Resource-Based Economy

And their incentive would be to have a true purpose, like keeping the world together. Which is in fact a powerful incentive.

Not at all. Agent beneficiary breach.

Also, the world "stays together" whether you do it or not.

You gave the military as an example. I plan to join the military. Do you know how much money it costs them to incentivize personnel?

At 3/18/2012 3:37:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

And their incentive would be to have a true purpose, like keeping the world together. Which is in fact a powerful incentive.

Not at all. Agent beneficiary breach.

Also, the world "stays together" whether you do it or not.

You gave the military as an example. I plan to join the military. Do you know how much money it costs them to incentivize personnel?

I'm planning on joining the military as well.

R_R and I aren't exactly the kind of patriotic heroes that are planning to join the military for the love of country.

Nope, we're in it because we want a good paying job with great job experience. At least, that's what I'm in it for. I could not care less about what we're fighting for.

I do care somewhat what we're fighting for-- civilian sector probably pays potentially more. But that's because I want to personally enjoy a freer world-- i.e., one less under the influence of worse governments than ours-- when I'm done with the military. And I certainly wouldn't do it if the pay weren't at least significantly comparable and above the par of those civilian jobs that are much easier. The marginal benefit of me joining to my future liberty is worth some salary, but not THAT MUCH salary. There are nonmonetary incentives-- but they only go so far.

I was once in favor of a resource-based economy, but based on the current way society thinks and acts, we're not ready for a resource-based economy. The constant struggle to obtain monetary gain has created a ubiquitous mindset that cant handle this new type of economy. Perhaps if we experience another awakening, then it just might work.

At 3/18/2012 1:55:59 PM, AdamDeben wrote:

Your video most certainly denied scarcity. How can you let videos substitute for your arguments if you won't stand by the video's claims?

It didn't deny scarcity. It conceded sustainable abundance based on the system. There would still be a lack of infinity, and therefore greed will not be rewarded.

It claimed that money was necessitated by scarcity, and that money wouldn't be needed under a resource-based economy; therefore, it claimed that there would be no more scarcity.

By only letting them to get as much resources as everybody else. If you have like 10 kids, you're going to be taking away from everybody else if your claim was true. But they wouldn't be rewarded extra resources just because they made a poor decision.

What if one couple decides that they want no kids, and another couple wants five kids? The one couple needs fewer resources, but they'll receive just as much. Perhaps they could trade some needed resources for luxury resources, but wait... that would introduce bartering and, almost inevitably, money, into our resource-based economy.

Demographic analysis, which already exists today.

What would you do with this analysis? An analysis is an observation, not an action.

it doesn't matter what it's for, it just matters whether or not it's fair and sustainable to give it, and how it's given.

We both want it for our own entertainment; neither of us need it. Where does fairness come in? Or how it's given?

Then your causes are equal and they'll both go into the 'pencil budget' based on analysis of needs and wants. Plus who's to say you can't use the same pencil you use for productive things on Sudoku? That one question makes your argument irrelevant.

The man doesn't need a pencil for productive things; he's a mechanic. However, he wants a pencil for Sudoku. How can a computer quantify this want of a pencil? Is it an integer value from 1 to 100?

Artificial Intelligence (a future technology, not one that can be fully applied in 2012) or even Virtual Intelligence (like Siri) could be able to recognize different situations. And the monetary system can't tell who deserves it more.

What would make Sudoku different from a crossword puzzle? That would require a cultural bias in the system.

Both are games. The system doesn't have a favorite game or favorite color. It's not a person.

Then how would it decide? Does the pencil go unused? What if one man truly does want the pencil more than the other man? How would the computer know this? The price system would auction off the pencil so that the man who wanted the pencil more would get the pencil by offering more money for it. In this way, the price system can functionally measure desire. Can your computer do the same, or similar?

The monetary system would, through supply and demand, ensure that each man can have a pencil if he is willing to pay the cost of a pencil.

That's one good thing about money that can be replicated with distribution. It's not unfeasible to produce an abundance of pencils for everybody.

That's a whole lot of pencils, and we have limited resources. Why should we make any more or less pencils than we want?

But like I said, it only matters whether or not it's economically feasible to do.

That's what the price system does; it just doesn't need a giant computer for it.

Economically as is resourcefully, based on an analysis of what's available, how it's consumed, what demographics consume it, production rates, etc. Nature isn't governed by people's opinions, or debates in congress. It's governed by the laws of nature. This system would only recognize these laws and use them to its advantage.

People already individually acknowledge whatever laws of nature apply, and act on that information, and purchase the goods and services that they themselves want. The price system ensures not only that they get what they want, but also that they put work into the system to receive goods from it. What incentive does a man have to work if he can just spend his days solving Sudoku puzzles?

I proved how it would be feasible.:

Unsubstantiated assertion =/= feasible

It has factors that are different, which I explained I don't know how many times. And those are the very factors that resulted in the failure of Communism.:

Sounds like the same thing they did about socialism... "It's like communism, without all the problems!"

trillions? The planet only has 7 billion. 1 billion of which are in poverty.:

You do realize that people die, yes? I cleary stated "hundreds of years," thus referring to an aggregate of living and once-living people.

Although tourism makes money, it wouldn't necessarily have to in this system. I'm using theoreticals because the system does not exist. I will not pretend it does. It's positive for their economy right now, but it wouldn't be necessary.:

Do you recommend a slow introduction in lieu of that?

It's not the trade of resources. If you hold the door open for someone, do you expect them to hold it open for you? Will you punish them if they're incapable of holding it open because they have no arms? Provide for everyone and everyone else who can provide for everyone can provide for everyone including you. The Golden Rule.:

Oh my God... What a dreamer. So let me guess, you share all your possessions with the poor, right? Once again, there's a FINITE amount of ALL resources, including money. You can't feed every starving kid in Indonesia, regardless of how well-meaning your intentions might be. And you can't grow enough crops in the Bahamas to sustain an entire nation, therefore trade is necessary. Until you can understand that basic and fundamental point, it's pointless to try and continue.

I'm done arguing on this forum:

Take care.

At 3/18/2012 2:07:32 PM, AdamDeben wrote:

Capitalism can't be hurt; it's an abstraction. The abundance of air doesn't hurt capitalism; it just means that economic laws don't apply to air.

Correct; the concept of money is an illusion. I mean you can't make profit off of wind, tides, and the sun; like you can with oil. It hurts the system. I'm surprised that someone as intelligent as you think you are would even think that argument is relevant.

Money is not an illusion; it's just only useful for scarce goods and services. When energy is no longer scarce, people will no longer spend money or undue time on energy. I can stand in the sun all I want, but I won't get energy from it unless I construct and maintian solar panels, and people can make profits off of solar panels. Solar cookers directly use solar energy to do work, so we can say that energy for solar cookers is not scarce; thus, people don't spend money to power their solar cookers. Solar panels currently aren't powerful enough to power cars on solar energy alone, and until they are, people will spend money to power their cars.

If I build a machine that generates energy from the tides, and not everyone has such a machine, then I will indeed make a profit off of the tides.

You can't put lava in a car or even distribute it among cities. You distribute the energy, and you can do so without a concern for profit.

Does that mean that it costs nothing to set up a system to extract energy from a volcano? If so, then why is nobody extracting the energy now? If not, then the energy could still be sold at a price, and thus at a profit.

It costs resources, and the resources needed to harness the energy would be calculated into the system. Monetary economics has no regard for this; just regard for profit. It's not necessary to sell the energy because it's already there. It would be deceiving to try to make profit off of the sun.

If people currently aren't extracting the energy because it takes too many resources, then how would the energy suddenly be worth the resources in an RBE?

And please don't say that it's because they wouldn't make a profit, because if it takes resources to get the energy, then the energy isn't scarce, and can thus be sold.

It's also easier to tap than oil.

Then it would already be tapped.

but it can't make profit, because others can easily access it for cheaper or for free. Eliminating monopoly, which corporations do not want.

If others could access it cheaper, then they would access it cheaper, too. If they could access it for free, then they'd already access it for free, then sell it to those who can't. If you say that you already can access it for free, then why aren't you?

We need solar or some other form of energy for cars. Like I said; and no one took seriously; you can't sell the sun. No one can hold a monopoly on the sun or the wind or tides. But you can with oil.

Harnessing solar energy, or other renewable sources, requires the construction of machinery. Companies are currently profiting off of solar cells, and some buildings are run entirely on their own solar energy, even in capitalism. Those of us who don't live in such sun-friendly areas buy our energy.

There are more alternative energies. Oil is not sustainable. It takes millions of years to form from dead plants and we're consuming it a lot faster than that. Separate companies make the generators for the oil. Another company makes the oil. Another sells the oil. The last guy is unemployed.

Then wouldn't the unemployed guy go get the volcano energy for free?

Remember, capitalism doesn't require a monopoly, just a supply and demand, and that's what's occuring already.

The world never requires monopoly, but it happens anyway. Small businesses die from this, for lack of a better word.

Does the free market currently have any monopolies?

The system would track supply and demand Why don't you understand that, as I've told you a number of times how things would be tracked.

A computer can graph supply and demand, but it can't react to it. Prices contain both knowledge and incentive, but computers can only understand knowledge. There's also the fact that supply and demand inherently require a measure of want, which is impossible without some sort of price system.

Good! We need a few more looney Zeitgeisters! It's gotten too main stream here.

Question for skeptics: Lets put the BoP on the other side. Why wouldn't we want to automate the means of production and distribute the profits to everyone? Isn't that pretty good sense?

At 3/19/2012 1:06:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Good! We need a few more looney Zeitgeisters! It's gotten too main stream here.

Question for skeptics: Lets put the BoP on the other side. Why wouldn't we want to automate the means of production and distribute the profits to everyone? Isn't that pretty good sense?

I'll answer each question:

1) Why wouldn't we want to automate the means of production?

The process of automation requires quite a bit of labor and resources. One needs quite a bit of engineer and computers scientists to program the automation, the materials needed for automation, and not all the designs for automation of every single process has been made yet. In order to do that resources would have to be transferred from one sector in order for automation to occur. And of course, even then it will take for the automation process to occur.

More processes will be automated as society advances, but not all automation is economically viable at the present state.

2) Why shouldn't profits be distributed to everyone.

Profits are the reward that investors get for promising for investing their resources and saving instead of consuming. Money has time value.There are also risks involved in investing. Therefore profits should be given to those who have risked their resources and savings.

The question raised by AdamDeben is interesting. We human beings face many problems today. Some of them are global warming, shortage of natural resources like oil, steel and coal, shortage of water, and the environment destruction. They are thretening our survival and modern civilization. In my opinion the main cause lies in the Monetary Economy. Capitalists and business managers of the developed countries have been promoting the mass-production and mass-consumption economic system to gain as much profit as possible since the end of World War Second. In other words, they have been seeking for higher profit and market share to survive in a fierce competition on a global scale. Moreover, they are exerting an enormous influence on economic and social activities. Some of them are engaged in production of nuclear weapons. They are accumulating and monopolizing their wealth. Therefore, the economic disparity between the rich and the poor has emerged and stayed for a long time. If this situation would continue for many years to come, animosity among the general public toward them would trigger social unrest and would destroy the basic structure of the civilized society. In the Monetary Economy people place higher value on struggling for getting too much money than placing on the protection of the environment, value of the community and the importance of human relationship. We depend too much on the involvement of the local and the central government in the welfare programms and the development of alternative energies. However, unfortunately we can no longer depend on the public institutions to dealing with those problems. The reason is that those of the developed countries lack in financial resources to meet the demand of the general public. People must solve their problems by themselves. Therfore, new economic system or a concept which are friendly not only for the environment but for human beings must be created. I believe basic idea and concept of Resorce-Based economy must be introduced into the capitalist economic system. There are two cases which are partly exemplified the basic philosophy of Resource-Based Economy. First case is found in Hong Kong. ``Hong Kong is a special case, where the capitalist way of life is so central that it is enshrined in the constitution(Basic Law). Yet Hong Kong-style capitalism is not founded simply on the pursuit of material gain. It is underpinned by a Confucian ethic that prioritizes caring for others over self-interest, which helps explain why Hong Kong has the highest rate of charitable giving in East Asia.``(Bell and De-Shalit, Urban pride key to our modern sense of self, The Japan Times, Feb.22, 2012) Second case is founed in the solution of the climate change. For example, ``Cities like Hangzhou, Portland and Vancouver take pride in their green ethos, and go far beyond national requirments in terms of environmental protection.``( Urban pride key to our modern sense of self, The Japan Times, Feb.22,2012) In my opinion it is necessary to explore further how to promote Resource-Based Economy in the highly developed countries. I hope someone will post comment on my opinion.