An end to poverty?

[Jog On]

They can write whatever they like - in the end, computers can only work with the information they're given, and if the "prices" formed are just plucked out of the air or some "planners'"'spreadsheets, it won't be too different to the USSR before Lenin's NEP. If they plan on abolishing money, they won't even get that far.



I have, but I doubt you have; TVP doesn't have a suitable answer to the economic calculation/knowledge problem based on information like the sort you've just quoted. It just inserts "supercomputers" into the equation, as if that'll suffice. Business is already making extensive use of IT but with the additional benefit of price signals, corrupted though they may be by various govt interventions. Also, I was directly addressing its economic viability.

The whole point of TVP is that there is no money - there are no prices for anything - just resources being allocated to there they are needed - automatically by computers.

Forget Lenin/or any kind of money based economics - it's not relevant or applicable. there is no 'value' or price of anything.

For example - do you think there is enough food in the world right now at this very moment to feed every human being on the planet?

If yes - then image that money did not exist - how would you go about distributing it and maintaining the correct distribution/logistics to keep everyone fed?

That's the basic concept behind TVP along with housing, energy etc, it is based on 2 assumptions:

1. There is enough natural resource on the planet to meet the basic needs of every human being
2. The scientific knowledge and technology exists today to make that happen

Money is just the barrier along with those who hold and control most of it

It does all sound very pie in the sky and non-achievable I'll agree but has anyone got any better ideas?

[TykeMerc]

There is only one true solution to "poverty". To start off the word is a wildly subjective and emotive term with bugger all real meaning without context.

Take the worst chav scum, doleite with umpty dozen kids in one of the stories in a red top tabloid and compared to some landless subsistence tenant farmer in the middle of a drought the chav scum is monumentally wealthy.

By the very nature of human beings who tend to strive selfishly to enrich themselves and improve their lot, there will always, unavoidably be people at the bottom of that situation.

The solution? End the human race completely and you've solved poverty, the rest is just window dressing.

[Zero Liability]

The whole point of TVP is that there is no money - there are no prices for anything - just resources being allocated to there they are needed - automatically by computers.

Forget Lenin/or any kind of money based economics - it's not relevant or applicable. there is no 'value' or price of anything.

For example - do you think there is enough food in the world right now at this very moment to feed every human being on the planet?

If yes - then image that money did not exist - how would you go about distributing it and maintaining the correct distribution/logistics to keep everyone fed?

That's the basic concept behind TVP along with housing, energy etc, it is based on 2 assumptions:

1. There is enough natural resource on the planet to meet the basic needs of every human being
2. The scientific knowledge and technology exists today to make that happen

Money is just the barrier along with those who hold and control most of it

It does all sound very pie in the sky and non-achievable I'll agree but has anyone got any better ideas?

Value is the individual's subjective estimation of the serviceability of any given good (or service) in satisfying wants of varying urgencies, and this is what is meant by "need". So abolishing money doesn't do away with it. Prices are ratios effected through exchanges of goods or services. Again, they don't require money but it greatly facilitates their formation (by forming one half of every exchange) as it eliminates situations where one party doesn't have something the other party wants (as occurred in barter), due to the fact that it is the most widely exchangeable good in the economy. Anything that attains a status of very wide exchangeability can become money.

Simply stating things will be "allocated" based on "need" (better yet, wants of varying urgency) using a computer solves nothing, because computational power is not the issue; computers are simply given instructions on what to do. Determining "need" is the issue and would be the underlying problem for formulating the appropriate algorithm, assuming there even were one. Hence my reference to Oskar Lange, as his solution to this problem was to retain a market in consumer goods, so that exchanges could continue forming prices in these goods, to allow for their efficient allocation. That was still a bad idea, because it left the problem of economically efficient utilisation of capital goods (no longer exchanged due to complete ownership by the state) unsolved, as reverse imputation from the value of consumer goods would not suffice. It's still a damn sight better than anything I've seen TVP come up with, however. Hence my reference to Lenin and the War Communism that preceded the NEP, as during this period there was wholesale nationalisation to disastrous effect for the average man, meaning any prices that remained were effectively just sticker labels.

So why is there a need to abandon money and adopt such a system? IMO, the biggest economic issue is central banks distorting the pricing of financial capital (which has ripple effects on asset pricing) and by extension of money, and not money itself. What you're driving at is access to resources. Funny how the poorest countries in the world tend to be those with fundamentally insecure property rights, whose rulers treat their subjects as disposable resources.

[Jog On]

Value is the individual's subjective estimation of the serviceability of any given good (or service) in satisfying wants of varying urgencies, and this is what is meant by "need". So abolishing money doesn't do away with it. Prices are ratios effected through exchanges of goods or services. Again, they don't require money but it greatly facilitates their formation (by forming one half of every exchange) as it eliminates situations where one party doesn't have something the other party wants (as occurred in barter), due to the fact that it is the most widely exchangeable good in the economy. Anything that attains a status of very wide exchangeability can become money.

Simply stating things will be "allocated" based on "need" (better yet, wants of varying urgency) using a computer solves nothing, because computational power is not the issue; computers are simply given instructions on what to do. Determining "need" is the issue and would be the underlying problem for formulating the appropriate algorithm, assuming there even were one. Hence my reference to Oskar Lange, as his solution to this problem was to retain a market in consumer goods, so that exchanges could continue forming prices in these goods, to allow for their efficient allocation. That was still a bad idea, because it left the problem of economically efficient utilisation of capital goods (no longer exchanged due to complete ownership by the state) unsolved, as reverse imputation from the value of consumer goods would not suffice. It's still a damn sight better than anything I've seen TVP come up with, however. Hence my reference to Lenin and the War Communism that preceded the NEP, as during this period there was wholesale nationalisation to disastrous effect for the average man, meaning any prices that remained were effectively just sticker labels.

So why is there a need to abandon money and adopt such a system? IMO, the biggest economic issue is central banks distorting the pricing of financial capital (which has ripple effects on asset pricing) and by extension of money, and not money itself. What you're driving at is access to resources. Funny how the poorest countries in the world tend to be those with fundamentally insecure property rights, whose rulers treat their subjects as disposable resources.

Why would determining the need be an issue? If the algorithm knew the optimal levels of resource requirements in the different regions could it not just chug away in the background maintaining said levels?

I get that there is the concept of goods/services above basic levels of survival that would need to be addressed. Especially for those of us who'd like a nice big house by the beach with 2 spaceships parked on the roof...

I do believe that there is enough to go around for everyone to have a very high standard of living, the belief in scarcity and fear of destitution is completely man made to keep us on the hamster wheel and jostling each other through rush hour every day.

I do wonder what humanity and planet Earth would look like in 500-1000 years from now. Will money still exist?

[TykeMerc]

I do wonder what humanity and planet Earth would look like in 500-1000 years from now. Will money still exist?

Do you wonder if the Egyptians thought the same? The Romans? King Alfred's Saxons? Maybe the Normans? Money is a formalised barter system created once barter became unwieldy, human nature dictates that people expect some type of reward for their efforts or they don't bother.

Your posts are astoundingly naive in thinking that

everyone to have a very high standard of living

means anything, for a standard to be high there must be a low to contrast it to. It's as absurd as when the Education Secretary insisted that the majority of students must have an "above average" standard of education.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You mean like this?



https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/t...y/city-systems

Do us a favour and please fully investigate something before trashing it. The only argument I can think of against TVP is that it's not 'economically viable' and 'too expensive' - which is the whole point of this thread.

Here's another cheesy quote for the scoffers and sneerers:



You still win BTW -

I would bet my house that ZL knows ALOT about it. Very probably more than you do.

[SpontaneousOrder]

there is no 'value' or price of anything.

This is why you sound like a complete moron. I don't mean to cause offence - but what you are proposing is absolutely moronic.

If nothing had value, then you wouldn't need supercomputers do allocate it.

[AtW]

The whole point of TVP is that there is no money - there are no prices for anything - just resources being allocated to there they are needed - automatically by computers.

Oh but who will be writing for software for that "computer"?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Money is just the barrier along with those who hold and control most of it

It does all sound very pie in the sky and non-achievable I'll agree but has anyone got any better ideas?

Have you studied money & economics at all?
That's a bold claim to make - and in fact is absolutely the opposite of the truth. Money is the facilitator of wealth creation - and those people who hold most of it are the very people that create all of the wealth that means every day people have cars, central heating, hot running water, pocket computers / phones, 25+ days per year holiday, health care, etc etc.

You just posted a quote about people arguing vociferously about things they know nothing about - and yet you are spouting this nonsense from such a colossal depth of ignorance that it feels like talking to a child who asks his parents, when they don't have money, why they don't just get more form the cash machine.

TVP is based on the premise of a future state of being without scarcity. Until this happens TVP cannot exist. And then if there was such a state, TVP would be redundant anyway. And even then, in a world without scarcity - if such a thing could exist, there would still be many reasons I can think of why people would very likely want money.

[Jog On]

This is why you sound like a complete moron. I don't mean to cause offence - but what you are proposing is absolutely moronic.

If nothing had value, then you wouldn't need supercomputers do allocate it.

Why not? Why does a resource that needs to be allocated somewhere need to have value?