It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feed 7 billion on 155 mi. sq.

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I get pretty sick of people saying we need to reduce the world population. To see plastic islands in the pacific or whatever and have your answer be population reduction...seems a bit off. Like if hunter gatherers were to just stay as they were and not develop farming...


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.


If people give their effort to helping feed a group of people, and that group in turn gives their effort to others, where is the lack of profit? We create the poor by our own flawed perception of what is valuable. Beauty we determine should live over ugliness, but where's the truth/objectivity in that. If only all poor people could look like super models, worth saving then huh.

Or why is it that the fruit of a person is the only thing that is valued, when before you get the fruit you have to work on growing the tree. Some poor person could come up with an amazing idea/invention, become a multimillionaire, and only at that point he becomes worthwhile to have around? Their past experience was a requirement to become successful, yet we only want to accept the half that is good. By that same idea, we'd leave children in the dust since at this moment, they aren't worth anything. No public schooling or anything. Yet who will be taking care of of these people who are, at the moment, rich when they will become poor with old age and ill health?


[edit on 12-7-2010 by ghaleon12]




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


Your math is wrong. It's 155 SQUARE miles.



I'm calling BS on this simply for the math errors in the thread.


I'm calling BS conclusion in your reply based on the inability to properly read and as a result to have the true math error yourself.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


So here are the calculations the other way. And indeed it does work out.



155^2 = 24,025 square miles

24,025 * 640 = 15,376,000 acres

15,376,000 / 3 = 5,125,333.3333

5,125,333.3333 * 1,000,000 = 5,125,333,333,333.333 pounds of food

5,125,333,333,333.333 / 2 = 2,562,666,666,666.667

2,562,666,666,666.667 / 365 = 7,021,004,566.210 humans fed at 2 lbs per day


My apologies and than you sirnex for pointing that out.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by ninthaxis]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Friend with a truck helped me for free. Now please tell me exactly how moving in a resource-based economy would work.


Ah... Free for you, but not free for him ergo ... NOT FREE. Come on, your a smart guy, but now your starting to worry me!


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.


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.


How exactly?


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.


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.


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!


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.


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.


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.


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. Your vision of economy just simply sucks.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


What's cool is the math for that describes farming just land itself. We can either reduce the amount of land or utilize the same amount of land to produce an insane amount of food by utilizing vertical farming instead! It's just pure insanity that we have whole starving nations in this technological day and age and it's all thanks to not utilizing a resource based economy. Resources themselves is what allows us to survive and continue on as a species, not slips of paper and shiny metal discs.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Great thread, EMT !!

With vertical farming and algae based biodegradable plastics, we can end a lot of the needless suffering and environmental problems we currently face.

As you point out, education is the key. There's a lot of work to be done. People must be the change they want to see, and they must realize the alternative possibilities out there.

Sadly, I don't think a good chunk of the people will change until they must. It seems we're going to have some troubled times ahead before people take responsibility and realize the value of local communities utilizing these technologies, void of government.

One step at a time .. we're creating the future we wish to be.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




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.


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.



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.


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?



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.


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?



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!


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.



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.


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).

So how exactly would this resource based economy work? How would it facilitate simple exchange of products and services between milions of people, each producing different resources/services and each wanting different products/services, without universal mean of exchange? You didnt said it, nor did I find answer to this simple question on the RBE internet sites, thats why I wrote that it would work only if ALL products/ services were manufactured/provided by autonomous self repairing robots without human intervention.



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.


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.



You're essentially advocating willful voluntary slavery in hopes that you receive a "decent pay" to purchase your resources.


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.



You advocate keeping the poor, poor. You advocate allowing the rich to amass a larger resource reserve than they truly need.


I advocate keeping those who doesnt want to contribute to the society poor, but not so that they would die of starvation (basic income). Thats inhumane.
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. To advocate something different would be stealing. Private property and individual economic freedom must be respected.
Noone should decide how much the other person "needs", if they earned what they have by legal work. To claim otherwise would be advocating slavery and dictatorship.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



That paper and metal discs represent the cost (work) needed to produce and transport the food.


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?


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.


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.


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?


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.


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?


From what I'm envisioning, I would prefer people to live in arcologies so we can free up land for other uses, like feeding a growing population. Remember, this is about proper resource management for a growing population, and land is a valuable resource.


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.


I really dislike having an economy and a freely given income regardless of work.


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)


A resource based economy isn't the same economic model we have now. It isn't a barter system.

So how exactly would this resource based economy work? How would it facilitate simple exchange of products and services between milions of people, each producing different resources/services and each wanting different products/services, without universal mean of exchange? You didnt said it, nor did I find answer to this simple question on the RBE internet sites, thats why I wrote that it would work only if ALL products/ services were manufactured/provided by autonomous self repairing robots without human intervention.

Ugh, please explain why you need to be compensated with paper slips and shiny metal discs. Even with tribal societies, they work and provide as a group, a community. It's only when they come into contact with other groups do they barter for resources they might not have locally or a lot of. With proper resource management, it would be just like that, only the resources would be divided by supply and demand so no need to barter would be needed.


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.


Why couldn't a global society working as a global community work? Is it simply because you put more value in slips of paper and shiny metal discs?


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.


A resource based economy (or at least the one I'm envisioning) does not operate under the same standards as the current economic model.

I advocate keeping those who doesnt want to contribute to the society poor, but not so that they would die of starvation (basic income). Thats inhumane.

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?


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, the rich can hoard resources so long as they have enough paper slips and shiny metal discs. That's not stealing?

To advocate something different would be stealing.

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.

You call that stealing? Shame on you.

Private property and individual economic freedom must be respected.

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!

Noone should decide how much the other person "needs", if they earned what they have by legal work. To claim otherwise would be advocating slavery and dictatorship.

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.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





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"?


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.




Who or how is "cost" determined? How much work do I need to do to earn the right to purchase food and water?


Only by free market. Anything other is stealing or coercion.




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.


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??




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.


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?




I really dislike having an economy and a freely given income regardless of 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.




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?


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.




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.


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?! 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!


Private property is the cornerstone of society. Government does own only public land, private land and resources are not owned by government.




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.


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..



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Yes, because I want to decide by myself what, where and when do I want those neccesities, and unnecesities.


Your necessities for survival are air, food, water, shelter, clothing is optional depending on climate. Anything else is a luxury, not a necessity.


Everyone other is incompetent.


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.


And without printing unbacked money and government manipulation of markets, cost wouldnt be inflated.


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.


Only by free market. Anything other is stealing or coercion.


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?


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??


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'.


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 is a luxury, simple as that, even public transportation is a luxury. It is not necessary for survival.


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?


A resource based economy is not a system of barter and exchange.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


Again, no one owns the planet or it's resources. Hoarding resources is no different than stealing.


Private property is the cornerstone of society. Government does own only public land, private land and resources are not owned by government.


Great, so private property taxation is simply illegal! How can the government tax your right to use your private property?


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.


No one would die of starvation and everyone would be on equal footing with a high standard of living under a resource based economy.


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 do not advocate the same system as a resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange. We're discussing two different models of how the production, distribution and acquisition of resources work.


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.


Yes, yes... I understand, you think it's a science-fiction communistic socialist system that still uses barter and exchange. God damn I can't say this enough, your the perfect model of a consumerist. You do the government and corporations proud!


[edit]
Watch this, particularly one hour in as that is where they start to discuss resource based economies.



My favorite quote from it is:

"There is no human nature, there is human behavior and human behavior will always change."

Basically, greed is not human nature, we're not born greedy. It's circumstance and societal behavior that makes us greedy. We can change that, we can be the change we want to see if we can just see past our greedy behaviors. Honestly, which is better, being greedy or propelling humanity to new heights? We can't even reach the moon anymore, and that's sad, just awfully sad.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by sirnex]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Your necessities for survival are air, food, water, shelter, clothing is optional depending on climate. Anything else is a luxury, not a necessity.


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..





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.


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. There is no link between how much an individual works for the society and how much and individual gets from the society.




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.


Resource-based economy is nothing, it is a compilation of pretty words without any meaning whatsoever.




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?


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.




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'.


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.




A car is a luxury, simple as that, even public transportation is a luxury. It is not necessary for survival.


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.




A resource based economy is not a system of barter and exchange.


Resource based economy is a collection of pretty words without real meaning.




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?


It is a nice idea, but it has nothing to do with resource based economy, because that one is just phantasmagoria.




Taxation ONLY works by 'printing' currency. Be it physical or electronic, without currency, no taxation of currency can exist.


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.





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.


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.




Again, no one owns the planet or it's resources. Hoarding resources is no different than stealing


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.




Great, so private property taxation is simply illegal! How can the government tax your right to use your private property?


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.




No one would die of starvation and everyone would be on equal footing with a high standard of living under a resource based economy.


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!!!

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Maslo]

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



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..


*sigh*


I've had more intelligent conversations with a brick.

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.

Again, picture that on a global scale. That is a resource based economy.


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.


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.


Resource-based economy is nothing, it is a compilation of pretty words without any meaning whatsoever.


Right, because making the available resources of the planet equally available to it's inhabitants to live a more prosperous life is a horrible meaningless idea.


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.


I don't view simply saying 'free market' is a valid enough explanation as to how much work I must perform to have the privilege of acquire human necessities. You need to go into further detail on how that system works and how it's devoid of coercion and theft.


Of course individuals can claim ownership. Give me your house and land, if you disagree.


Sure, they can claim but to hold onto that claim they have to resort to violent action.


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.


I'm not advocating violent action of theft at all. You seem to be confused.


Yeah, lets return to caves, everything other is not necessary for survival and is a luxury.


Are you daft? Please quote the explicit statement made that says we should return to caves. Your just puffing hot air.


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.


I couldn't even begin to describe the idiocy of that statement.


Resource based economy is a collection of pretty words without real meaning.


Right, because making the available resources of the planet equally available to it's inhabitants to live a more prosperous life is a horrible meaningless idea.


It is a nice idea, but it has nothing to do with resource based economy, because that one is just phantasmagoria.


That is the basis of a resource based economy. It's not a system of barter and exchange as you keep pretending it is in your piss poor weak arguments.


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.


Um, exactly why I mentioned electronically as well.


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.


You want more despite people dying because you want more. That's your basic argument. Christ.. I might as well call you an advocate of genocide.


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.


If scarcity was a reality, I would agree. Scarcity is not a reality, so I naturally disagree as the resources available are plentiful and can support a larger population than we currently have. Money only works with scarcity.


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.


Now your just being simply moronic. Corporations and nations hoard resources, it's far from a myth. Your either purposefully being a moron now or your simply a naive consumerist.


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.


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!


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.


Couldn't find it or were unable to understand the rather simple explanation?


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!!!


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!



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange.


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.



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.


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.



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.


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.



Um, exactly why I mentioned electronically as well.


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.



Corporations and nations hoard resources, it's far from a myth.


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.



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!


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.




Couldn't find it or were unable to understand the rather simple explanation?


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)



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!


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.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



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 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.


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.


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.


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.


Why would one need to steal or be greedy in a society filled with abundance? You make literally no sense in your argument.


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.


A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange.


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.


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?


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


Hoarding by corporate mines and such, by purposeful scarcity, and manipulative economic systems to ensure a profit on an abundant resource.


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.


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.


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.


Jesus H. Fing Christ. Seriously?

A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange.


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?


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.


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)


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.


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.


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.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Not sure if you would find this article of any interest ... considering...

It deals with volunteering and health, in other words, unpaid work.

Study


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


The result of the survey are pretty interesting. Perhaps doing something just for the sake of doing something without reward isn't so bad after all!



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




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.


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.



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.


Now tell me how exactly how do you want to accomplish that without any currency or medium of exchange.



Why would one need to steal or be greedy in a society filled with abundance? You make literally no sense in your argument.


Unlimited abundance? 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?



A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange.


Thats one of the reasons why it wouldnt work. You cannot have working system without product/services 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?


Because I am realistic, not idealistic?
What makes you think this system brought about those traits and in RBE they would simply disappear?



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.


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.



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.


Medium of exchange does not require constant inflation.



Hoarding by corporate mines and such, by purposeful scarcity, and manipulative economic systems to ensure a profit on an abundant resource.


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.



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.


"..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?



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.


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?



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.


Yet not one I have read proposes exact mechanism how would this resource allocation be accomplished in reality.



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.


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?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



You need a system that can facilitate exchange (at least barter).


Damn, we better educate tribal communities and inform them that members of their tribe are stealing!


If it cannot, it wont work in our universe.


We best inform every single species on this planet that they're all doing it wrong! Why don't those ants or other communal species understand that they can't just work for free?! They must be complete idiots!


Not everything is raw resources. How would you exchange complex products and services with others in RBE without money?


A resource based economy is not a system of barter or exchange. All products are the total of the resources it takes to create those products, they are derived from raw resources and as such, the resources required to create a product would be taken into account. Services are provided by people nor is there any logical reason to conclude that a monetary exchange needs to take place as people are capable of providing a service freely.


Raw Earth resources can with some imagination be catalogued centrally and rationed, but NOT products or services.


Products are derived from resources. Services are derived by people and thus would not need to be cataloged and regulated as services performed by people are not raw resources from the Earth.


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.


Well to start, I've noticed your still having trouble discerning need and desire. Necessities are provided for under a resource based economy. How desires are met would depend upon the people themselves, resources and the demand for those desires. Hmm.. Sort of like a free market huh? Only without the requirement of money!



Now tell me how exactly how do you want to accomplish that without any currency or medium of exchange.


Oh... With a resource based economy of course.


Unlimited abundance?


Whoa... That's a bit of leap don't you think? I never said unlimited resources, only that we have abundant resources for our current population and plenty more to support a larger population to care for necessities.


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?


If there is enough resources. I would personally hope that this new society built around a resource based economy would put certain limitations upon individuals for the sake of future generations. I personally find limitations upon excessive unnecessary greed a good idea when it come's to our progeny.


Because thats what will most people do if you tell them "take what you want, we have a society filled with abundance".


A resource based economy is not a system of greed. It's a system of proper resource management to ensure the survival and perpetuation of the human species indefinitely.


Dont you consider that greedy? Because I do.


A self admitting greedy person bitching about other greedy people? How ironic.


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?


Lack of resources.


Thats one of the reasons why it wouldnt work. You cannot have working system without product/services exchange.


Right... Millions of other species inhabiting this planet must all be wrong, especially every single socially communal species. The whole entire world is filled with idiotic species doing it wrong!


Because I am realistic, not idealistic?


Resources are realistic, money is an idealistic product of the imagination that only holds value if you hold belief in that value. You can have a trillion dollars spread amongst a hundred people on an island with no resources and that money will mean nothing to them, it's utterly useless.


What makes you think this system brought about those traits and in RBE they would simply disappear?


When you demand people pay for necessities, like shelter and food and they are unable to purchase those necessities, they will have to steal money or objects that can be exchanged for money to purchase those necessities as well as desires and services.

In a resource based economy, necessities and desired products are free and met within the range of what resources are available to ensure the entire population is cared for. When necessities are met and desired products are freely available, there can be no theft. You simply can not steal something that is free.


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.


Your logic is flawed as it assumes that people are inherently stupid and unable to grasp that depleting resources would be a bad idea. This is demonstratively wrong given that there is indeed a movement to move towards a resource based economy where we are forced to monitor and distribute resources in a sustainable fashion to ensure the future survival of the human species.


Medium of exchange does not require constant inflation.


Provide one working practical current model. I rest my case.


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.


Why would a corporation purposefully stand to lose profit on a going rate in the market? How many tiers down do prices need to drop for such a system to work efficiently and provide enough jobs that pay the going rate for similar or same work?


"..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?


Point taken, yet I suppose we should just let millions of people die everyday instead. Seems more ethical and right, right?


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?


Greed is a behavioral response to living in a monetary system where class differences exist bringing about wants and desires to either own more because they have the purchasing power or for those who don't to steal. In a resource based economy, resources go where resources are most needed to provide for necessities before desires are met. Allowing large populations to simply die is no different than murder.


Yet not one I have read proposes exact mechanism how would this resource allocation be accomplished in reality.


Many of the website's I've read discuss using existing technologies to monitor the Earth's resources and to distribute them. If you can think of a better way, I'm sure the RBE community would appreciate to hear it.


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.


I disagree as there is no logical reason to conclude that giving people the proper nutrition and resources to education would lead them to only consume more food and procreate rather than making a contributory impact in return.


Why would they not do this in RBE when they do it now? What stops them? Does RBE feature population control?


There is no population issue and there won't be for many years to come and as such, there is no need to control population as of right now. The desire to control population is the desire to wage wars and infringe upon human freedoms.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I think I figured out a decent solution to the problem of greed and over-consumption in a resource based economy. I had started a thread of it's own discussing RBE, arcologies and vertical farming being used together. I then found something about food forests and posted it there and then remembered this thread. Here's a link to that other thread and a small excerpt: link


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.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   


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.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



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.


I suppose it somewhat similar, only that there is no exchange or barter required for obtaining anything. Unless we consider time as the medium of exchange, but I suppose that would be stretching it a bit as you wouldn't be exchanging your time doing work for a specific product or service.

I don't know if it would work in full, but it seems like a decent setup. People could contribute for a little while and then move out of the arcology with their stuff and take up residence outside of it until they decide they want new thing's and move back into the arcology.

I just feel that continuing to use money isn't going to help us in any way at all. We have starving homeless people and we're cutting back on our space program. People are going without proper medical care. All sorts of issues arise with the use of money and when we drop money, those issues should go away. Or at least I hope they do!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join