Total Posts:130|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Resource-Based Economy

AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:31:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The question for this forum to discuss is:
Would a Resource-Based Economy work better than a Monetary Economy?

A Resource-Based Economy is a system that fairly distributes resources and strategically keeps them sustainable. It is not bartering. There would be no need to fight for economic gain, because you would have access to whatever you want and ownership of whatever you need/use consistently. If you're interested, there's this 13-part youtube film called The Zeitgeist Movement - Where Are We Going. It's very informative and I think you should check it out.

The true goal of an economy, by definition, is to strategically preserve and create efficiency. The system today demands the opposite.
An FAQ about The Zeitgeist Movement:
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:48:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was thought you were going along the lines Georgist thought but by reading it again, that's not strictly true.

you would have access to whatever you want and ownership of whatever you need/use consistently.
Right, how exactly? Economics only exists because there are finite goods and infinite wants. It uses barter to distribute good consensually between parties solving the economic problem of: to whom?.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:01:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:48:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
I was thought you were going along the lines Georgist thought but by reading it again, that's not strictly true.

you would have access to whatever you want and ownership of whatever you need/use consistently.
Right, how exactly? Economics only exists because there are finite goods and infinite wants. It uses barter to distribute good consensually between parties solving the economic problem of: to whom?.

It's a system designed to sustain resources. It's complicated to explain. So you're gonna have to see a Zeitgeist film, or the youtube presentation I posted at the start of this forum. We have the resources to provide for everyone. Not necessarily the current resources we're using such as oil, but we have sustainable good quality ones that are against monetary economics. There's a car that has been designed to cost no money to maintain. Not for fuel, not for changing parts; nothing. It's not on the market, because the current system relies on things like cars and houses lacking efficiency. You can't sell the sun or the wind, but you can sell oil. You can't sell water or the materials needed to create biodegradable bottles, but you can sell oil (plastic).

To whom? To everyone. The system is based on the scientific method, not on opinion, which should be respected, but sometimes they are just factually wrong when it comes to managing resources. Where's it needed, when's it needed, is it going to sustain, and why? All of those questions would be answered before the distribution. In the Middle Ages, there were self-sustained cities. In the future, it's possible to have one big self-sustained city (Earth).
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:03:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, you provide the unlimited resources and then I'll sign up for your political system that depends on them.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:18:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:03:39 PM, Mimshot wrote:
First, you provide the unlimited resources and then I'll sign up for your political system that depends on them.

it's not about unlimited resources. if there was, then the system would allow everyone to own everything. but they have access to the essentials and consistents. That's possible. We have untapped resources because of money. Unlimited energy. Unlimited water (water cycle and the ocean), unlimited food (controlled reproduction), more than enough unused land that contains housing supplies, and sustainable resources. But because they are sustainable, there's no way to make profit. So the current system is designed to fail once they run out of oil and other unsustainable resources, they have to resort to things that can't make profit.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:03:39 PM, Mimshot wrote:
First, you provide the unlimited resources and then I'll sign up for your political system that depends on them.

If this is the first time the idea was proposed, then there's a lot you need to learn before you form an opinion on this matter. It's the management of finite resources to make them available to everybody. There is not an infinite amount of people. There is less than 10 billion. In proportion to the resources we COULD take advantage of, that's not much.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:54:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:01:25 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:48:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
I was thought you were going along the lines Georgist thought but by reading it again, that's not strictly true.

you would have access to whatever you want and ownership of whatever you need/use consistently.
Right, how exactly? Economics only exists because there are finite goods and infinite wants. It uses barter to distribute good consensually between parties solving the economic problem of: to whom?.

It's a system designed to sustain resources. It's complicated to explain. So you're gonna have to see a Zeitgeist film, or the youtube presentation I posted at the start of this forum. We have the resources to provide for everyone. Not necessarily the current resources we're using such as oil, but we have sustainable good quality ones that are against monetary economics. There's a car that has been designed to cost no money to maintain. Not for fuel, not for changing parts; nothing. It's not on the market, because the current system relies on things like cars and houses lacking efficiency. You can't sell the sun or the wind, but you can sell oil. You can't sell water or the materials needed to create biodegradable bottles, but you can sell oil (plastic).

To whom? To everyone. The system is based on the scientific method, not on opinion, which should be respected, but sometimes they are just factually wrong when it comes to managing resources. Where's it needed, when's it needed, is it going to sustain, and why? All of those questions would be answered before the distribution. In the Middle Ages, there were self-sustained cities. In the future, it's possible to have one big self-sustained city (Earth).

There are natural resources but there is also capital. Capital is a commodity and must be processed (see feedstock) to be put into good use. Commodities at a single point of time are finite. If nature was free anyone could go outside and cut down a tree or drain from a fountain spring, they could, but often it is much easier to just buy it from someone. You now have a market; economics is again required. You cannot annihilate trade without force.

Youtube videos with an agenda are often lengthy and full of pointless prose; if you truly understand then you should be able to explain it.

What is this scientifically based system? I am yet to hear it. Economics as a social science applies the scientific method onto economic phenomenon.

In the Middle Ages, there were self-sustained cities. In the future, it's possible to have one big self-sustained city (Earth).
This is known as autarky. Even in these isolated places there are internal markets, closed economies.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:00:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's the management of finite resources to make them available to everybody.
Impossible and cannot be done.

it's not about unlimited resources. if there was, then the system would allow everyone to own everything. but they have access to the essentials and consistents. That's possible. We have untapped resources because of money. Unlimited energy. Unlimited water (water cycle and the ocean), unlimited food (controlled reproduction), more than enough unused land that contains housing supplies, and sustainable resources.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

That's Green Communism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:14:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are natural resources but there is also capital. Capital is a commodity and must be processed (see feedstock) to be put into good use. Commodities at a single point of time are finite. If nature was free anyone could go outside and cut down a tree or drain from a fountain spring, they could, but often it is much easier to just buy it from someone. You now have a market; economics is again required. You cannot annihilate trade without force.
Who's to say there wouldn't be any deforestation regulations? Isn't that how you sustain the number of trees in an environment? You're looking at my proposed system with monetary goggles. You haven't eliminated the concept of buying and selling. If this is the first time you heard this idea, you have to educate yourself on it to form an opinion.
Youtube videos with an agenda are often lengthy and full of pointless prose; if you truly understand then you should be able to explain it.
You have to ask questions, one at a time. I can't handle a full attack of 100 questions, which are often intended to be rhetorical, but could be countered. This video series is long, but 100% of the content is informative, because the movement does not believe in persuading people with nonsense flowery language.
What is this scientifically based system? I am yet to hear it. Economics as a social science applies the scientific method onto economic phenomenon.
Scientifically dictating where resources go. It's not opinion-based. It's not a dictatorship by corrupt scientists. It'd just say how to manage the global resource budget in such a way sustain it completely. Which is possible.

In the Middle Ages, there were self-sustained cities. In the future, it's possible to have one big self-sustained city (Earth).
This is known as autarky. Even in these isolated places there are internal markets, closed economies.
I'm only saying that a self-sustained society is possible. I'm not saying we should go back to the dark ages again.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:16:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you on crack?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:23:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If there's no need to fight for economic gain, there would be a lot less innovation. Businesses are always looking for ways to do things better and more efficiently. Why? Because they are rewarded for success. This would not exist in a resource based economy.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:26:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Impossible and cannot be done.
There would have to be an infinite number of people to accommodate in order for your claim to be truthful. And again, we're not proposing that we use oil or unsustainable resources. Everyone can have food, water, and energy. All of that is potentially infinite. We can manage other resources, and from where would we get them? I stated a number of times: the ocean, underground, mountains, and other uninhabited places. Look at all the metal in volcanoes. Look at all the heat. Now we have geothermal energy and supplies to create buildings, once cooled. Your argument is purely based off of monetary indoctrination and therefore not-necessarily-hateful prejudice towards anti-monetary ideas.

That's Green Communism.
Who's to say non-monetary communism can't work? And plus, this isn't a carbon-copy of communism with resources instead of money. This video explains it best. It's still information. It doesn't matter if I'm the source or not. I'm just not as good at explaining and it's easier to listen to a video rather than read a wall of text.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:27:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:16:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Are you on crack?
You're indoctrinated. If all of the money in the world were to disappear tomorrow, we'd be at loss of nothing but our sanity. We'd still have resources and be able to distribute them without a concern for profit.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:30:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:23:09 PM, seraine wrote:
If there's no need to fight for economic gain, there would be a lot less innovation. Businesses are always looking for ways to do things better and more efficiently. Why? Because they are rewarded for success. This would not exist in a resource based economy.

That's not true. Businesses struggle to keep making money, so their top concern is making money. Innovation comes second. In fact, it's scientifically proven that incentive limits creativity. If personal interest becomes social interest, it would not only be beneficial to everyone, but to everyone including you. It's a human nature concept called altruism. Don't walk in here pretending you know exactly how it's proposed to work when this is the first you've heard of it.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:18:26 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:03:39 PM, Mimshot wrote:
First, you provide the unlimited resources and then I'll sign up for your political system that depends on them.

it's not about unlimited resources. if there was, then the system would allow everyone to own everything. but they have access to the essentials and consistents. That's possible. We have untapped resources because of money.
Lack of money does not prevent things from being done, only lack of resources. Money and the free market are simply a system to allocate those resources. Yes, there are some resources that are underutilized (like labor through unemployment), but no amount of money will create a cure for cancer or a base on Mars. Those take real work and real resources.

Unlimited energy.
Violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Unlimited water (water cycle and the ocean),
Not unlimited clean water

unlimited food (controlled reproduction)
So, start killing babies?

more than enough unused land that contains housing supplies
Many western democracies guarantee housing to everyone. Homelessness is not caused by the existence of a monetary system.

...and sustainable resources. But because they are sustainable, there's no way to make profit.
I don't follow your logical jump from something being sustainable to something being unprofitable.

So the current system is designed to fail once they run out of oil and other unsustainable resources, they have to resort to things that can't make profit.
Right, there's a global conspiracy to hide free energy. Give me a device that can produce limitless energy and I'll pay you a billion dollars for it.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:27:29 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:16:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Are you on crack?
You're indoctrinated. If all of the money in the world were to disappear tomorrow, we'd be at loss of nothing but our sanity. We'd still have resources and be able to distribute them without a concern for profit.

No we wouldn't. Who would decide who gets what? How would you stop corruption? This is a false communist utopia which cannot be implemented.

Not everybody needs the same resources. Who would decide what everybody gets? The governments that cannot effectively allocate sh!t?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:40:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:37:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:27:29 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:16:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Are you on crack?
You're indoctrinated. If all of the money in the world were to disappear tomorrow, we'd be at loss of nothing but our sanity. We'd still have resources and be able to distribute them without a concern for profit.

No we wouldn't. Who would decide who gets what? How would you stop corruption? This is a false communist utopia which cannot be implemented.

Not everybody needs the same resources. Who would decide what everybody gets? The governments that cannot effectively allocate sh!t?

We're not arguing who would govern it. We're arguing if it's the right thing to do.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:48:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:40:37 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:37:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:27:29 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:16:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Are you on crack?
You're indoctrinated. If all of the money in the world were to disappear tomorrow, we'd be at loss of nothing but our sanity. We'd still have resources and be able to distribute them without a concern for profit.

No we wouldn't. Who would decide who gets what? How would you stop corruption? This is a false communist utopia which cannot be implemented.

Not everybody needs the same resources. Who would decide what everybody gets? The governments that cannot effectively allocate sh!t?

We're not arguing who would govern it. We're arguing if it's the right thing to do.

Theory means nothing if it cannot be implemented.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:50:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:36:02 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:18:26 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:03:39 PM, Mimshot wrote:
First, you provide the unlimited resources and then I'll sign up for your political system that depends on them.

it's not about unlimited resources. if there was, then the system would allow everyone to own everything. but they have access to the essentials and consistents. That's possible. We have untapped resources because of money.
Lack of money does not prevent things from being done, only lack of resources. Money and the free market are simply a system to allocate those resources. Yes, there are some resources that are underutilized (like labor through unemployment), but no amount of money will create a cure for cancer or a base on Mars. Those take real work and real resources.
Money inhibits the current cure for some types of cancer (found in Canada years ago) because it's so cheap and replicatable that pharmaceutical companies can't make a profit, so they didn't patent it. You have not backed up your claim, and Peter Joseph easily backed up a number of points to the contrary. He's much more well spoken than me.

Unlimited energy.
Violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
We have solar energy that will last until the sun dies. We have enough geothermal energy in one volcano alone to power the world for thousands of years. Might at well call in unlimited. Poor wording on my part, I admit.

Unlimited water (water cycle and the ocean),
Not unlimited clean water
If you've ever watched Man vs Wild, you'd now how simple and easy it is to filter salt water.

unlimited food (controlled reproduction)
So, start killing babies?
No. So, continue farming and increasing the population of plants and animals. (those animals eat some of the plants) (the plants absorb some of the abundant water) (animals fertilize the plants with their droppings) Sustainable.

more than enough unused land that contains housing supplies
Many western democracies guarantee housing to everyone. Homelessness is not caused by the existence of a monetary system.
We have the resources, but not the money. These democracies still have the concept of profit. Even with socialism, the government needs to get money somewhere.

...and sustainable resources. But because they are sustainable, there's no way to make profit.
I don't follow your logical jump from something being sustainable to something being unprofitable.
No one can hold a monopoly on the sun or the wind.

So the current system is designed to fail once they run out of oil and other unsustainable resources, they have to resort to things that can't make profit.
Right, there's a global conspiracy to hide free energy. Give me a device that can produce limitless energy and I'll pay you a billion dollars for it.
As I said, since you can't make money off of the sun or the wind, it's unprofitable, unlike oil.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:54:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:48:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:40:37 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:37:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:27:29 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 3:16:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Are you on crack?
You're indoctrinated. If all of the money in the world were to disappear tomorrow, we'd be at loss of nothing but our sanity. We'd still have resources and be able to distribute them without a concern for profit.

No we wouldn't. Who would decide who gets what? How would you stop corruption? This is a false communist utopia which cannot be implemented.

Not everybody needs the same resources. Who would decide what everybody gets? The governments that cannot effectively allocate sh!t?

We're not arguing who would govern it. We're arguing if it's the right thing to do.

Theory means nothing if it cannot be implemented.

It would scientifically governed. There is such thing as scientifically fair and unfair. It would be democratic. If we can sense bullcrap, we can just call it out. Machines make scientific decisions, humans make emotional decisions. Emotional decisions result in selfish outcomes, so the first priority is the scientific decision. The only obstacle is convincing everyone who looks at the world through monetary goggles to stop thinking they know everything about the idea, and ask questions.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:57:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Guys, stop acting like you know everything about the idea. Ask questions. Don't infer that you already know the answers.

One question at a time.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 5:55:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 5:47:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Just did a debate on this:

http://www.debate.org...

Everyone already decided the winner from the title of the debate, without knowing how the proposed system would work. Without even knowing how the current system works.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 5:58:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 5:47:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Just did a debate on this:

http://www.debate.org...

I'm also in the process of debate on this topic. I expect nothing more than 0 points. If any, they would be pity for my accused naivete. Anyone who says the current system is not fair is considered naive, because this is how the world works and we just have to deal with it. But who's to say this is the only way the world could work? In fact it does not work. It's dysfunctional for obvious reasons.
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 7:21:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 5:58:00 PM, AdamDeben wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:47:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Just did a debate on this:

http://www.debate.org...

I'm also in the process of debate on this topic. I expect nothing more than 0 points. If any, they would be pity for my accused naivete. Anyone who says the current system is not fair is considered naive, because this is how the world works and we just have to deal with it. But who's to say this is the only way the world could work? In fact it does not work. It's dysfunctional for obvious reasons.
http://www.debate.org...

Most people on DDO do not think the current state of affairs is an ideal system. However, that is not an argument in favor of a resource based economy. In order to prove that a resource based economy is better you have to demonstrate that the institutions and incentive structure are better then the current system. For the record, a monetary based economy encompasses a wide range of economic systems. All states, from the capitalist to socialist nations have a monetary based economy.

Did you read my debate? How do you think the social calculation problem and the incentive problem can be solved in a resource-based economy?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 7:33:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most people on DDO do not think the current state of affairs is an ideal system. However, that is not an argument in favor of a resource based economy. In order to prove that a resource based economy is better you have to demonstrate that the institutions and incentive structure are better then the current system. For the record, a monetary based economy encompasses a wide range of economic systems. All states, from the capitalist to socialist nations have a monetary based economy.

Did you read my debate? How do you think the social calculation problem and the incentive problem can be solved in a resource-based economy?

You're gonna have to learn from the presentation video I posted. Peter Joseph is a lot more well-spoken than I am, and I'd rather not post monoliths of text to answer each question in depth. You could also read my debate for some of my counterpoints. The guy you debated was so bad he forfeited. Why is my system better and how does it work? It's not such a simple question, considering Peter Josephs videos take 10 minutes of explanation per a sub-topic.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 7:43:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not going to get into the economics side of this (not that I can't, but I trust DK to make the same arguments I would), however, I would like to say that one should be willing to answer questions about one's ideology by oneself, rather than just point to a video. Point to the video by all means, but also outline what it says regarding the question.
AdamDeben
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 8:12:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 7:43:36 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
I'm not going to get into the economics side of this (not that I can't, but I trust DK to make the same arguments I would), however, I would like to say that one should be willing to answer questions about one's ideology by oneself, rather than just point to a video. Point to the video by all means, but also outline what it says regarding the question.

Then by all means, why are you on the economics forum?

I stated the reasons it's hard to explain, but prior to that, I vaguely answered questions, which were followed up by more questions, requiring complex answers, which instead of wall of text, I gave them a more comprehensive source.