24 Oct 2017

Vienna vs. Venus

Economics 3 Comments

I can’t believe I didn’t think of that title originally…

Anyway, years ago for Mises.org I wrote, “Venus Needs Some Austrians,” saying that the idea of “resource-based economy” (RBE)–as opposed to a money-based economy–and the “Venus project” needed the benefit of Mises’ arguments about calculation.

Kevin Tilsner of Zeitgeist Philadelphia Radio has been trying for a year (?!) to get me on his show, to debate the article. (He is a supporter of an RBE.)

We finally had our debate. It was extremely cordial, and we actually spent most of the time agreeing with each other. But don’t worry, in the last 15 minutes or so I activated my Mises Ring and dropped some truth bombs.

Unfortunately I was on my phone so the audio isn’t great, but if you want to give it a chance, I think it ended up being a very unorthodox yet fundamental discussion.

Here is the direct mp3 link, and here is the main show page.

Also, in the interview Tilsner alludes to Peter Joseph’s response to Mises’ calculation argument. Here is that talk, though I haven’t listened to it.

Finally, apparently Stefan Molyneux debated Peter Joseph on this stuff.

3 Responses to “Vienna vs. Venus”

  1. Patrick Szar says:

    I watched the Molyneux v Joseph debate. Molyneux unfortunately isn’t as well versed in the austrian school as necessary to defeat the arguments Joseph put forward. In the end, viewing it from the angle that I had no economic knowledge, Joseph won in a major way. His argument against calculation was essentially a reinvigorated argument from the 1920s technocrats. Same old same old. technology makes people unemployed. eventually no one will have income but the richest, and everyone else will starve. RBE is not different than its monopolistic socialist predecessors, the details are simply modernized.

    • Tel says:

      … technology makes people unemployed …

      I do work fewer hours per week than a typical hunter/gatherer tribesman would do, so from that perspective I’m employed less than that guy was. Then again I’m likely to live longer.

      … eventually no one will have income but the richest, and everyone else will starve …

      Just like what happened the first time when people invented fire.

      And it happened again when they invented the wheel.

      Once clay pots hit the scene there was hardly anyone left alive on Earth but a handful of tycoons rolling around in gold coins. Oh wait, coins hadn’t been invented yet… well they were rolling in fire, wheels and pots but they were rich dammit!

      How many more times before we learn?!?

  2. Giovanni says:

    From http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peter_Joseph_on_Economic_Calculation_in_Resource-Based_Economics (a summary of the Peter Joseph talk) I grabbed the following quote, the only paragraph that talks about what would replace the price mechanism in the allocation of goods in general:

    > So, in this context, the question becomes, moving on, is it possible to create a system that can equally, if not more efficiently, facilitate feedback with respect to consumer preference, demand, labor value, and resource or component scarcity… without the price system, subjective property values, or exchange? And of course there is. The trick is to completely eliminate exchange and create a direct control and feedback link between the consumer and the means of production itself. The consumer becomes part of the means of production and the industrial complex, if you will, becomes nothing more than a tool that is accessed by the public to generate goods.

    So nothing. “Of course there is”?, these people are crazy.

    After that they go back to talking about 3D printers and “science”, “technology”, stuff like that.

Leave a Reply