It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Maslo
1. it is not profitable to feed the poor
2. all it would lead to is further procreation of those who "need to be fed" and cannot provide for themselves.
Population control of the poor is the only answer if we ever want to end starving and scarcity.
I'm calling BS on this simply for the math errors in the thread.
Friend with a truck helped me for free. Now please tell me exactly how moving in a resource-based economy would work.
Food is abundant, but its transport and distribution is not, and this is where most of its cost actually is. Who will distribute it for free? Resource itself is worthless, if not utilized properly, and I fail to see how resource-based economy would solve this.
Some socialism, if done well, can help the people. Of course the people would not work as much, but that is better than people living on a street and begging. There is a balance between socialist and capitalist policies we need to seek. No extremism ever led to anything good.
They are a means of exchange. It is irrelevant if they have real value or not, a percieved value is what is important in economy - you can exchange it for something with real value. But all of this does not matter, because instead of metal discs you could use things with real value, like food, and the economy would work the same. Commodity like commodity.
Nobody set the money system in place, it arised naturaly. Until all the work is done by self-repairing conscious robots, it will be with us.
We ship food around the world on a daily basis. I can go into my local grocers and buy produce from other countries that is not grown here. Let's be honest about transport and distribution. The cost in doing so solely relies upon the transfer of worthless pieces of paper and metal discs. The only true cost that exists is the work and time to transport.
By everyone working together as a global population rather than as greedy individuals working to receive slips of paper and metal discs that are of no true value.
Your under the assumption that you have to receive slips of paper and metal discs as compensation for your time and labor. A resource based economy would be only slightly different from the two economies you were advocating. Instead of receiving something so worthless, you receive resources that can be put to use immediately. Your basic income would be your housing, your food, your electricity, your water etc... You work and receive what resources you need to live.
But you advocate only a form of socialism in where your given a certain amount of money regardless of any work being done. That is truly extremist if you ask me. You can't just receive money sitting on your ass, I know I would do that under your system! The whole thing would just collapse because people are receiving a fictitious unit of value in the form of worthless paper slips and metal discs that they can freely use to exchange for resources. I don't know, to me that seems half ass backwards!
The economic system only exists due to this exchange of value. It's a piss poor system that can and has been abused. We experience economic recessions, foreclosures, inflation etc. Using something as a unit of value where no value exists is a problem. It can be manipulated and has been manipulated and is being manipulated. Moving to a strict resource based economy does away with that ability to manipulate, there would be no class separation and everyone would be on equal footing.
I find that to be erroneous thinking devoid of critical thought. It appears that your under the assumption that the only system that can exist is one where we *must* exchange money for goods.
You're essentially advocating willful voluntary slavery in hopes that you receive a "decent pay" to purchase your resources.
You advocate keeping the poor, poor. You advocate allowing the rich to amass a larger resource reserve than they truly need.
That paper and metal discs represent the cost (work) needed to produce and transport the food.
Lets say we have a resource based economy and want to grow and transport 1000 t of food. Instead of paying the workers needed with means of exchange, so they can get what they need for themselves, how exactly do we compensate for their work? With resources? One might need food, the other has plenty of food and might need a car or a computer.. You can have one universal mean of exchange (money), or barter. Is there any other option? I dont see one.
Money is a wonderful invention responsible for greatest economic boom in the history of mankind. Central banks and printing large amounts of unbacked debt based money is whats wrong with the system, not the concept of money itself.
Sorry, but thats just word salad. Lets say I want a car. How EXACTLY would I get one in resource based economy? Do I have to collect every resource needed to manufacture one?
The difference is in your freedom and ability to exchange things with others. Lets say I dont want electricity because I am off grid. In monetary economy just wont buy it and buy something other I want. What can I do in resource based economy? I can exchange it for the thing I want, but what if the other side does not want it too? Should I barter my excess amount of electricity till I finally find someone who has the thing I want instead of it?
Thats just basic income. And how would my work be paid? With resources too?
Basic income should be really basic - just so you wont die from starvation and have fulfilled your basic needs. If you want more, you have to work. You can even receive part of it in resources, thats not bad idea (there could be people who would otherwise spend all their basic income on alcohol).
But for exchanging your work with others, you need money.
That is because of reasons I stated above. Commodity backed debt free issued currency would solve that, because it essentialy works as a resource (real commodity with value). There is no universal value of commodity. Only the value created by its demand/supply ratio.
In fact, if commodity backed stable money wouldnt solve our problems, then resource economy would not too, because commodity backed money works exactly as commodity (resource)
I am saying the only system that can exist is one where we must exchange goods for goods. And guess whats the best (the only viable) way to accomplish that? By universal exchange commodity - money.
Receiving my payment in money so I can decide what I need myself is not slavery. Receiving my payment in resources, is slavery, because the other side might not know/have what I want to receive for my work.
I advocate that the rich can amass as much resources as they want and can amass, if they payed for them by contributing to the society.
So... You would rather receive slips of paper and shiny metal discs instead of necessities and have those necessities be purchased with those worthless and useless things by exchanging them for those necessities at an inflated "cost"?
Who or how is "cost" determined? How much work do I need to do to earn the right to purchase food and water?
A resource based economy is about supply and demand with the resources being equally distributed based upon need. Name on person that NEEDS a one hundred room mansion. Remember, NEEDS, not WANTS.
Community transportation. Some places are setting up stations where you simply take a bicycle to wherever you need to go and drop it off at a nearby station. You don't need your own car, you just need to get places.
I really dislike having an economy and a freely given income regardless of work.
Is there enough money (commodity) to hand out to everyone? Or do you propose we print more money out of thin air to make enough causing prices to rise higher?
No one owns the planet nor it's resources. It's a common heritage to all inhabitants, not just humanity. Every species on this planet has equal right to the land, water and air or any resource it makes use of. We as the most intelligent (debatable) should be managing the resources we use in a proper sustainable fashion to ensure future generations of all life on this planet has enough resources to survive.
Private property?! You seem to be under the false impression that people can actually OWN parts of the land and that they actually do! Governments own land, you pay them those paper slips and shiny metal discs for the right to use it. There is no such thing as private property and your simply insane if you think so!
Right, and telling people sorry... No food or shelter for you unless you earn yourself the proper amount of paper slips and shiny metal discs is not slavery or dictatorial at all. Damn your like the perfect consumerist slave.
Yes, because I want to decide by myself what, where and when do I want those neccesities, and unnecesities.
Everyone other is incompetent.
And without printing unbacked money and government manipulation of markets, cost wouldnt be inflated.
Only by free market. Anything other is stealing or coercion.
So if you believe someone does not need something he legally earned, you steal it. Brilliant. Again, who decides what I need and what I dont need??
If community transportation is so good, then people will use it by themselves, and not use cars. I hadnt had car for a long time, and used buses or trains instead, so I know what I am talking about. ONLY THE PEOPLE themselves are capable of deciding what they need or not. Who are you to say who needs what?
A car was only random example. Ok, if you say people in RBE would not be allowed to own (even electric?) cars even if they worked enough to afford one, then Ill give you another product. What if I want for example a computer? How would I get a computer in RBE? Would I have to collect all the resources to build one, or would I have to barter it for my work/resources from computer manufacturer? (because there is no universal exchange commodity). What if I dont have something the computer manufacturer wants?
How EXACTLY would this RBE work from the consumers point of view, who wants to exchange his work for other peoples work?
But you are advocating people being given food, shelter, and god knows what else for free. Thats the SAME thing, even worse, because people are less free to choose then.
I propose to use taxation not currency printing to fund social programs, but if the taxes are too high, you simply cannot afford to have extensive social programs. That is economic reality, and no amount of handwaving is gonna change that. Conservation of energy holds in economy, too, and you never get anything of value for free.
You own what you produce by your work or what you get from others as a compensation for your work. Anything other would be stealing.
Private property is the cornerstone of society. Government does own only public land, private land and resources are not owned by government.
No, it is not slavery or dictatorial. It is a natural way of how things work. And noone would die of starvation, in monetary economy I propose - thats what social programs (basic income) is for - safety net against poverty. But if you want more, you have to work.
You criticised me for my proposal of giving poor people basic income, but you advocate the same thing here. So how do you want those people to recieve basic necesities if not from resources produced by the society? They will just materialize out of thin air for them? Who will create and distribute them?
I havent heard any concrete example of how this resource based economy would work or ultimately differ from our current one. Except word salad and fantastic visions about arcologies, global villages and god knows what. I believe it would never work, or possibly make things much worse. It also reminds me of communism, which used very similar empty arguments about collective property in its propaganda during their regime here. All in all, it is very naive and superficial idea, and I am surprised that such a seemingly rational person would fall for such fairy tale. Heck, I cant even criticize it properly, there is not enough substance or concrete ideas.
Your necessities for survival are air, food, water, shelter, clothing is optional depending on climate. Anything else is a luxury, not a necessity.
In what way? Simply because you want to deem a one hundred room mansion as a necessity? Perhaps you aren't sure of what a necessity is compared to just something you greedily want.
A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange. Cost would not be inflated as resources would not cost anything. Your still thinking in terms of monetary exchange, which is understandable as you've admitted to being greedy.
Please don't evade the question. How is cost determined by a system of value that only exist so long as we believe that fictitious value is worth something? Who or how is it determined how much work I MUST do in order to receive the privilege of acquiring basic human NECESSITIES?
Legally earned it? On what grounds? You honestly think individuals own pieces of land or can claim ownership? On what grounds can they do so? Oh.. By violence, right? Isn't that how this great nation came to be? By STEALING the land from a preexisting population through violent action and deceitful 'economics'.
A car is a luxury, simple as that, even public transportation is a luxury. It is not necessary for survival.
A resource based economy is not a system of barter and exchange.
A resource based economy is not a system of barter and exchange. We work together to provide a more sustainable and higher standard of living for the present and future. Is that really such a bad idea?
Taxation ONLY works by 'printing' currency. Be it physical or electronic, without currency, no taxation of currency can exist.
Your right, in order to obtain resources you need to work to acquire them, but there is no logical reason that demands a monetary compensation of exchange over free use of resources. You can still get your computer if you want it. You can still get your electric car if you want it. I would personally prefer free use car stations instead to cut down on resource use.
Again, no one owns the planet or it's resources. Hoarding resources is no different than stealing
Great, so private property taxation is simply illegal! How can the government tax your right to use your private property?
No one would die of starvation and everyone would be on equal footing with a high standard of living under a resource based economy.
All these things except air are produced by human work, and you need to pay those humans. What will you give them in RBE for their work? And dont tell me you will pay them with resources..
I will not be satisfied just with food, water and shelter. I will work just for hour a day for those things, and then stop, unless I get something more. 90 % of people will do the same. Your resource-based dream will collapse immediately.
Resource-based economy is nothing, it is a compilation of pretty words without any meaning whatsoever.
I am not evading the question. The cost is determined by free market. It is the only way to do it without stealing or coercion.
Of course individuals can claim ownership. Give me your house and land, if you disagree.
Straw man. I never said that the way the US got the land from natives was legally earned. It was often a violation of property rights, the same thing you seem to advocate here.
Yeah, lets return to caves, everything other is not necessary for survival and is a luxury.
You are not competent to determine what is a luxury and what is not, and I am not comeptent, too. People themselves are the only authority on this.
Resource based economy is a collection of pretty words without real meaning.
It is a nice idea, but it has nothing to do with resource based economy, because that one is just phantasmagoria.
Not at all, taxation works by transferring wealth from those who earned it by hard work to those who dont do almost anything worthwile. There is no need for any printing to be involved.
Taxation, except to fund really important (and profitable in the end!) things like police and some education, is detrimenal to society, and the only reason I advocate it is because of my selfish need to have a safety net if something would happen to me, and because it is a bad feeling to know that there are people who dont have basic neccesities. At least I admit it.
There is such a logical reason to have money - to help with exchange of work and goods. Money arises naturally, even people in prison trade using cigarettes. They are not stupid, it is the most efficient way.
There is almost no hoarding of resources, that is a myth. Resources are more or less divided according to the contribution to society, and thats how it should be. Where they are not, it is often illegal behaviour or government to blame. Prove me wrong.
Yes, private property taxation, and all taxation while we are at it, is moraly wrong and should be illegal. But I believe some taxation is right thing to do from an utilitarian standpoint, namely to fund the police and some education. But we are clearly far past this point, with taxes often beyond 40 %. Whatever system we have now, it is NOT capitalism with a free market.
Pure fantasy. You did not even explain how RBE would exactly work, and I did not find it anywhere on the net, nor in zeitgeist.
Greed is not a big problem in todays world, except greedy government, which income far outweights any corporation or individual. Without the government to abuse the market, only people who do something for the society/others would be wealthy!!!
A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange.
Think of tribal societies, but imagine it on a global scale. Within the confines of a tribe, the resources that tribe gathers is freely used amongst the tribe's inhabitants. The only time any exchanges are made is when dealing with those outside the tribe for resources the tribe can't obtain or has insufficient quantity of that the other tribes have surplus of. If those tribes made the resources available between each other just as freely as they do within the confines of their respective tribes, there would be no external exchange or barter between tribes.
So your a greedy SOB who could care less about others or making the world a more prosperous place to live for the entire human population and you relish in the fact that people die of starvation because you want more. Your a pompous uncaring ass. I don't mean to insult, that's just a blatantly true observation of your character based upon your responses.
Um, exactly why I mentioned electronically as well.
Corporations and nations hoard resources, it's far from a myth.
Why tax at all? Make all services a free market enterprise, including police and education. That way only the people who can afford it would be able to get an education and be protected from crime. It'll be great, we can make tons of money that way!
Couldn't find it or were unable to understand the rather simple explanation?
Greed certainly is the problem! We have abundant resources, so if greed isn't the problem then please explain why thousands of people die daily of starvation!
In the real world, where bilions of people are each producing different products/services and each wants different products/services, you NEED a system which can facilitate exchange. No resource/product/service would ever be produced or used centrally. If RBE cannot facilitate exchange, it wouldnt work.
You seem to ignore the most striking difference between small tribe and global society - size. In a tribe, not only everyone is directly dependent on the other members of the tribe, but everyone knows everyone.
So if someone started to steal resources, be greedy, lazy, eat and use more resources than they contribute to the tribe, they would be quickly "corrected" by their tribemates, or expelled.
If global society acted as a tribe, this would lead to anarchy and the greedy and lazy ones would quickly use far more resources than they would produce, also because there is no system how to compare value of their work with resources they spend - no money, no free trade to create commodity prizes.
Exactly what I am trying to show you - RBE would maybe work with ideal people or with autonomous self repairing robots. But lets be realistic here - some people are always greedy, selfish, care only for themselves, not humanity as a whole. How wolud RBE deal with this kind of people? There is no link between how much an individual works for the society and how much and individual gets from the society, there is no universal unit for comparing values of different products/works.
What would prevent the greedy and the lazy to destroy / horribly abuse this RBE utopia? And the other side of the coin - what would motivate people to work harder and provide more and more values for the society, if no matter how hard they tried, everyone would have cca equal wealth? (the common wealth/resources). All individuals (and ultimately, society) would fall to the lowest common denominator. Exactly what happened in socialim, where all means of production were common and there was no link between your wealth and your work - everyone "worked" somewhere, but noone worked. And in average, socialistic society and standard of living started to horribly fall behind the capitalistic one.
Taxation does not require increasing of the money supply, does not matter if the money is electronic or paper. It only transfers money from taxed people to the state. No inflation at all, there is no need for any printing, or electronically inflating the currency, the global amount of money stays the same.
If we have enough money in the circulation and money is not issued as debt as of now, we wont need to print more, ever. Only change old notes for new.
Then show me where is the big mountain of unused hoarded resources then? Corporations and nations do not hoard resources just to have them, they actually use them for producing their products (YOU use them!). If you think we use a lot, be the first to lower your quality of life and save resources.
Altrough we should try to minimize the power of government, it has its foundation and tasks which are needed and no private entity is able to do them, because they not profitable, risky, or profitable and good for the society only in the long run. No extreme is ever good, be it communism (everything is common as you propose) of pure anarchic capitalism based only of private property.
How would RBE facilitate mutual exchange of products/services between bilions of people? No resource, product or service would ever be produced or spend (needed) centrally.
What is the link between how much an individual works for the society and how much and individual gets from the society? How would RBE prevent abuse of the system by greedy, selfish and lazy, or simply criminal individuals, which would always exist in every society?
How would RBE EXACTLY work from consumers POV? (lazy consumer, greedy consumer, workoholic consumer who just needs lots of wealth motivation to do wonders of work for the society.. not just ideal humanity-aware positivistic consumer)
Because if we fed them, it would be bad for all - western states would have less resources, people we fed for free would not increase their standard of living, only procreate more and again demand more and more food for them and their 10 children, and society and humanity as a whole would go down. This is true no matter what economic system is in place. I would feed them only in exchange for population control until they can provide for themselves and for their children without subsidizes from western states. Maybe it sounds a bit harsh, but prove it wrong! Thats how majority of humanitarian aid works - in the long run, it only worsens the problem.
The main objectives of the study were to assess current perceptions of Americans’ own physical and emotional health, determine attitudes and beliefs about volunteering, determine the effect of volunteering on the volunteer, measure incidence and motivation of volunteerism in the U.S., gauge popularity and impact of workplace volunteer opportunities, and highlight the differences between seniors who volunteer and those who do not in terms of health and lifestyle
You do not *need* a system of barter or exchange under a resource based economy. RBE does away with such necessity in order to make resources more sustainable, manageable and available to the entire Earth's population.
The global community doesn't *need* to know everyone on the planet. We are directly dependent upon the actions and behaviors of every one on this planet. Only through proper management of our planet's resources and land can we ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for the continuation of our species.
Why would one need to steal or be greedy in a society filled with abundance? You make literally no sense in your argument.
A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange.
Let's be even more realistic, your discussing behaviors that exist within a failing economic system that brings about those traits. Why would those traits continue to exist in a resource based economy where resources are made abundant and available to the entire Earth's population?
You assume people only do thing's to receive money and that without receiving money they wouldn't do anything at all. The lack of logic and critical thought in that assumption is mind boggling.
Taxation requires a medium of exchange, whether you want to call it money or currency or pebbles or binary digits. Without that medium, there is nothing to tax.
Hoarding by corporate mines and such, by purposeful scarcity, and manipulative economic systems to ensure a profit on an abundant resource.
Why have a true government at all? Why not allow various towns, states, nations, whole countries pop up around the globe and we can have the privilege to live there if we pay for the society we want to live in? Let's make everything a free market since it's working so wonderful with hundreds of thousands dying daily for simply not having money.
A resource based economy is a system of resource management based upon supply and demand. Resources go to where resources are most needed to ensure everyone is fully taken care of. It's not a system of greed where you simply say gimme, gimme, gimme, I want, I want, I want as it is with a monetary economy.
It's a resource based economy. I know damn well that the websites on resource based economies explain fully well that resources go to where resources are most needed to ensure everyone is fully taken care of.
Under current economic and societal models, your right. Under a resource based economy, your wrong. If more food is needed, you produce more food. If more houses are needed, you produce more houses, if more clothes are needed you produce more clothes. A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange. It's about making the abundant resources available to the entire population of the planet to ensure no one goes without anything.
You need a system that can facilitate exchange (at least barter).
If it cannot, it wont work in our universe.
Not everything is raw resources. How would you exchange complex products and services with others in RBE without money?
Raw Earth resources can with some imagination be catalogued centrally and rationed, but NOT products or services.
They will always be produced and spend (needed) by bilions of different people, each producing and each wanting different product. How would you satisfy their need without exchange system? I want to hear concrete exact procedure, not meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
Now tell me how exactly how do you want to accomplish that without any currency or medium of exchange.
So in RBE I can have my 100 rooms mansion along with 10 cars, constant parties and 10 km2 pool, working 2 hours a day?
Because thats what will most people do if you tell them "take what you want, we have a society filled with abundance".
Dont you consider that greedy? Because I do.
Most people would simply take more and more, unless something stops them and forces them to give (work) instead - in capitalism, that thing is lack of money. What would it be in RBE?
Thats one of the reasons why it wouldnt work. You cannot have working system without product/services exchange.
Because I am realistic, not idealistic?
What makes you think this system brought about those traits and in RBE they would simply disappear?
No, they would not do anything at all. Thats impossible. They would party all day till their resources run dry, or in the best case we would have lots of musicians, astronomers and theoretical physicists. Of course, some of them would still do something useful just for their good feel, but would it be enough? Enough productivity for sustaining the standard of living of the whole civilization? I highly doubt it.
Medium of exchange does not require constant inflation.
Last time I checked the one paying the farmers for not growing more food was the government, not some greedy capitalist.
How can a resource be abundant and purposefully scarce at the same time in free capitalism? If some corporation started to purposely increase prizes of the resource it is producing, another concurrent "greedy" capitalist would quickly jump on the opportunity and satisfy the market with lower prices - assuming the resource is really that abundant as you claim.
"..various towns, states, nations, whole countries pop up around the globe and we can have the privilege to live there if we pay for the society we want to live in.."
Wait, does it work any different today?
gimme gimme gimme I want I want is the nature of most people. So how would you tell who has the legitimate right to resource in RBE, and who is just greedy?
Yet not one I have read proposes exact mechanism how would this resource allocation be accomplished in reality.
My point still stands - western states would have less resources, people we fed for free would not increase their standard of living, only procreate more and more and again demand more and more food and resources for them and their 10 children, and society and humanity as a whole would go down.
Why would they not do this in RBE when they do it now? What stops them? Does RBE feature population control?
The arcologies can be for people who want to work and maintain such thing's to keep them from deteriorating and crumbling away. So we are still left with two classes of people, those who contribute to the continuation and development of humanity and those who don't. Those who don't won't get to enjoy the benefits of living inside an arcology. They still get taken care of necessity wise so they're never homeless or hungry, but if they want to enjoy the benefits of society, then they must work and participate in society rather than sitting on their asses greedily consuming resources without contributing back to society.
I think that's a pretty decent plan as it forces people to work if they want more than just the basic necessities.
So what do you think? If you work towards contributing to society then you get to enjoy the benefits of societies works. If you don't, then you still get your basic necessities provided for free, but you don't get to enjoy all of the benefits of societies work. Pretty good incentive to participate in society in my opinion.
Well, I can only agree with this. In fact, this is the idea behind various basic income schemes I posted about earlier. Maybe our means are not the same, but the end result sounds very similar in principle.