Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 04:47:06 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ... 124 »
  Print  
Author Topic: A Resource Based Economy  (Read 261070 times)
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 10:13:40 AM
 #401

How do you incentivise innovation in a "resource-based" economy?
1480913226
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480913226

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480913226
Reply with quote  #2

1480913226
Report to moderator
1480913226
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480913226

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480913226
Reply with quote  #2

1480913226
Report to moderator
1480913226
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480913226

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480913226
Reply with quote  #2

1480913226
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 10:16:04 AM
 #402

How do you incentivise innovation in a "resource-based" economy?

Like this: http://vimeo.com/21516444 Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 10:37:37 AM
 #403

How do you incentivise innovation in a "resource-based" economy?

Like this: http://vimeo.com/21516444 Smiley

You know, I really like this movement at its core. It calls for all human beings to have a desire to sustain our fellow man. I only disagree to the point to where I think this is already inherent but weakened by force. So, that's my thought on the 'cultural revolution' part.

Anyways, yes, the government stifles innovation by posing a monopoly on what people can do with their property, but not even you believe in such a concept, since you believe you can make all things nonscarce, even the unique creations of ones own labor. So, in your fantasy land, people will build freely out of pure novelty. Fair enough, fair enough.

I have yet to be convinced this paradigm is built on reality. You don't account for human desire and what people want. You assume all will endlessly, without hesitation build your automated society. However, the very concept of the individual simply will not allow for this. Your idea of cultural revolution -- to force all to support your regime because people will just readily accept it is mere vapor. There is no means nor ground to support the validity of this pattern of thinking.

Human desire can only be fulfilled through a fair and objective exchange of value that occurs only through efficient non-bartering means, called money. I am sorry you hate this tool so very much.

Forgive me if I am still ignorant of your theories. If you will only further direct me to your Zeitgeist resources so be it, I am already doing the task.

I came here for a personal discussion. Not a trading of materials.

Anyways, thank you.

One last thing, if you want technology built only on personal value (non-monetary), it will come naturally in a free society. No pretty overlay will make a difference.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 11:04:44 AM
 #404

First off, thank you for the insightful comment. Smiley

Quote
you believe you can make all things nonscarce even the unique creations of ones own labor.

Not "all things", but certainly the basic necessities, and that is not a fantasy. Just look at the workforce needed for production and distribution of food, water, houses, transportation, and how that could be accomplished in a semi-automated/automated system.

Quote
I have yet to be convinced this paradigm is built on reality. You don't account for human desire and what people want. You assume all will endlessly, without hesitation build your automated society. However, the very concept of the individual simply will not allow for this.

It's important we understand distinction between needs and wants wants are not based on natural law wants are social contrivance based on cultural influences field today with what we can call the infinity growth paradigm which demands that everyone keep consuming at increasing rates, by the way in order for the growth economy to remain flow.

The result in part is that wants and needs are now conflated it's a strategy can have virtually anything they "wants" while at the same time the great majority malcolm now can not only achieve their temporal cultural generated wants they can't even meet their basic human needs if you have a system that conflated those two suddenly not no one is responsible because it comes to a single entity so we can accept the fact that child dies every 4 seconds for no reason because of poverty.

On a different level, you know I often get the question when I bring up this model "What if I want 50 room mansion in a Resource Based Economy?" "Where's my freedom to have that?" and i usually ask back: ok well What if I want a billion mansion? or perhaps What I want the entire continent of Africa as my backyard? At what point does this so selfish it quits his boiled interest become belatedly irresponsible and socially offensive? Given we want to course again live on a finite planet and two in a society which one way or another regardless of the social system resources must be share excessive ostentatious living to me is really an anti-social form of neurosis grown by a social system that needs again constant demand in rewards arbitrage status for the sake of that demand it's a psychological scam in a way and if you will frankly uh... if you think about it deeply it's actually a form of violence against humanity itself.

Now before i run down the dominant economic considerations underline the mechanics of a resource based economy I want to conclude this subject on needs and wants by pointing out that we need to understand the limits of the finite world we inhabited and respect each other as equals in the basic fundamental sense that we all have the right to live we could not only meet the basic needs of every human on earth as i described but given the incredible stated in advance technology today it's rate of change we can be easily enter the round of meeting the wants of the human population to agree likely unimaginable for 99% of the world today we can create a vast material abundance if we simply update and organize ourselves efficiently using modern understandings Now claim back to the model.

I wanna specifically isolate 3 aspects aspects again which are critical to responsible decision making for the sustainable fulfilment of human necessity, "Resource Accounting", "Dynamic Equilibrium " and "Strategic Design" "Resource Accounting" we lived again a virtually close planetary biosphere with a set of mostly finite resources at our disposal given this reality the logic becomes quite clear as to our responsibility if you wish to allow our habitat to sustain itself for future generations we must organize an account that's a no brainer proper economic resource allocation really cannot be really cannot be made unless we have a clear understanding of what we have and where it is against no mystery yet bizarrely it's not done at all today in any kind of concentrated way.

More here: http://dotsub.com/view/7e590e03-7335-4bab-988d-fad71280df33

Quote
Your idea of cultural revolution -- to force all to support your regime because people will just readily accept

Sorry to disappoint, but that's not my idea of a "cultural revolution". What you describe sounds like autarchy.

Quote
Human desire can only be fulfilled through a fair and objective exchange of value that occurs only through efficient non-bartering means, called money. I am sorry you hate this tool so very much.

That is understandable, if that's all you've known you life. The reality is that some human populations have learned to live together peacefully and much more happily with different values and incentives than the current socio-economic structure.

And even if such communities didn't exist, the idea that desires can be fulfilled through monetary exchange reveals how sick and distorted the dominant structure is. Money doesn't make people happy, and there is a body of evidence supporting that.

People tend to be happy when they find a sense of belonging (a community) and feel like they have a purpose (innovation, creativity, search for knowledge) in a caring environment (human relationships). Notice that money is just an obstacle to all of those things.

Th facts are:
- the best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table
- pay people enough so that they're not thinking about the money, and they're thinking about the work

substitute "pay people enough" with "get them what they need". You seem to forget that money is just a means, not the end. You don't want a car, you want to move around effortlessly, fast and efficiently from point A to point B. So, if I give you access to the best car possible, whenever you need it, and you don't have to worry about maintenance, insurance, and all of that, wouldn't it be better?

Quote
Forgive me if I am still ignorant of your theories. If you will only further direct me to your Zeitgeist resources so be it, I am already doing the task.

+1

Quote
I came here for a personal discussion. Not a trading of materials.

Anyways, thank you.

+1

Quote
Anyways, if you want technology built only on personal value (non-monetary), it will come naturally in a free society. No pretty overlay will make a difference.

... except, we might make the planet inhabitable in the process. So, there won't be a place to "be" free in.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 11:14:29 AM
 #405

How do you incentivise innovation in a "resource-based" economy?

Like this: http://vimeo.com/21516444 Smiley


Human desire can only be fulfilled through a fair and objective exchange of value that occurs only through efficient non-bartering means, called money. I am sorry you hate this tool so very much.

(snipped0

One last thing, if you want technology built only on personal value (non-monetary), it will come naturally in a free society. No pretty overlay will make a difference.

These two statements are somewhat contradictory, but point to the fact that societies can evolve. Evolution is never a "pretty overlay," in fact evolution is often very ugly. I think we all agree that humans don't desire money or they would not spend it on desirable pleasures. How we get to a maximized efficient means of fulfilling desirable pleasures has historically been through technology. Let evolution take its course and allow technology to continue to maximize efficiency of fulfilling pleasure. Money is of little importance in the long run. When things get very ugly because competing money systems all will fail, evolution will weed out the money and allow technology to do what it does best and increase pleasure.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 11:28:35 AM
 #406

So, let's say I fairly acquire a abnormally large mansion by producing a large amount of value for the procurers of said mansion. How have I committed a crime against humanity?

Let's say I do the same for the procurers of the entire continent of Africa. If I have exchanged enough of value to acquire it, have I really taken anything? We must remember that wealth is not finite, it can be created through intangible innovations such as adding additional efficiency to society. It has never been an inherent game of competition among who has the most resources. I understand the fact that our planet can only hold so many but will not incentive naturally grow to live more sustainably? The fact we are pushing it shows the hope is already here.

I don't think we need an entire change on the human paradigm to achieve these ends. We just need to eliminate the chains that bond us and perverse our labor through the greed, corruption that you hate as well.

Quote
People tend to be happy when they find a sense of belonging (a community) and feel like they have a purpose (innovation, creativity, search for knowledge) in a caring environment (human relationships). Notice that money is just an obstacle to all of those things.

Money is just a token of proof of the value somebody has added. It holds people accountable if they have contributed enough value for what they are taking. Through this, a society is sustainable since there will be enough resources according to the value that is contributed.

You want to eliminate the need for a notable amount of value creation on an individual level altogether. Fair enough. I think this point can be reached but all I doubt is the means you wish to use. My view is that just a society without excessive force will gradually achieve the efficiency this movement strives for.

This movement has excellent intentions. I will continue reading through it. I have a paper in the works.

Thank you for your time.

These two statements are somewhat contradictory

You can have non-monetary value and money flowing in the same system easily.

Also, money is technology. It's a very useful tool so I don't have to barter 2 chickens for a jug of milk so I can get a shirt on my back. However, all of you insist that in your society everything will just be nonscarce and ready to be picked off the shelves for free.

The fact is organisms have to sustain themselves by exchanging value with others or grasping and claiming resources through their own sweat.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 11:35:07 AM
 #407

Quote


The fact is organisms have to sustain themselves by exchanging value with others or grasping and claiming resources through their own sweat.

This is the fundamental problem I have with radical Libertarianism. Social Darwinism. There is no psychology or sociological scientific research to support the premise. In fact, Social Darwinism is considered pathological.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 11:42:27 AM
 #408



The fact is organisms have to sustain themselves by exchanging value with others or grasping and claiming resources through their own sweat.

This is the fundamental problem I have with radical Libertarianism. Social Darwinism. There is no psychology or sociological scientific research to support the premise. In fact, Social Darwinism is considered pathological.
There is nothing supporting otherwise. It's all whims and desires in the end. I believe happiness is most sustainable when the responsibility of oneself is left to said individual alone. The care of an individual by another party should always be voluntary. To enslave people to care for another is just as immoral and pathological.
Michele1940
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 11:43:18 AM
 #409

You Can Now Buy Facebook Ads With AmEx Rewards Points

Facebook & Economy : The big guys "moving the other way"... Check this out !!

http://mashable.com/2011/06/29/amex-facebook/

Signed: Twitter @Michele1940 Blog: pointapp.blogspot.com ; http://twitpic.com/photos/Michele1940
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 11:48:15 AM
 #410

In addition, it is absolutely deplorable that when it is even mentioned that a man must care for himself, it is reduced to pathology. It's asinine to believe men should not have any reverence for himself but only for others. The only way a man can begin to care for others is if he sustains himself. If he fails to care for himself, the others he supposedly loves so dearly will just have to care for him, only resulting in a loss.

This is ignoring reality completely.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 11:50:06 AM
 #411



The fact is organisms have to sustain themselves by exchanging value with others or grasping and claiming resources through their own sweat.

This is the fundamental problem I have with radical Libertarianism. Social Darwinism. There is no psychology or sociological scientific research to support the premise. In fact, Social Darwinism is considered pathological.
There is nothing supporting otherwise. It's all whims and desires in the end. I believe happiness is most sustainable when the responsibility of oneself is left to said individual alone. The care of an individual by another party should always be voluntary. To enslave people to care for another is just as immoral and pathological.

Abraham Maslow points out that in the hierarchy of human needs that essentially "care of an individual by another party should always be voluntary" and that this will occur naturally when basic human needs are met. Using automation to meet basic human needs should be no real effort given today's level of technology. QED

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Michele1940
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 11:52:26 AM
 #412

How do you incentivise innovation in a "resource-based" economy?

Like this: http://vimeo.com/21516444 Smiley



I have yet to be convinced this paradigm is built on reality. You don't account for human desire and what people want. You assume all will endlessly, without hesitation build your automated society. However, the very concept of the individual simply will not allow for this. Your idea of cultural revolution -- to force all to support your regime because people will just readily accept it is mere vapor. There is no means nor ground to support the validity of this pattern of thinking.

Human desire can only be fulfilled through a fair and objective exchange of value that occurs only through efficient non-bartering means, called money. I am sorry you hate this tool so very much.


One last thing, if you want technology built only on personal value (non-monetary), it will come naturally in a free society. No pretty overlay will make a difference.



Check these, if you wish so :

 http://pointapp.blogspot.com/2011/06/fight-for-freedom.html
http://pointapp.blogspot.com/2011/06/fight-for-freedom.html
http://pointapp.blogspot.com/2011/06/comment-on-venus-project.html

Thanks.

Signed: Twitter @Michele1940 Blog: pointapp.blogspot.com ; http://twitpic.com/photos/Michele1940
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 11:53:29 AM
 #413

In addition, it is absolutely deplorable that when it is even mentioned that a man must care for himself, it is reduced to pathology. It's asinine to believe men should not have any reverence for himself but only for others. The only way a man can begin to care for others is if he sustains himself. If he fails to care for himself, the others he supposedly loves so dearly will just have to care for him, only resulting in a loss.

This is ignoring reality completely.
But you are saying that a man must care about himself and that caring for others should be voluntary. So you have no problem with a man that cares only about himself for no regard for the welfare of others at all or any other human life for that matter? He can have no conscience and do whatever he pleases as long as he can get away with it?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 11:57:17 AM
 #414



The fact is organisms have to sustain themselves by exchanging value with others or grasping and claiming resources through their own sweat.

This is the fundamental problem I have with radical Libertarianism. Social Darwinism. There is no psychology or sociological scientific research to support the premise. In fact, Social Darwinism is considered pathological.
There is nothing supporting otherwise. It's all whims and desires in the end. I believe happiness is most sustainable when the responsibility of oneself is left to said individual alone. The care of an individual by another party should always be voluntary. To enslave people to care for another is just as immoral and pathological.
Using automation to meet basic human needs should be no real effort given today's level of technology.
So, this complete automated society is going to appear out of thin-air or somehow sprout out of individuals working through dedication to the cause alone. Alright, no real effort, eh? I would really like to see the detailed plans for this besides some sketches of pretty utopias, haha.

Where are these specialists, the engineers, the workers that will construct these automatons with no monetary-based compensation? I'm sure you all will be happy to feed them, house them and meet their every need over whatever "corrupt", "greedy", "self-interested" lifestyle they are living.

...but can you guys even afford to do that? This is where money becomes useful.
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 11:58:59 AM
 #415

In addition, it is absolutely deplorable that when it is even mentioned that a man must care for himself, it is reduced to pathology. It's asinine to believe men should not have any reverence for himself but only for others. The only way a man can begin to care for others is if he sustains himself. If he fails to care for himself, the others he supposedly loves so dearly will just have to care for him, only resulting in a loss.

This is ignoring reality completely.
But you are saying that a man must care about himself and that caring for others should be voluntary. So you have no problem with a man that cares only about himself for no regard for the welfare of others at all or any other human life for that matter? He can have no conscience and do whatever he pleases as long as he can get away with it?

No, I do not condone theft, murder nor coercion. However, I have no problem with a man that sustains himself at no loss to others.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 11:59:37 AM
 #416



The fact is organisms have to sustain themselves by exchanging value with others or grasping and claiming resources through their own sweat.

This is the fundamental problem I have with radical Libertarianism. Social Darwinism. There is no psychology or sociological scientific research to support the premise. In fact, Social Darwinism is considered pathological.
There is nothing supporting otherwise. It's all whims and desires in the end. I believe happiness is most sustainable when the responsibility of oneself is left to said individual alone. The care of an individual by another party should always be voluntary. To enslave people to care for another is just as immoral and pathological.
Using automation to meet basic human needs should be no real effort given today's level of technology.
So, this complete automated society is going to appear out of thin-air or somehow sprout out of individuals working through dedication to the cause alone. Alright, no real effort, eh? I would really like to see the detailed plans for this besides some sketches of pretty utopias, haha.

Where are these specialists, the engineers, the workers that will construct these automatons with no monetary-based compensation? I'm sure you all will be happy to feed them, house them and meet their every need over whatever "corrupt", "greedy", "self-interested" lifestyle they are living.

...but can you guys even afford to do that? This is where money becomes useful.

Nobody said it would be easy. Yes, money is useful for now. That's why bitcoin is attractive. Bitcoin is an evolutionary step to eventually do away with money and enter a world of virtual and automated incentive systems.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 12:01:28 PM
 #417



The fact is organisms have to sustain themselves by exchanging value with others or grasping and claiming resources through their own sweat.

This is the fundamental problem I have with radical Libertarianism. Social Darwinism. There is no psychology or sociological scientific research to support the premise. In fact, Social Darwinism is considered pathological.
There is nothing supporting otherwise. It's all whims and desires in the end. I believe happiness is most sustainable when the responsibility of oneself is left to said individual alone. The care of an individual by another party should always be voluntary. To enslave people to care for another is just as immoral and pathological.
Using automation to meet basic human needs should be no real effort given today's level of technology.
So, this complete automated society is going to appear out of thin-air or somehow sprout out of individuals working through dedication to the cause alone. Alright, no real effort, eh? I would really like to see the detailed plans for this besides some sketches of pretty utopias, haha.

Where are these specialists, the engineers, the workers that will construct these automatons with no monetary-based compensation? I'm sure you all will be happy to feed them, house them and meet their every need over whatever "corrupt", "greedy", "self-interested" lifestyle they are living.

...but can you guys even afford to do that? This is where money becomes useful.

Nobody said it would be easy. Yes, money is useful for now. That's why bitcoin is attractive. Bitcoin is an evolutionary step to eventually do away with money and enter a world of virtual and automated incentive systems.
So, what's wrong with a world where people voluntarily trade their value, whether it be through Bitcoins or whatever?
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 12:14:34 PM
 #418



The fact is organisms have to sustain themselves by exchanging value with others or grasping and claiming resources through their own sweat.

This is the fundamental problem I have with radical Libertarianism. Social Darwinism. There is no psychology or sociological scientific research to support the premise. In fact, Social Darwinism is considered pathological.
There is nothing supporting otherwise. It's all whims and desires in the end. I believe happiness is most sustainable when the responsibility of oneself is left to said individual alone. The care of an individual by another party should always be voluntary. To enslave people to care for another is just as immoral and pathological.
Using automation to meet basic human needs should be no real effort given today's level of technology.
So, this complete automated society is going to appear out of thin-air or somehow sprout out of individuals working through dedication to the cause alone. Alright, no real effort, eh? I would really like to see the detailed plans for this besides some sketches of pretty utopias, haha.

Where are these specialists, the engineers, the workers that will construct these automatons with no monetary-based compensation? I'm sure you all will be happy to feed them, house them and meet their every need over whatever "corrupt", "greedy", "self-interested" lifestyle they are living.

...but can you guys even afford to do that? This is where money becomes useful.

Nobody said it would be easy. Yes, money is useful for now. That's why bitcoin is attractive. Bitcoin is an evolutionary step to eventually do away with money and enter a world of virtual and automated incentive systems.
So, what's wrong with a world where people voluntarily trade their value, whether it be through Bitcoins or whatever?
That's why I use the term 'virtual' because the root word is virtue and implies a double meaning. I think bitcoin is a preferable 'currency' to fiat monies... for now. Expanded global automation and eefficiency will eventually push the unemployment numbers to near 100%. At some point, using money for incentive will be moot when nobody has any. Things will change at that point.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Anonymous
Guest

June 30, 2011, 12:19:38 PM
 #419

Anyways, I agree a post-scarcity situation being possible but not as fast as you guys may think it can be built. You aren't just going to see Zeitgeists creating these wonderful machines. You need proper and gradual incentive and that comes from many iterations of products.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 12:27:33 PM
 #420

These two statements are somewhat contradictory, but point to the fact that societies can evolve. Evolution is never a "pretty overlay," in fact evolution is often very ugly. I think we all agree that humans don't desire money or they would not spend it on desirable pleasures. How we get to a maximized efficient means of fulfilling desirable pleasures has historically been through technology. Let evolution take its course and allow technology to continue to maximize efficiency of fulfilling pleasure. Money is of little importance in the long run. When things get very ugly because competing money systems all will fail, evolution will weed out the money and allow technology to do what it does best and increase pleasure.

+1. Smiley
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ... 124 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!