Comment: No need to sugarcoat it :)

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Zeitgeist (see in situ)

No need to sugarcoat it :)

You use terms like "needed most" and socialist and "overnight" to emphasize that you don't agree with their position. That's not an impartial review. I've done quite deep research on them and learned a few things. I'll share them here.

While their 'surface' solutions follow along socialist paths (like advocating the loss of private property and such, when you dig deeper, that is simply a 'test the waters' theory because nothing else appears to offer the same benefits. They regularly and strongly advocate that all ideas for potential solutions coming from the people be investigated against the standard of solving our problems. Isn't that what we're doing too?

To be more fair to their arguments, they FIRST outline exactly how our system of scarcity can be replaced with one of abundance. This is key because if you believe there aren't enough resources, you'll come at centralized organization as one of control over who gets left out. If, on the other hand, you believe their premise that abundance will win the day, you'll see centralized organization as a 'beck and call' automatic distribution system.

If that's not clear, picture a filled stadium and an army passing out hot dogs. Under the abundance scenario where there are more than enough to fill any needs, a centralized system would entail thousands of flying drone quad-copters bringing hot dogs to everyone with their hand up. The alternative scarcity system would be a riotous bidding war among all the spectators with many not getting anything.

But most people don't believe we can reach a goal of abundance. To see it, all one must do is learn that 95% of what is made today will end up in the landfill in 6 months. 88% of our 'gathered' energy is wasted. 85% of our personal work effort is wasted. More than 80% of our income is 'wasted'. 93% of our resources are wasted but we do recycle 2.4% back into circulation. Picture our world changed to lower those losses to less than a few %.

I'm not promoting their system. I like the genuine free-market capitalist system but I am saying that unless we get our incentives right and bring abundance back into play, we're headed down a dangerous path.