically.
The greatest innovator in the human experience is now, and always has been, war.
War is competition in the extreme sense of the human experience, and as of yet has no equivalent.
However distasteful it is, war is unfortunately necessary as William James pointed out nearly a century ago.The very internet we use today was built by the US military as a means to maintain communication in the event of a nuclear war.
The space program that created the satellites used for your cellphone, GPS, highspeed internet, television, and all international communications was all created to beat the Socialists technologically during the Cold War.

The jet aircraft we fly in, the steel ships we cruise on, the trains we travel on, the automobiles we drive, ALL were either developed for, or improved as a result of, war.

Iron was mined and developed into steel to make stronger and more powerful swords, armor and other weapons of war. Without that metal you and I wouldn't be talking, we'd be to busy scavaging for food in animal hides.

This is why many of us here who are adults, with a firm grip on reality, scoff at this ridiculous Zeitgeist movement.
It talks about a wonderous and fantastical future run by machines, but there is no basis in fact or truth to back up the claims.
Jacques and Peter like to talk about science, but they don't ever provide more than obtuse wisps of socialistic theory jumbled together with cherry-picked "scientists" in a vain attempt at dissing Capitalism and supporting their cult's agenda.

I've already shown at great length here why Zeitgeist is a fraud and is just Henre de Rouvroy's Utopian system repackaged in a secular form.
I don't need to do it again.

Quote:
I still think that you should move to Rapture city. Liberty City is also a good option. You would love either one
I don't care what you think Sugetsu, I only care that you actually DO think for yourself instead of just being led around by the nose by conmen like Peter Joseph and Jacques Fresco.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
zeitgeist

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.