[Deluge]

I was reading this blog post from Delusion Damage's soon to be permanently deleted blog: http://delusiondamage.com/hidden-truths/...d-economy/

Towards the end he begins to espouse his beliefs that humankind would be better off if we adopted a resource based economy instead of a market based one.

This idea is advocated by Jacques Fresco, and his group The Venus Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project

For those too lazy to read the post, I've quoted the later half of it below for you all, but the first half is golden in itself.

Quote:

Decades ago, a man named Jacque Fresco started talking about something he called a “resource-based economy”.

Here’s the main idea of a resource-based economy: instead of the Earth’s natural resources being divided into pieces privately owned by competing corporations according to whose great-grandfather managed to chase everyone else away from a particular resource with his shotgun, which is how it is now, we should view them as the common heritage of all people and use them in a way that would provide what we need and want without destroying each other and the planet in the process.

We could get rid of money and debt, and basically just get everything for free or for a small fraction of the work we do today. Many people are so used to things “having to be” the way they are that they have trouble believing this.

Is it possible to provide relaxed, abundant, and even luxurious lifestyles for everyone on Earth without consuming more resources than the Earth can produce? The equations say yes.

Hard to believe? If there’s so much wealth on our planet, why are nearly a billion people starving? It’s not that there isn’t food – it’s only that those people don’t have money to buy food. If we could all live in abundance, why do most of us have to work every day? It’s not because that much work is necessary – it’s just because most of our effort is wasted.

What kind of waste could be eliminated in a resource-based economy?

Planned obsolescence, that’s a big one. Planned obsolescence is when companies design consumer products to break down after the warranty expires so you’ll have to buy a new one. Industrial products are made to last as long as possible, because companies use them and stuff breaking down is bad for profits. If everything produced was “industrial strength”, huge amounts of wasted resources and energy could be saved.

Today, everyone needs to own one of everything because you can’t just go and use other people’s property when you happen to need a specific item. In a resource-based economy, specialty items like video cameras or downhill skis could be borrowed from library-like facilities for free and returned when you’re done with them. Just think about how many items you own that you use less than once a week. Almost all of those would not have had to be produced in a resource-based economy.

Crime is rampant because people need or want stuff and can’t buy it. With all material goods being accessible for free, crime would go way, way down and much of today’s law enforcement work would become unnecessary.

Many items are produced with faulty designs simply because the better design is patented by someone else. In a resource-based economy, everything could be produced in the best way that anyone anywhere has ever invented.

Today, countless variations of the same product are produced to compete with each other in the marketplace. Instead, just a couple of the best designs could be produced in bigger lots, which would reduce production costs (where by “costs”, I mean resources, not money).

Cities could be planned centrally, with useful (and free) public transportation systems, so no one would need to own a gas-burning car. High-tech private transportation vehicles (think “sci-fi movie cars”) could be borrowed from the library if you needed to go outside the subway network’s reach.

Almost everything could be automated. Of the various jobs we work today, machines could do 75% with just the technology that’s already been developed, and that number is rising every day. Construction, manufacturing, trains, coffee shops, and countless other things could function without a single human employee. Did you catch yourself thinking “then who would make sure you don’t take coffee without paying for it?” That’s the next thing…

All the money-guarding, money-handling and money-acquisition jobs would simply disappear. Cashiers, bankers, stock traders, insurance brokers, safe and bank vault manufacturers, armored transport personnel, sales personnel, advertisers, marketers, people who put up advertising at bus stops, etc… say bye-bye to your daily grind!

There would be no more need for countries, politics, border controls or the unbelievable amount of military spending that today literally blows up huge amounts of our work and resources.
It all sounds pretty good, right? All the stuff you need, all the stuff you could even want, produced by computerized robotic factories, free to consume or use! To many people it just sounds way too good to be true, but it’s been researched and the math has been done and the fact is that this is all completely doable, just with what we already have today.

Now, I've only just discovered all this myself and I don't know what to make of the idea of a Resource based economy. Thoughts? Opinions? Analysis? Has anybody here already heard of it?

[ElJefe]

This guy is basically describing Karl Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat. All national resources are owned by the State, the State being "owned" by the people. A beautiful thought. Utopia on earth? Surely if I can IMAGINE it, it must be possible, right?

Two reasons, one reality-based, the other purely theoretical that this idea is VERY dangerous:

1. In reality, it never works like that because individuals, especially gangsters, always have an incentive to weasel their way to the top of the food chain. When you centralize power, power-hungry types will steer for that control and that's why tyrants will always, sooner or later, take control of any large State apparatus. The incentive is simply too great.

2. Theoretically, here's the other problem me and other Economists would have with this publicly owned "resource" economy.

Preferences are different across individuals. Because of different preferences, you are willing to pay a different price for the same good that I am. The free market provides the most efficient way of clearing, because we will each, as individuals, attempt to minimize our "deadweight" loss or opportunity cost. In this scenario, there is no opportunity for that. Everyone is assumed to have the same preferences, and that is EXACTLY how to create the most possible misery, rather than minimizing it.

Individuals seek to maximize according to individual preferences. If you pull a top-down preference "order" over other people's heads, you put in place a centrally planned economy which in both theory and practice is inefficient. And that's just ignoring the real incentive for tyrants to claw their way to the top of the food chain.

The free market, property rights, decentralized government are the best way humans know how to avoid those dangers. By empowering individuals to organize their life according to own desires, pay what they want for what they want, and with a strong legal system to protect their rights, you minimize the amount of "misery" that would be created in other models. A tyrant will not try to take power over a government that is small and has no real influence. Property rights will protect the results of your hard efforts to better your life, and the free market offers, in most situations, the most efficient way of clearing so that everyone pays and receives what they feel represents the true value of what they're trading.

Bear in mind this does not abolish unhappiness, per se, but it does minimize it versus other systems. Any other system will just make things worse for more people.

I'm glad you asked, because it's important that people who think these noble ideas that sound great in theory, are both terrible in theory AND practice - in ways that have killed millions and millions of people, and it was a slow, painful, death where all your basic ideas of morality and what was right and wrong just no longer applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
http://my.opera.com/Nomieghirl/albums/sh...e=90455452

You are a 17 year old kid who has never known starvation or what REAL scarcity is. can you imagine what it would be like if the super-market had no basic food-stuffs? That's what would happen with this kind of system... the most basic parts of the economy you can imagine would simply collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectiviz...viet_Union

[mofo]

Watch the Zeitgeist films on youtube if you want to know more about it.

[Basil Ransom]

Aussie Girls Love Black Guys (with pics): 2 stars
Four and a Half Month Flake: 1 star
What do Americans think of this?: 1 star

You posted the above three threads in a span of 7 days. Quality over quantity.

[Wizard]

(01-27-2012 11:07 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

I was reading this blog post from Delusion Damage's soon to be permanently deleted blog: http://delusiondamage.com/hidden-truths/...d-economy/

Towards the end he begins to espouse his beliefs that humankind would be better off if we adopted a resource based economy instead of a market based one.

This idea is advocated by Jacques Fresco, and his group The Venus Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project

For those too lazy to read the post, I've quoted the later half of it below for you all, but the first half is golden in itself.

Quote:

Decades ago, a man named Jacque Fresco started talking about something he called a “resource-based economy”.

Here’s the main idea of a resource-based economy: instead of the Earth’s natural resources being divided into pieces privately owned by competing corporations according to whose great-grandfather managed to chase everyone else away from a particular resource with his shotgun, which is how it is now, we should view them as the common heritage of all people and use them in a way that would provide what we need and want without destroying each other and the planet in the process.

We could get rid of money and debt, and basically just get everything for free or for a small fraction of the work we do today. Many people are so used to things “having to be” the way they are that they have trouble believing this.

Is it possible to provide relaxed, abundant, and even luxurious lifestyles for everyone on Earth without consuming more resources than the Earth can produce? The equations say yes.

Hard to believe? If there’s so much wealth on our planet, why are nearly a billion people starving? It’s not that there isn’t food – it’s only that those people don’t have money to buy food. If we could all live in abundance, why do most of us have to work every day? It’s not because that much work is necessary – it’s just because most of our effort is wasted.

What kind of waste could be eliminated in a resource-based economy?

Planned obsolescence, that’s a big one. Planned obsolescence is when companies design consumer products to break down after the warranty expires so you’ll have to buy a new one. Industrial products are made to last as long as possible, because companies use them and stuff breaking down is bad for profits. If everything produced was “industrial strength”, huge amounts of wasted resources and energy could be saved.

Today, everyone needs to own one of everything because you can’t just go and use other people’s property when you happen to need a specific item. In a resource-based economy, specialty items like video cameras or downhill skis could be borrowed from library-like facilities for free and returned when you’re done with them. Just think about how many items you own that you use less than once a week. Almost all of those would not have had to be produced in a resource-based economy.

Crime is rampant because people need or want stuff and can’t buy it. With all material goods being accessible for free, crime would go way, way down and much of today’s law enforcement work would become unnecessary.

Many items are produced with faulty designs simply because the better design is patented by someone else. In a resource-based economy, everything could be produced in the best way that anyone anywhere has ever invented.

Today, countless variations of the same product are produced to compete with each other in the marketplace. Instead, just a couple of the best designs could be produced in bigger lots, which would reduce production costs (where by “costs”, I mean resources, not money).

Cities could be planned centrally, with useful (and free) public transportation systems, so no one would need to own a gas-burning car. High-tech private transportation vehicles (think “sci-fi movie cars”) could be borrowed from the library if you needed to go outside the subway network’s reach.

Almost everything could be automated. Of the various jobs we work today, machines could do 75% with just the technology that’s already been developed, and that number is rising every day. Construction, manufacturing, trains, coffee shops, and countless other things could function without a single human employee. Did you catch yourself thinking “then who would make sure you don’t take coffee without paying for it?” That’s the next thing…

All the money-guarding, money-handling and money-acquisition jobs would simply disappear. Cashiers, bankers, stock traders, insurance brokers, safe and bank vault manufacturers, armored transport personnel, sales personnel, advertisers, marketers, people who put up advertising at bus stops, etc… say bye-bye to your daily grind!

There would be no more need for countries, politics, border controls or the unbelievable amount of military spending that today literally blows up huge amounts of our work and resources.
It all sounds pretty good, right? All the stuff you need, all the stuff you could even want, produced by computerized robotic factories, free to consume or use! To many people it just sounds way too good to be true, but it’s been researched and the math has been done and the fact is that this is all completely doable, just with what we already have today.

Now, I've only just discovered all this myself and I don't know what to make of the idea of a Resource based economy. Thoughts? Opinions? Analysis? Has anybody here already heard of it?

For a man who writes some pretty interesting articles, his lack of common sense in this issue is appalling. The entire basis of this theory rests on the notion some benevolent group of people can properly disperse resources in a fair, and equitable manner. He totally ignores basic human drives, or needs. Humans are creatures driven by self-interest, and this entire theory assumes that humanity is prepared to collectively abolish that notion by sheer force of will.

Furthermore, what is his response going to be to the millions of people not interested in sharing their resources due to various religious, nationalistic, or cultural rationales?

The problem with utopia is that humans are never going to be good enough to meet the insane standards required to create one. I'll take a system designed on the concepts of greed, and self-interest any day.

Those are things at least I know I can trust.

[Deluge]

(01-27-2012 11:21 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

Aussie Girls Love Black Guys (with pics): 2 stars
Four and a Half Month Flake: 1 star
What do Americans think of this?: 1 star

You posted the above three threads in a span of 7 days. Quality over quantity.

The first thread triggered lots of informative discussion for black guys on the forum. The second became a widely read blog post. The third also triggered great discussions on widely held stereotypes of Americans. Perhaps you should actually read the threads before you diss on them instead of relying purely on thread ratings.

Also: I'm on holidays, and the forum is far more entertaining than Facebook

[defguy]

@ Basilransom there is an interesting train of thought in blogging that goes "quantity over quality" its something you should look into.

@ the other posters so far, my basic instinct as well is to deny that a resource based economy would work however when thinking outside the box I am starting to see that it is possible. Look for resource based economies on a small scale and you will start to realize it as well. For example:

1) Many Universities in the United States and throughout the world already implement resource based economies in their Recreation Facilities by allowing students to check out equipment such as camping, cooking, bikes, kayaks, climbing, boats, etc. and for free. The system works very well and it is a benefit many students enjoy.

2) Public libraries do this as well with books and movies and free online databases of ebooks.

3) Weve done it for hundreds if not thousands of years at the start of Mankind.

4) Native Americans have done it most successfully before being plundered by White Men.

The problem that I see with this type of economy that challenges the possibility of it working would be greedy people and slackers. More the slackers than the greedy people as too much self indulgence in anything usually turns you off. Too many Slackers COULD hold back an economy.

However, if the whole society was onboard it wouldt be a problem because of social shaming. Imagine, the slackers would be socially ostracized everywhere they go, they dont do something for society. Conversely there would be public recognition for people taking more challenging jobs, almost like a rite of passage. Nobody wants to be a migrant worker however if there is a serious shortage of migrant workers and "Society will collapse without migrant workers" much like men join the call to arms in times of war, men will assume that role and will be publicly praised with a social badge of honor in return. In a society with no money, people step up and step down accordingly, they take easier jobs because they are lazy or take harder jobs because of their work ethic. Praise would shift accordingly as well as people that risk their lives, do back breaking work, or do work that REQUIRES intense intelligence would get the praise that people with LOADS of money get these days.

Its hard to vision such a society as we are so far from it today, but really take the time to think of consequences, if A happens that as a result society will do B. Youll see that resource based economy is very possible.

[Wizard]

Quote:

@ the other posters so far, my basic instinct as well is to deny that a resource based economy would work however when thinking outside the box I am starting to see that it is possible. Look for resource based economies on a small scale and you will start to realize it as well. For example:

I would like to clarify that my position wasn't a reaction based on basic instinct, but an intellectual position established through a lot of thought and consideration. You shouldn't assume that everyone's responses are just knee-jerk reactions.

Quote:

1) Many Universities in the United States and throughout the world already implement resource based economies in their Recreation Facilities by allowing students to check out equipment such as camping, cooking, bikes, kayaks, climbing, boats, etc. and for free. The system works very well and it is a benefit many students enjoy.

These universities are supported by a market economy, and thus protected from any of the real dangers involved in an experiment like this.

Quote:

2) Public libraries do this as well with books and movies and free online databases of ebooks.

Again public libraries are supported directly through the earnings of a marketed based economy.

Quote:

3) Weve done it for hundreds if not thousands of years at the start of Mankind.

That statement makes no sense.

Quote:

4) Native Americans have done it most successfully before being plundered by White Men.

I'm constantly surprised by peoples continued celebration of the supposed Native American nobility. They seem to think that Native American tribes existed in some sort of harmonial relationship with nature, and each other. That concepts like war, greed, and empire were something alien to them, and brought to their shores by the evil white man. This Utopian vision of the past does a great job of allowing Native American tribes to perpetuate their victim hood, but doesn't really stand up to historical scrutiny.

Quote:

The problem that I see with this type of economy that challenges the possibility of it working would be greedy people and slackers. More the slackers than the greedy people as too much self indulgence in anything usually turns you off. Too many Slackers COULD hold back an economy.

Being greedy could simply be viewed as being self-interested, and humans are designed to primarily be creatures of self-interest. In the market economy, a slacker is rightfully reduced to the bottom of the rung, as it should be.

Quote:

However, if the whole society was onboard it wouldt be a problem because of social shaming. Imagine, the slackers would be socially ostracized everywhere they go, they dont do something for society. Conversely there would be public recognition for people taking more challenging jobs, almost like a rite of passage. Nobody wants to be a migrant worker however if there is a serious shortage of migrant workers and "Society will collapse without migrant workers" much like men join the call to arms in times of war, men will assume that role and will be publicly praised with a social badge of honor in return. In a society with no money, people step up and step down accordingly, they take easier jobs because they are lazy or take harder jobs because of their work ethic. Praise would shift accordingly as well as people that risk their lives, do back breaking work, or do work that REQUIRES intense intelligence would get the praise that people with LOADS of money get these days.

I'm curious how you're going to foist this massive change in human behavior on a population. I can guarantee you a good chunk of them are not going to be thrilled with the prospect, and I also think you're overestimating the value of... praise.

Quote:

Its hard to vision such a society as we are so far from it today, but really take the time to think of consequences, if A happens that as a result society will do B. Youll see that resource based economy is very possible.

I can see the anarchy that would result from one, and be thankful that the notion itself is regaled to the dustbin of history with other insane utopian driven ideologies.

[Basil Ransom]

(01-27-2012 11:56 AM)defguy Wrote:  

@ Basilransom there is an interesting train of thought in blogging that goes "quantity over quality" its something you should look into.

Probably so, but that's for blogging. That approach is problematic for a forum with tens to hundreds of active posters.

[Samseau]

Quote:

@ Basilransom there is an interesting train of thought in blogging that goes "quantity over quality" its something you should look into.

The average blog sucks ass, and dies within a year. I've seen tons of blogs take this approach, no one reads them or remembers them. They steal the spotlight for maybe a few days out a year and then people stop giving a damn because the articles suck so much ass.

If you write a blog, do quality over quantity to stand apart from the trash.

[defguy]

@ Wizard Thanks for your response, you have some good arguments.

Quote:

I'm constantly surprised by peoples continued celebration of the supposed Native American nobility. They seem to think that Native American tribes existed in some sort of harmonial relationship with nature, and each other. That concepts like war, greed, and empire were something alien to them, and brought to their shores by the evil white man. This Utopian vision of the past does a great job of allowing Native American tribes to perpetuate their victim hood, but doesn't really stand up to historical scrutiny.

I will concede this argument because you are mostly right. There were many violent tribes that survived merely by robbing and pillaging nonviolent tribes. I used my language too vaguely. I was referring to Self Sustaining Native American Tribes.

Quote:

Being greedy could simply be viewed as being self-interested, and humans are designed to primarily be creatures of self-interest. In the market economy, a slacker is rightfully reduced to the bottom of the rung, as it should be.

I am glad we agree slackers are reduced to the bottom of the rung naturally. The shift in thinking would be "how can we be greedy if we have access to all the things we want?" You have to understand this is not OWNERSHIP this is access, in resource based economies no one owns anything so if you want to drive a Ferrari tomorrow and borrow an airplane the next day you CAN. But you wont be able to keep up a high speed lifestyle forever. I love pussy and even I need a break from it every once in a while.

Quote:

These universities are supported by a market economy, and thus protected from any of the real dangers involved in an experiment like this.

Again public libraries are supported directly through the earnings of a marketed based economy.

In order to understand it is possible, you have to get the idea of capitalism out of your head. Many people invent things without expectations of profit or money. Books will still be written, new forms of boats, transportation, etc. will still be invented. The first guy that invented a wheel did it out of necessity rather than a desire for profit and nobody paid him to do it. When you understand that people have an innate desire to create, you will see that new technologies and information will still continue to exist, however all of this will be free to everyone. Wheel chairs are needed, people are needed to make those wheel chairs, the guys who use the wheel chairs contribute to society in some way that benefits some other guy. And most importantly, some tinkerer will invent a better wheelchair in his own time spare simply because he can.

Quote:

I'm curious how you're going to foist this massive change in human behavior on a population. I can guarantee you a good chunk of them are not going to be thrilled with the prospect, and I also think you're overestimating the value of... praise.

I can see the anarchy that would result from one, and be thankful that the notion itself is regaled to the dustbin of history with other insane utopian driven ideologies.

What you are looking at are the immediate reaction by the public to such a change. Ie if American politicians just woke up and said "Hey were going to become a resource based economy." My argument is not that people wont oppose to this economy or that the transition wouldnt be hard but that it could work. History shows that when Americans revolted against the British we changed from a Dictatorship to a Democracy. Wasnt easy, many people had trouble adjusting, many Americans born and raised in America were happy with the King in England and opposed a new form of government. But fast forward hundreds of years and you see, democracy works just as well if not better than dictatorship.

[defguy]

Most blogs put out 2+ articles a week. Most articles DO suck. But the more you write the more likely you are to produce that Gem. Im not trying to insult anyone when I say this but ill use Roosh as an example. Roosh is a great writer, not everything he writes is considered genius, nor is every article necessary but he probably doesnt know what is a GREAT article until he sees the public reaction. This is the way it is for MANY bloggers, sometimes they think they have a crap article and people laud them for it. Sometimes the article doesnt even have to be GREAT but its just what someone needed at the moment. Hence the quantity over quality, produce 100 articles and you should have at least 1 that is quintessential. Or if you produce something that really made an impact on someone, you have a follower.

[raliv]

I think that the Venus Project main idea is that if computers and technology were advanced enough, that the computers would work as the main overseers of a Resourced Based Economy. I read about this a few years ago and it sounds realistic in THEORY. Do I think that we can advance technology to the point where we can have massive creation of resources without labor? Sure. Just think about all the jobs humans used to do that have no been replaced with technology like tractors, farm equipment, assembly lines etc. Is it realistic to think that we can continue to replace human labor with robotic labor? Absolutely to a large extent. However, this can only happen with massive amounts of government influence and spending, just to get to that point. And I don't see humanity getting to that point within a century. A money-free world? Not happening anytime soon.

The VP is ultimately too simplistic and would never work in today's political, racial, sexual, and sociologically different environment. But even if the VP is successful, the human race will just be a bunch of hedonist drugged up hippie partiers that contribute little to the world while the robots clean up the messes. Closer to an Obese filled Jersey Shore than Greek Philosophers, Musicians and Artists playing in the parks.

Fun to think about though.

[Wizard]

Quote:

I am glad we agree slackers are reduced to the bottom of the rung naturally. The shift in thinking would be "how can we be greedy if we have access to all the things we want?" You have to understand this is not OWNERSHIP this is access, in resource based economies no one owns anything so if you want to drive a Ferrari tomorrow and borrow an airplane the next day you CAN. But you wont be able to keep up a high speed lifestyle forever. I love pussy and even I need a break from it every once in a while.

I'm curious where do you think things like a Ferrari or airplanes are going to come from? It takes a massive amount of work to extract the resources, assemble the parts, and ship them to various parts of the globe. Why would someone be willing do all that work if there not getting anything in return?

Quote:

In order to understand it is possible, you have to get the idea of capitalism out of your head. Many people invent things without expectations of profit or money. Books will still be written, new forms of boats, transportation, etc. will still be invented. The first guy that invented a wheel did it out of necessity rather than a desire for profit and nobody paid him to do it. When you understand that people have an innate desire to create, you will see that new technologies and information will still continue to exist, however all of this will be free to everyone. Wheel chairs are needed, people are needed to make those wheel chairs, the guys who use the wheel chairs contribute to society in some way that benefits some other guy. And most importantly, some tinkerer will invent a better wheelchair in his own time spare simply because he can.

Sure there are plenty of people who create things out of altruistic desire, but they are far outweighed by people who create something for profit. Also whose going to decide he wants to wake up, and assemble wheelchairs? I can't imagine people doing that even now really like doing it, but see it as more as a paycheck.

Quote:

What you are looking at are the immediate reaction by the public to such a change. Ie if American politicians just woke up and said "Hey were going to become a resource based economy." My argument is not that people wont oppose to this economy or that the transition wouldnt be hard but that it could work. History shows that when Americans revolted against the British we changed from a Dictatorship to a Democracy. Wasnt easy, many people had trouble adjusting, many Americans born and raised in America were happy with the King in England and opposed a new form of government. But fast forward hundreds of years and you see, democracy works just as well if not better than dictatorship.

Your talking about a war, and a lot of people died to throw off that tyranny but your forgetting what happen to the losers. The thousands of loyalists who supported the English crown suffered horribly, and many had to flee their homes. Is that a price your willing to pay to establish a resource based economy?

I think your getting lost in the Utopian possibilities, and ignoring the harsh realities of human nature. Every-time in history someone has tried to force a philosophy based on some utopian ideal on a general populace, it always ends with suffering, blood, and terror.

[defguy]

@ Raliv I agree, I think they demonstrated this in the movie WALL-E, its a PIXAR movie yet it probably best describes the outcome of a future where robots take over all labor.

[defguy]

Quote:

I'm curious where do you think things like a Ferrari or airplanes are going to come from? It takes a massive amount of work to extract the resources, assemble the parts, and ship them to various parts of the globe. Why would someone be willing do all that work if there not getting anything in return?

This is the scarcity mindset. You may call it realistic but it does have its limitations. You will be shocked how many Ferrari's and airplanes there are in the world. Compare that to a book being checked out in a library, there is a HUGE demand for the newest popular Harry Potter book when it first comes out, but wait about a year or 2 and youll see most libraries have more than enough books to cover the demand. There is not really a scarcity of Harry Potter books in the world, just a surplus in people that want to read THAT book RIGHT NOW. It could be a potential problem regarding people being on a waiting list for new things, but not a true measure of scarcity.

Quote:

Your talking about a war, and a lot of people died to throw off that tyranny but your forgetting what happen to the losers. The thousands of loyalists who supported the English crown suffered horribly, and many had to flee their homes. Is that a price your willing to pay to establish a resource based economy?

I think your getting lost in the Utopian possibilities, and ignoring the harsh realities of human nature. Every-time in history someone has tried to force a philosophy based on some utopian ideal on a general populace, it always ends with suffering, blood, and terror.

Your absolutely right, everything comes at a price including changes to government structure and economic systems. But the government is changing even now albeit slowly. We passed a HUGE bill the National Defense Authorization Act. No riots or uprising in the street, society continues just as it did before. Incremental changes DO make for progressive change.

But setting that possibility aside and assuming we all go to war to implement a resource based economy. The die hard capitalist are out for blood, We fight a huge nasty war and a gazillion people die. Now here is my question, when is the last time you visited a graveyard? ITs not a personal attack on you, im making a point. The war on Iraq is considered "over" a decade of "war" and TODAY nobody cares, we continue life. Before Iraq was the Vietnam war, a 20 year war nobody gives it a 2nd though. When is the last time you even thought about Vietnam? Past wars do not impact our everyday lives. Time heals all wounds and we simply move on.

I am not advocating war, nor do I think it is the only way to implement a resource based economy, I truly believe the only way a resource based economy would ever happen is if machines did all the physical labor and human jobs became regulating and maintaining machines in one way shape or form.

But thats not the point I am trying to make, the point I am making is A Resource Based Economy CAN and WILL work (even in these times), we simply arent doing it.

[Wizard]

Waiting... lists?

Do you really think people are going to just happily embrace the idea that someone, somewhere, might decide to build the necessary things an industrialized civilization requires? It's a belief that makes no sense, and has no basis in human history anywhere.

You would have massive supply shortages, and outright anarchy trying to create such a system. It doesn't come from a "scarcity mindset," it comes from a simple acknowledgement of supply, and demand. There is a finite amount of products in the world, and a lot of them need to be built.

Furthermore, the conflicts in Iraq, and Vietnam are not applicable to this situation. You're talking about overturning almost two-thousand years of economic policy; the level of death wouldn't be measured in the thousands like those conflicts are.

With the advanced weaponry available today, we're talking about deaths in the hundreds of millions, genocide on a global scale. Most of those deaths would come from lack of food, medicine, or electricity.

If this system was so glorious, then someone would have at least attempted it a long time ago. Thankfully rational men realize that ignoring basic truths about humanity don't change the reality of the situation.

[defguy]

I like how you dont acknowledge any other possibility than war... Were all just itchin to go to war arent we?

Ill try a different approach:

Our country embraces Keynesian school of economics. Simply put "it doesnt work" and people have been saying it for years. Every 5-10 years is a new recession and this current one (I honestly believe its a depression) is nothing new. It sucks, but like the past recessions we come out of it. No wars, no turmoil, we continue on with our lives. Many people argue we need to change to the Austrian economics and that will solve the problem, who knows.

Why do I bring up our Economic System? Because it DOES work. Weve been doing it for a long time and we will continue to do it for a long time, put off our debt indefinitely. People say its unsustainable become sooner or later our debt catches up to us. Well guess what it does! Every 5 to 10 years. The point is just because it doesnt make sense on paper or in your head doesnt mean it doesnt work. Our current economic system is proof of that, were all getting along just fine albeit grudgingly so, wait a few years and well have no complaints.

Also, speaking of JUST America, we could implement a resource based economy by ourselves. American is big enough and has enough resources to do so, even at the expense of severing ties to other countries.

Your probably going to argue that well have a huge civil war and whatnot but from what Ive seen, were mostly docile, A new law here, reforms there, and it will happen over time. There arent enough people in this country to will risk their lives fighting for what they believe in or in this case, their own interests to start a civil war.

Like I said earlier, it isnt going to happen, but could work if it did. And a resource based economy is self sustaining, especially in a country like the US or China. The Middle east severing ties from the rest of the world would just collapse on itself, not enough resources, the middle east partnering with several other countries to share resources could.

[InternationPlayboy]

The Venus Project is a joke. It's sort of like communism in a way. Plus, it would kill culture as we know it. I endorse the idea of making the world much less dependent on fossil fuels, but this aint the way to do it. I'd rather work hard to own the things I want than have them lent to me for nothing. Have you seen the models of this? Basically, every city on earth will look the same. Fuck that shit. Not to mention that it just flat out wouldn't work like most posts before me claim. If you think this would work, you underestimate the power of corruption.