EDIT: delete delete....

I'm not by any means the ultimate expert on this, but it looks to me like you have a solid understanding, and I gather from your post that you have already watched the Salerno lecture (where I learned of the ECP as well).

There are of course a bunch of detailed sub-points that can be brought up, explaining why central management of resources generally turns into a giant cluster-frack, but it looks to me like you are focusing on just the over-arching theme of the argument for the purposes of this thread.

The Rational Empiricist:

5) Given this problem of scarcity, the allocation of resources needs to be economized...

6) The ECP is: How can the economization of resources be calculated so that these scare resources may be most rationally and efficiently allocated?

Like you, I am a layman trying to understand the Economic Calculation Problem.

I believe I initially made the same mistake as you.  I thought planned economies fail merely because they are less efficient.  That is not the case.

My understanding of the ECP is:   ...Centrally planned economies fail because economic calculation literally cannot occur because the information needed to perform economic calculations literally cannot be obtained.

The value of any resource (a farm tractor, my time, Angelina Jolie's boobies), is not intrinsic to the thing itself.  The value of that thing exists subjectively only in the mind of a person, and changes second-to-second, a near infinite number of times per day.  Thus, that value information cannot be quantified and used by a central economic calculator.

So, my understanding of the ECP is that economic calculation literally cannot occur centrally.  It really only occurs in the mind of each individual.   All the spinning wheels of resource production and allocation are merely external manifestations of that calculation, not the calculation itself.

I believe this is why RBE advocates very often confuse economic calculation with mere accountancy.  They confuse computational bookkeeping activities with economic calculation.

 

Alan Chapman posted this:  Why a Socialist Economy is Impossible by Joseph Salerno

I'm trying to digest it, but a few of the the concepts may exceed the my ability to understand them.

 

I wish I had bookmarked it, but someone here on FDR explained ECP to me using the example of a dirt-poor kid in Somolia finding a stick and making economic calculations about what to do with it.  What if he decides to use it to draw in the dirt, or break it into splinters for fun, or make it into a fishing pole? 

The calculations on the value of that stick can only occur in his mind. His economic calculations have economic effects which cascade into the larger economy like the proverbial butterfly on the west coast of Africa causing hurricanes in Florida. 

Hope this helps.  It helped me to write it.

The Rational Empiricist:

1) Human beings have needs (food, water, shelter) and desires (paintings, books, cars, televisions). These needs and values are unlimited.

2) In order to fulfill these unlimited needs and desires, human beings require the use of goods and services.

3) These goods and services are created through the use of natural resources and capital goods. Natural resources are limited and capital goods (as they are created by these resources) are also limited.

4) As such, there is the problem of scarcity by which only some of people's unlimited needs and desires can be fulfilled by limited natural resources and capital goods. In other words, there is unlimited demand for a limited supply.

Note: For brevity's sake, I will refer to “natural resources and capital goods” as just “resources.”

5) Given this problem of scarcity, the allocation of resources needs to be economized in order to best use them to meet people's demand.

Note: This is where I think I may possibly be getting something wrong and where I am still trying to understand.

6) The ECP is: How can the economization of resources be calculated so that these scare resources may be most rationally and efficiently allocated?

7) In order for a proposed economic system to be valid, it must solve the ECP because if it cannot provide a method of calculating the best economization of the allocation of resources then it is not (by definition) a possible economy. This is because the purpose of an economy is to economize and any “economy” that cannot economize is not an economy at all.

RBE (as far as I understand) tackles this scarcity problem by efficient use of goods through sharing which Peter calls "strategic access" and would work similarly to how a library functions. People do not wish to own all these goods, but merely wish to have them available for use whenever they want to use them. 

The goods that are not available in this "library" would be requested by the person into a program or on a webserver and this would be added to the global accounting system so that demand can effectively be tracked.

an example of how this could work:

- Z amount of people in a region X request a camera.

- variable Y: Average use/year in days a person actually uses the camera. -> this is taken from previous recorded data from surveys or "library" data.

- Z / (365 days/ Y) = Q = How many cameras are needed for that region's strategic access "library" (this is just a rough example, idk what the best algorithm would be but it wouldn't be too hard to figure out for people who are good in mathemathics/statistics)

- Q amount of camera's would be requested for production at the most local production spot to that region as to not waste travel energy. Production system is updated often as to make the most efficient use of resources and energy and make as little waste as possible. 

- Once produced, the cameras are then transported completely automated (automated production and transportation technology is already being implemented in all mass-production companies) 

- Update to people who requested camera that they have arrived.

 

I'm not sure if this "solves" the problem, but it seems to me that the ECP had a lot of revelance before we go so technologically advanced and before the internet was born.

 

 

 

 

 

dogmatic:

The Rational Empiricist:

1) Human beings have needs (food, water, shelter) and desires (paintings, books, cars, televisions). These needs and values are unlimited.

2) In order to fulfill these unlimited needs and desires, human beings require the use of goods and services.

3) These goods and services are created through the use of natural resources and capital goods. Natural resources are limited and capital goods (as they are created by these resources) are also limited.

4) As such, there is the problem of scarcity by which only some of people's unlimited needs and desires can be fulfilled by limited natural resources and capital goods. In other words, there is unlimited demand for a limited supply.

Note: For brevity's sake, I will refer to “natural resources and capital goods” as just “resources.”

5) Given this problem of scarcity, the allocation of resources needs to be economized in order to best use them to meet people's demand.

Note: This is where I think I may possibly be getting something wrong and where I am still trying to understand.

6) The ECP is: How can the economization of resources be calculated so that these scare resources may be most rationally and efficiently allocated?

7) In order for a proposed economic system to be valid, it must solve the ECP because if it cannot provide a method of calculating the best economization of the allocation of resources then it is not (by definition) a possible economy. This is because the purpose of an economy is to economize and any “economy” that cannot economize is not an economy at all.

RBE (as far as I understand) tackles this scarcity problem by efficient use of goods through sharing which Peter calls "strategic access" and would work similarly to how a library functions. People do not wish to own all these goods, but merely wish to have them available for use whenever they want to use them. 

The goods that are not available in this "library" would be requested by the person into a program or on a webserver and this would be added to the global accounting system so that demand can effectively be tracked.

an example of how this could work:

- Z amount of people in a region X request a camera.

- variable Y: Average use/year in days a person actually uses the camera. -> this is taken from previous recorded data from surveys or "library" data.

- Z / (365 days/ Y) = Q = How many cameras are needed for that region's strategic access "library" (this is just a rough example, idk what the best algorithm would be but it wouldn't be too hard to figure out for people who are good in mathemathics/statistics)

- Q amount of camera's would be requested for production at the most local production spot to that region as to not waste travel energy. Production system is updated often as to make the most efficient use of resources and energy and make as little waste as possible. 

- Once produced, the cameras are then transported completely automated (automated production and transportation technology is already being implemented in all mass-production companies) 

- Update to people who requested camera that they have arrived.

 

I'm not sure if this "solves" the problem, but it seems to me that the ECP had a lot of revelance before we go so technologically advanced and before the internet was born.

 

If you think of money as control of labor, the calculation problem makes mare sense.

1.) Human needs and desires are unlimited

2.) To fulfill some of these, humans must expend labor to convert natural resources into a human-usable form

3.) The desires and needs of those converting natural resources must be met in a way to sufficiently incentivise, through the meeting of some needs and wants, that conversion

4.) Humans must know what other humans need and want to incentivise the meeting of needs and wants

5.) Needs and wants(subjective) must be prioritized on a reasonable basis(objective) other than needs and wants.

A non-capital-based perspective will attempt to transact about needs and wants, but without an objective means of distribution of human-usable goods, the whole of the economy becomes a subjective free-for-all.

 

Closer examination of the camera scenario will reveal the failing in the strategic-access model.  There are significantly more possible configurations of devices than currently exist.  As an example, no one has yet built a medicine bottle with a thumb-print scanner.  It's not that such a device cannot exist, but a child-proof lid has proven to be the superior solution to the problem.  When we talk about a camera, we're discussing a specific device that serves a single purpose. 

 

Problem 1:  Why lend out cameras that are only cameras?

  Today, most cameras have, at a minimum, several functions.  They may also be phones, hand held gaming systems, data storage devices, tiny computers, alarm clocks, blue tooth transmitters, or any other number of things.  Suppose that, by some unknown means, the people in the RBE have perfect knowledge of their material requirements.  People will request the usage of goods based on what best serves their perceived needs.  Suppose that a single individual needs a phone, an alarm clock, and car.  The best solution, for him alone, is to combine these three functions into a single device.  However, suppose he needs the phone all day, every day, the alarm clock once a day, and the car for 3 hours a day.  A single device would then be sub-optimal.  The correct combination of devices to meet needs, in the RBE, requires each individual to know, in advance, not only what they need, but how often, and how it should be manufactured.  The RBE model needs each person to have perfect knowledge, which they cannot have.

 

Problem 2:  Distinctions in the Quality of Cameras.

  There are different applications of the camera that the individual may choose.  A person may wish to take a picture of a sunset, an atom, or the whole universe.  The camera that performs any one of these applications cannot perform the other two.  It may be possible, at a great expenditure of raw materials, be possible to create a single super-camera;  however, such a device would, almost certainly, be more difficult to design and manufacture than three separate devices.  Thus, each person must know, not only what device they need, but the specific applications of those devices.  That is, I would not only need to know that I need a camera, but that my camera will be used for scientific, not personal, applications.  Equally problematic, the robot, camera factory can only make so many cameras in a given time. The more complex and resource intensive each camera is, the fewer of them can be made in a given time period.  Thus, manufacturing-time vs quality vs specific application optimization is required months in advance of the needs of the individual.

 

Problem 3:  Cameras or Watermelons?

  A phone and a camera can be combined into one device, a watermelon and a camera cannot.  There is a limited amount of space, electricity, and raw materials to dedicate to the production of cameras and watermelons.  There is no reason that people cannot need both cameras and water melons in excess of the robot factory's capability to manufacture both.  What is the RBE solution to a sum of watermelon and camera requests that exceed production potential?  A capital-based economy will simply deny cameras to those without a sufficient supply of capital.  Additionally, in the RBE, there is no way to express the value of a camera in terms of watermelons.  Using capital, I can say that, if a watermelon costs $1 and a camera costs $5, 5 watermelons is worth 1 camera.  The RBE has no such exchange system.

 

Problem 4: Efficiency or Innovation?

  The process of invention, invariably, involves failure.  Suppose that an individual, in an RBE, requests 10,000 cameras to build a global raccoon-tracking system.  The idea maybe fully scientific in application.  The individual may be highly educated in both biology and electrical engineering.  How does the RBE judge this idea as valuable or insane?  In a capitalist society, if the individual could raise capital to proceed, we'd call the idea worth pursuing.  Equally, if he couldn't raise funds, we'd say it was an idea, not worth pursuing.  Further, suppose this individual isn't the only person with the same idea.  Suppose that no less than a thousand people, scattered all over the world, have the same raccoon-tracking system idea.  Who gets the 10,000 cameras?  That number of cameras is well beyond the strategic-access model.  Worse, suppose all 10,000 cameras are destroyed under all versions of the raccoon-tracking system.  Will the RBE turn out 10,000,000 cameras, for raccoon-tracking?

Problem 5: Limited Thought

  Suppose that there are 50,000 highly trained scientists in the RBE, how are they allocated?  Research is an extensive proposition.  Consider the resources that went into curing Smallpox or Polio.  Suppose that, in the RBE, there are about the same number of ailments that there are today.  Given that it is impossible to know how much research is required to yield results, how will the RBE determine the correct allocation of scientists to problems?  Alternatively, if the scientists are allowed to pursue any problem of their choosing, how can we guarantee autism will be cured before a global raccoon-tracking system is constructed?  There are, in reality, a limited amount of human resources.  As we don't want everyone to be slaves to the RBE, these resources will allocate randomly across the RBE.  Isn't random allocation of resources the least efficient method?

Arius:

If you think of money as control of labor, the calculation problem makes mare sense.

1.) Human needs and desires are unlimited

2.) To fulfill some of these, humans must expend labor to convert natural resources into a human-usable form

3.) The desires and needs of those converting natural resources must be met in a way to sufficiently incentivise, through the meeting of some needs and wants, that conversion

4.) Humans must know what other humans need and want to incentivise the meeting of needs and wants

5.) Needs and wants(subjective) must be prioritized on a reasonable basis(objective) other than needs and wants.

A non-capital-based perspective will attempt to transact about needs and wants, but without an objective means of distribution of human-usable goods, the whole of the economy becomes a subjective free-for-all.

...

 

You raise good questions and I like your rational approach. I must admit I am in no way an RBE expert :-)
I stumbled upon this article by venus project advocates: http://v-radioblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/realistic-look-at-economic-calculation.html

It is a long post, but it was worth the read. First it questions price efficiency on the basis that any market system is based on the profit-motive and the profit-motive is in no way rational.

Later in the post it questions the idea that needs and wants are infinite:

 

"The idea that desires are infinite or irrational:

This concept basically works on the assumption that people's desires are infinite and are not trackable or understandable. And this assumption is flawed. The needs of human beings are in fact calculable. And in fact once all of the noise that has polluted the “desires” of mankind is gone, (advertising, fashion, etc.) deciding what to produce will be far easier. The reason it is hard to calculate now is because mankind has an inflated idea of what it “needs” that is based largely on the conditioning we are given through advertising from the earliest ages. This entire industry of convincing people to consume things they do not need will vastly change the amount of resources expended. I have already felt this myself as my own consumption habits have changed once I became aware of the vast propaganda machine that was put in place to make people believe that the act of consumption in of itself was an expression of freedom. I watch now as people chain themselves to debt for endless amounts of junk that is designed to be sure to fail as soon as it is paid off. My entire perspective changed on what I buy and why. There is no reason the rest of mankind will not experience this as well. "

I can only agree as my own needs and wants are definitely finite. I might want to use something at one time, but in no way is my happiness or wellbeing dependend on these "wants." 
I do however, need water, nutritious food, a place to call home and a healthy environment including a caring community. These seem to be objective needs for every human.

 

Because of the resource tracking, the article claims

 "Every citizen of the society would be acutely aware of the state of resources on our planet and the implications of their consumption."

 

Further as an example of how RBE works:

 

"Thirdly, the technology available to us is vastly superior to what was available at the time that any of these monetary thinkers were contemplating their limitations. 

Even without the modern technology we have today this was achievable. In early 1970 the government of Chile asked a British operations research scientist named Stafford Beer to develop a system for tracking information all over the country for the purposes of a computer controlled economy. The system was highly advanced for it's time and did work. It was called Project Cybersyn. When I was doing research on it I was not surprised to see that several conservative bloggers have made really bogus reports as to it's success. But without fail people who were actually involved in the project came forward and refuted the nonsense that was being portrayed."

 

I do not know much about this project, but it is something definitely worth looking into. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersyn

I have to agree that there are needs that are objective and I question that wants are infinite or somehow pose a significant problem because I just do not believe there is any evidence/good reason to believe that human happiness and wellbeing is dependent on the fulfillment of most "wants." 
This belief has been falsified by many scientific studies. One of the most prominent researchers in this area is Dan Gilbert ( http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html )

 

In essence, an RBE seems to be a steady-state economy

"Robinson also noted that in a non-growth economy (what Marxists would call a situation of simple reproduction) there would be an effective abundance of means of production, and so markets would not be needed.^[17] Von Mises acknowledged such a theoretical possibility in his original tract:

The static state can dispense with economic calculation. For here the same events in economic life are ever recurring; and if we assume that the first disposition of the static socialist economy follows on the basis of the final state of the competitive economy, we might at all events conceive of a socialist production system which is rationally controlled from an economic point of view.^{[1]" -} 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#Steady_state

Thanks in advance for giving your attention and sharing your thoughts :-) 

dogmatic:

 

You raise good questions and I like your rational approach. I must admit I am in no way an RBE expert :-)
I stumbled upon this article by venus project advocates: http://v-radioblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/realistic-look-at-economic-calculation.html

It is a long post, but it was worth the read. First it questions price efficiency on the basis that any market system is based on the profit-motive and the profit-motive is in no way rational.

Later in the post it questions the idea that needs and wants are infinite:

 

"The idea that desires are infinite or irrational:

This concept basically works on the assumption that people's desires are infinite and are not trackable or understandable. And this assumption is flawed. The needs of human beings are in fact calculable. And in fact once all of the noise that has polluted the “desires” of mankind is gone, (advertising, fashion, etc.) deciding what to produce will be far easier. The reason it is hard to calculate now is because mankind has an inflated idea of what it “needs” that is based largely on the conditioning we are given through advertising from the earliest ages. This entire industry of convincing people to consume things they do not need will vastly change the amount of resources expended. I have already felt this myself as my own consumption habits have changed once I became aware of the vast propaganda machine that was put in place to make people believe that the act of consumption in of itself was an expression of freedom. I watch now as people chain themselves to debt for endless amounts of junk that is designed to be sure to fail as soon as it is paid off. My entire perspective changed on what I buy and why. There is no reason the rest of mankind will not experience this as well. "

I can only agree as my own needs and wants are definitely finite. I might want to use something at one time, but in no way is my happiness or wellbeing dependend on these "wants." 
I do however, need water, nutritious food, a place to call home and a healthy environment including a caring community. These seem to be objective needs for every human.

 

Because of the resource tracking, the article claims

 "Every citizen of the society would be acutely aware of the state of resources on our planet and the implications of their consumption."

 

Further as an example of how RBE works:

 

"Thirdly, the technology available to us is vastly superior to what was available at the time that any of these monetary thinkers were contemplating their limitations. 

Even without the modern technology we have today this was achievable. In early 1970 the government of Chile asked a British operations research scientist named Stafford Beer to develop a system for tracking information all over the country for the purposes of a computer controlled economy. The system was highly advanced for it's time and did work. It was called Project Cybersyn. When I was doing research on it I was not surprised to see that several conservative bloggers have made really bogus reports as to it's success. But without fail people who were actually involved in the project came forward and refuted the nonsense that was being portrayed."

 

I do not know much about this project, but it is something definitely worth looking into. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersyn

I have to agree that there are needs that are objective and I question that wants are infinite or somehow pose a significant problem because I just do not believe there is any evidence/good reason to believe that human happiness and wellbeing is dependent on the fulfillment of most "wants." 
This belief has been falsified by many scientific studies. One of the most prominent researchers in this area is Dan Gilbert ( http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html )

 

In essence, an RBE seems to be a steady-state economy

"Robinson also noted that in a non-growth economy (what Marxists would call a situation of simple reproduction) there would be an effective abundance of means of production, and so markets would not be needed.^[17] Von Mises acknowledged such a theoretical possibility in his original tract:

The static state can dispense with economic calculation. For here the same events in economic life are ever recurring; and if we assume that the first disposition of the static socialist economy follows on the basis of the final state of the competitive economy, we might at all events conceive of a socialist production system which is rationally controlled from an economic point of view.^{[1]" -} 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#Steady_state

 

Thanks in advance for giving your attention and sharing your thoughts :-) 

"This concept basically works on the assumption that people's desires are infinite and are not trackable or understandable. And this assumption is flawed. The needs of human beings are in fact calculable."

It starts by talking about desires and flips to needs.  While the two words are synonymous, their contextual meanings aren't the same.  Human desires are what people want to use and consume.  "The needs of human beings", as a phrase, seems to indicate the basic, biological needs of the human organism.  These two things do have some overlap, but not so much as to be used interchangeably.  It seems that, from the context of the rest of the paragraph, the author claims the difference between basic, biological needs and uncontrolled consumerism is a functioning industry of advertising.  That claim is pretty easy to disprove.  Advertising, as we know it today, is a relatively new phenomenon.  In, say, the 1500's, there was no mass media, no advertising (per say), and no industrial goods.  Yet, men from every corner of the Earth sailed across the globe in search of gold, sheep, and land.  That is, in an advertising vacuum, people still want, and actively work to acquire, more than is required for basic, biological survival.

 

 "Every citizen of the society would be acutely aware of the state of resources on our planet and the implications of their consumption."

This is just the tragedy of the commons, right?  All the farmers know the consequences of over-grazing, but do it anyway..  How then, does the knowledge of the consequences of over-consumption prevent it? 

 

Cybersyn :)

Let's talk about central planning for a second.  I need two assumptions to explain this.  First, every decision, made by man or machine, has a cost associated with it.  That cost can be expressed as the cost of hardware and electricity, or as a wage for labor, but no decision is free.  Second, the more complex a decision is, the more variables involved, the greater the cost of making that decision.  As an example, for a person to pick heads or tails on a flipping coin is simple, it's random.  For a person to decide where to live, based on jobs and home prices, is complex. Keep in mind, the Venus Project is arguing for a type of central planning.  The smallest unit of an economy is a transaction, which, at a minimum, requires two participants.  That is, if a person grows their own food, from their own seed stock, on their own land, and sell none of it, their actions are not relevant to the motion of goods and services.  Each transaction represents a decision that each of two participants have made.  Each participant has evaluated the good, service, or currency they hold and the good, service, or currency the other participant holds; concluding that the other participants holding offer the decider more utility than their own holdings.  Basically, "What he has is worth more to me than what I have".  Otherwise, why transact?  Over the course of a day, each individual, in an economy, may make hundreds of such transactions.  Not just goods and services for money, but as direct exchanges of goods and services.  Sometimes, the double coincidence of wants actually happens and the transaction participants don't need money.  True central planning requires that a single system, human or machine, determine the participant-preferable outcome of each of these transactions.  There is a rule in electrical engineering, and I'm going to badly mis-quote it. "Every additional unit of processing power costs 2 units of money to design and build into a single system".  It is, essentially, why we favor decentralized processing over central processing.  Putting all this together, I will offer this: The cost of centrally planning an economy is, necessarily, marginally higher than the cost of decentralized planning.  Any improvements in the efficiency of economic planning, that result from centralization, will carry a lower return than the cost of reducing those inefficiencies, through a central planning system.

My objection to central planning is not that it is impossible.  I wouldn't claim that it's impossible.  There may be any number of ways to centrally plan an economy, some might even work.  My objection is that that central planning costs more than it makes.  It's not cost efficient.

"I have to agree that there are needs that are objective and I question that wants are infinite or somehow pose a significant problem because I just do not believe there is any evidence/good reason to believe that human happiness and well being is dependent on the fulfillment of most 'wants.' "

  The 3rd Zeitgeist movie present infinite human desire as "a person taking 300 TVs", this is a bit of rhetorical dishonesty.  You or me, we might find the idea of a person who, given the opportunity, takes hundreds of TVs, grotesque.  However, suppose that direct exposure to a TV cured cancer.  Obviously, it doesn't.  However, since we already know that all the ailments of the human body are engineering problems, a device can be manufactured that cures every disease and ailment.  We just haven't invented it yet.  The idea of a single individual glutting themselves in a consumerist orgy isn't an accurate representation of the phrase "infinite desires".  A better representation is to say that humans want to eliminate suffering and maximize happiness, first for themselves, then for others.  The potential for suffering is infinite, the potential for happiness is infinite, so human desire is infinite.  Do you want 300 TVs, of course not.  Do you want to cure cancer, or world hunger?  Do you want everyone to have clean water, a house, good health, and nutritious food?  Each of these goals comes with a cost.  And there are still more things to attempt to solve.  The claim to infinite human desire is a claim of infinite human capacity.  Maybe, someday, people will be scattered across the entire universe.  There's a cost associated with that, and resources must be used to pay it.

 

I hope that helps ;)

 

" It seems that, from the context of the rest of the paragraph, the author claims the difference between basic, biological needs and uncontrolled consumerism is a functioning industry of advertising.  That claim is pretty easy to disprove.  Advertising, as we know it today, is a relatively new phenomenon.  In, say, the 1500's, there was no mass media, no advertising (per say), and no industrial goods.  Yet, men from every corner of the Earth sailed across the globe in search of gold, sheep, and land.  That is, in an advertising vacuum, people still want, and actively work to acquire, more than is required for basic, biological survival. "

It can be said that people want to acquire within a monetary system because that is what will increase their chances and their peers and offspring's chances of survival. The fact that money is all you need to survive and live comfortably could be said to be the reason why people want to acquire gold, sheep, land, etc.
But in a gift-economy dominant world, trust of others and reputation in your community will be what drives what you can receive from others (basicly if they view you as an a-hole who doesn't give or help much, they won't give or help you much. tit-for-tat) 

 

""Every citizen of the society would be acutely aware of the state of resources on our planet and the implications of their consumption."

This is just the tragedy of the commons, right?  All the farmers know the consequences of over-grazing, but do it anyway..  How then, does the knowledge of the consequences of over-consumption prevent it?  "

 Yes, if this tragedy were truely a tragedy, but it has recently been proven wrong by Elinor Ostrom (1) (2)

 

 Keep in mind, the Venus Project is arguing for a type of central planning. 

I'm actually not entirely sure the Venus Project is arguing for central planning. The way I see it it is peer2peer production with an information system to take into account how many resources of what there is, using recycling efficiently, reducing waste as much as possible, and taking into account the renewal rate of resources. That global information system is only descriptive and not prescriptive. Nobody is centrally deciding what needs to be produced, it is very very decentralised. Only the information of resources is put in a global system that can be accessed all over the world thru the internet. (3)

I could be wrong, but I think this is what the Venus Project is advocating and not some central computer system deciding what needs to be produced.

 

 "However, since we already know that all the ailments of the human body are engineering problems, a device can be manufactured that cures every disease and ailment.  We just haven't invented it yet."

I did not know all ailments of human body are engineering problems. I have come to believe that the environment plays an important role on the body and mind which also plays in important role on the body. You can die from stress from the environment. Certainly you can drug the person so that they are less stressed but this doesn't solve the reason why the person was having such strong stress that caused the ailment in the first place. Which is reflected in our relatively low ability in treating chronic ailments.

Interpreting your words differently as saying engineering of the environment then i'd have to agree that it is indeed an engineering problem.

 

  "The idea of a single individual glutting themselves in a consumerist orgy isn't an accurate representation of the phrase "infinite desires".  A better representation is to say that humans want to eliminate suffering and maximize happiness, first for themselves, then for others.  The potential for suffering is infinite, the potential for happiness is infinite, so human desire is infinite.  Do you want 300 TVs, of course not.  Do you want to cure cancer, or world hunger?  Do you want everyone to have clean water, a house, good health, and nutritious food?  Each of these goals comes with a cost.  And there are still more things to attempt to solve.  The claim to infinite human desire is a claim of infinite human capacity.  Maybe, someday, people will be scattered across the entire universe.  There's a cost associated with that, and resources must be used to pay it."

Ah ok. Yes indeed there is a cost. Which is why it is important to have an information system so people can become aware of what resources are depleting and at what rate, what the renewal rate is of resources, and where resources are being used inefficiently. That way we can intelligently fulfill these unlimited desires step-by-step while keeping resources in equilibrium as much as possible thru recycling, reducing waste, and harnessing the energy from renewables as much as possible. 

That is obviously to assume that humans can work together and respect mutual agreement which Elinor Ostrom's research shows is possible. 

 

(1)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom#Research

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said Ostrom's 'research brought this topic from the fringe to the forefront of scientific attention', "by showing how common resources—forests, fisheries, oil fields or grazing lands, can be managed successfully by the people who use them, rather than by governments or private companies". Ostrom's work in this regard, challenged conventional wisdom, showing that common resources can be successfully managed without government regulation or privatization.

(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByXM47Ri1Kc

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons-based_peer_production

"It can be said that people want to acquire within a monetary system because that is what will increase their chances and their peers and offspring's chances of survival. The fact that money is all you need to survive and live comfortably could be said to be the reason why people want to acquire gold, sheep, land, etc.
But in a gift-economy dominant world, trust of others and reputation in your community will be what drives what you can receive from others (basically if they view you as an a-hole who doesn't give or help much, they won't give or help you much. tit-for-tat) "

  A gift-economy is not centrally planned.  It is, exactly, the opposite.  Let's compare and contrast.  Suppose that my neighbor needs a chicken, in a gift-economy, I give him one, because he's a great guy.  In a centrally planned economy, he fills out a requisition form, goes to the central chicken dispensary, or is issued a chicken from the Central Chicken Authority.  One is a peer-to-peer economy and the other is centrally planned.  A gift-economy is not a valid argument against the utility of money.  I can give my neighbor a gift certificate, or cash, as easily as a chicken.  My neighbor can then use the cash I gifted him to fulfill his material needs.  The double coincidence of wants still applies in a gift-economy.  Thus, money has the same utility in a gift-economy and a market-economy.

"I did not know all ailments of human body are engineering problems."

  I would offer this, there is no part of the human being that is non-physical.  Any physical problem can be resolved by physical means. There are artificial hearts, lungs, and wombs.  Eventually, there will be artificial nervous systems, bone marrow, and immune systems.  I'd wager that, within the next 20 years, you'll see a working retro-virus cure for cancer.  These are, while classified as medical, just problems of engineering micro-mechanical solutions to biological problems.  It's all a matter of which pieces do what.

"Yes, if this tragedy were truly a tragedy, but it has recently been proven wrong by Elinor Ostrom"

This is a perfect example of the marginal-cost model I was describing.  Her requirements for common-ownership are all part of a highly developed, hierarchical system of rules and enforcement.  Consider, which is less expensive.  A layered bureaucracy that must constantly monitor the status of every natural resource on Earth, or a handful of individuals that own some land?

"I'm actually not entirely sure the Venus Project is arguing for central planning. The way I see it it is peer2peer production with an information system to take into account how many resources of what there is, using recycling efficiently, reducing waste as much as possible, and taking into account the renewal rate of resources. That global information system is only descriptive and not prescriptive. Nobody is centrally deciding what needs to be produced, it is very very decentralized. Only the information of resources is put in a global system that can be accessed all over the world thru the internet. (3)"

 

I'm gonna do some quick math do demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the Venus Project .  Remember when we agreed that everything has an associated cost?  I'm choosing to express that cost in dollars, but if dollars didn't exist, the cost could be expressed as hours of labor, natural resources required to accomplish a set of tasks, or opportunity cost of consuming some poor guy's life.  On Earth, there are 36,794,240,000 acres of land.  The going rate for a survey of 1 acre of land is about $500.  It would cost more money than currently exists to survey the surface, not all the way to the core, just the surface, of all the land masses on Earth.  This means that portion of the project requires more material wealth and technological capability than the human race has developed.  Alternatively, we can just let people poke around at random, like they do now.  The associated cost is much lower.  And only the good parts will get developed.  From a cost basis, a global survey is several billion times more expensive than the way we do it now.

What really puzzles me is that our society already has all the proposed benefits of the Venus Project. We already have recycling, reduced waste, and an accounting of renewable resources.  As an example, in the third Zeitgeist movie, toward the end, there's a bit about 3d printers and home building.  They talk about the amount of wasted materials produced from the current methods of building construction.  Now, I'm an entrepreneurial type, so I figured there might be some money in selling building scrap to press-board manufactures, or melting down nails into doorstops.  Turns out, there's a thriving industry of post-industrial goods.  There are consumers at every level of the economy.  Truly, no good ends up in a dump without having gone through, at least, a dozen hands.  I think the dire environmentalist claims are greatly exaggerated.  You know there's a guy in New York who invented a machine that turns old tires back into oil?  It's energy inefficient, of course.  It takes more kW to create the oil than the oil can produce, no free rides, but still, renewable oil...wow.  So, we've got all that good stuff already, why spend more money than exists to get something we already have?  It just doesn't add up.

 

It is not only the calculation problem that caused the centraly planned economies to break down in the past, in my opinion. I am always confused how you can make people work for the "well being of others" or for "the greater good" (without force of course). People generally care more about himself/herself and his family and closest friends than people he doesn't know or haven't even met and potentially even dislike. The incentives to work for free or in exchange for equally distributed rationing tickets are not very high, I am afraid. (just as farmers, for example, don't like to give away their crops for free)

Thats a lot of work done in this thread!

 

6) The ECP is: How can the economization of resources be calculated so that these scare resources may be most rationally and efficiently allocated?

7) In order for a proposed economic system to be valid, it must solve the ECP because if it cannot provide a method of calculating the best economization of the allocation of resources then it is not (by definition) a possible sustainable economy. This is because the purpose of an economy is to economize and any “economy” that cannot economize is not an economy at all.

(Economies, especially planned ones, can serve a number of purposes).

Yes its true that every economic system has to solve the ECP. No centrally planned economy has done it yet.  In free market economics it was solved a long time ago through pricing.

Pricing combines the processing power all the minds of all the people that have ever existed and currently exist on the entire planet in a giant Peer to Peer super neural network. This network uses the complex decisions all those minds make every second of every day to process the constantly changing data input of the entire comined knowledge and history of the human race and solve the ECP in real time. (Rember how in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy the earth was created as an ultra complex biological computer to solve the ultimate problem? Well it kinda is! You need a computer as powerful and complex as that entire system to provide accurately what centrally planned economies propose to provide).  And throughout history pricing has been the most efficient.

-- edit (ok this post is the first time I've looked at the free market in the way mentioned above and I think its freakin cool as hell!)

This is where TVP to me is a total joke, and how Stefan proved it in that conversation with its representative (dont really care what his name was). Also TVP is supposed to use AI to solve this problem, which does not imply any sort of P2P system, but rather a centralized system.

Its been demostrated time and time again that TVP and RBE's cant solve the ECP, and TVP merely point to some AI in the future as the saviour.

PS. Centrally planned economies that cant solve the ECP always end up like the USSR (see: history).

PPS. Jaques whateverhislastnameis is a hypocrite (no Ad hominem. Look at the history of Jaques and TVP, and the somewhate recent split of the TVP from TZM)

"Yes its true that every economic system has to solve the ECP. No centrally planned economy has done it yet.  In free market economics it was solved a long time ago through pricing."

  Oddly, only a planned economy needs to solve any problems.  Rather, only an economic planner needs to solve any problems.  It's like this, a natural forest doesn't need to solve any plant-spacing problems.  The plants just work it out on their own.  A field of crops, however, needs to solve all sorts of problems around the spacing of plants.  Better said, a crop-planner needs to solve those problems.  The question of how to arrive at economic solutions should be addressed it the same way all economic problems are.  What has the lowest cost and the highest utility.  Obviously, a solution to the ECP correctly prioritizes all the needs and desires of all economic participants.  The real question, then, is what is the actual cost associated with achieving this goal?  I maintain, even if the global allocation super-computer can better meet needs and wants than a market solution, and that's a big "if", the cost of construction, maintenance, deployment, and design will vastly ought weigh any improvements in economic efficiency it provides.

Arius:

"Yes its true that every economic system has to solve the ECP. No centrally planned economy has done it yet.  In free market economics it was solved a long time ago through pricing."

  Oddly, only a planned economy needs to solve any problems.  Rather, only an economic planner needs to solve any problems.  It's like this, a natural forest doesn't need to solve any plant-spacing problems.  The plants just work it out on their own.  A field of crops, however, needs to solve all sorts of problems around the spacing of plants.  Better said, a crop-planner needs to solve those problems.  The question of how to arrive at economic solutions should be addressed it the same way all economic problems are.  What has the lowest cost and the highest utility.  Obviously, a solution to the ECP correctly prioritizes all the needs and desires of all economic participants.  The real question, then, is what is the actual cost associated with achieving this goal?  I maintain, even if the global allocation super-computer can better meet needs and wants than a market solution, and that's a big "if", the cost of construction, maintenance, deployment, and design will vastly ought weigh any improvements in economic efficiency it provides.

Could you show where it is stated from a TVP source that an AI is even used? It seems to me like a lot of people here are misunderstanding TVP and claiming it is an AI/super-computer that is planning everything which I'd like to see some proof of. 

Nowhere did I see any TVP source claim even the use of a supercomputer or AI or any claim of central planning for that matter. The way I see it, TVP is a gift-economy with simply a distributed-computer-information-system (probably via the internet) for SEEING what resources are available and at what rate they are depleting/renewing and NOTHING MORE.
And it is the whole of humanity working together under mutual agreement to not use up resources faster than their recycle/renewal rate. 

Now that is the way i interpret TVP proposals so far, I could obviously be wrong and it could in fact be a centrally planned system with an AI, but I have yet to see any evidence for that ,seemingly straw-man argument, claim. 

I do tend to strawman others' arguments.  I'll include some supporting reference material.

 

(1)Question 64 in TVP FAQ "Who makes the decisions in a resource based economy?"

Answer: "No one does. The process of arriving at decisions in this economy would not be based upon the opinions of politicians, corporate, or national interests but rather all decisions would be arrived at based upon the introduction of newer technologies and Earth's carrying capacity. Computers could provide this information with electronic sensors throughout the entire industrial, physical complex to arrive at more appropriate decisions."

I take the implication of this answer to be that these computers will be, if not directly making decisions, providing 100% of the information on which the decision is based.

(1) Question 72 in TVP FAQ "Why the emphasis on the cybernated approach to the social operation?"

Answer "...As computers and artificial intelligence continue to evolve through environmental feedback, computers can arrive at more appropriate decisions in the operation of our social system..."

(2 p.32) "In planning the cities, computers will help determine the design based on the most comprehensive analysis of data about the environment and human needs. For example, the characteristics of the population in a given area determine how many hospitals and schools are built and the equipment needed. Some medical systems would be mobile and others prefabricated on land and sea."

(2 p.34) "The intelligent use of resources incorporated into structures considerably simplifies our lifestyle and reduces waste and maintenance. These new cities would provide for the needs of the inhabitants through an efficient allocation of resources and materials, in an energy-conscious and pollution-free environment."

(2 p.37) "The interconnected cybernated complexes represent the brain and nervous system of the entire world civilization. All information is available on demand to anyone via the Internet. This single site manages our common heritage of resources, and monitors the carrying capacity and health of Earth."

(2 p.44) "But as the resource based society moves toward a more cybernated world, most people are no longer needed to manage and operate this emerging civilization. Computers will eventually be able to design their own  programs, improve and repair their own circuitry, and update information about social needs. Interlinked cyber-centers would coordinate the service industries, transportation systems, public health care, and education with the  latest data for the world economy."

(2 p.62) "As we transition to a fully cybernated process of governing human affairs, newer technologies can be installed that remove human error. These machines would provide information rather than opinion, thus considerably  reducing the influence of bias and irrational or purely emotional elements in how affairs are managed. This way people play less and less of a role in decision-making and the society is working towards AI and machine decision-making to manage all resources, serving the common good."

(2 p.70) "An automated computerized inventory system would integrate the distribution centers and manufacturing facilities, coordinating production to meet demand. In this way, a balanced-load economy can be maintained."

 

There's more still, but I think this is sufficient.  I do not know how a rational person cannot interpret TVP to be anything but a centrally-planned economy.  I should add, the physical positioning of the computers has nothing to do with central planning.  That is, if a single, super-computer does the planning or a giant network of computers, scattered across the globe, it's still central planning.  I'd also like to point out, for contrast, that, while computers are an integral component of the narrative in (2), a gift-economy is never mentioned.

 

(1. TVP's homepage ) http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project-introduction/faq

(2. "Designing The Future" by Jacque Fresco) http://www.thevenusproject.com/images/stories/a-designingthefuturee-book.pdf