A Resource Based Economy

[justusranvier]

The "Zeitgeist movement" is nothing more than resurrected communist propaganda from the early 20th century except with computers.

It comes almost word-for-word from the propaganda that was floating around from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. The proponents of central planning always promise a scientifically-managed utopian society where money isn't necessary.

It never works for reasons Mises described as the economic calculation problem. The addition of computers to the toolset of the central planners does not solve the problem, and the Zeitgeist people always handwave around the problem of what happens when the masses don't want to listen to the self-appointed elite that will be telling everybody how many resources they are allowed to utilize. There's only way to impose central planning on those who don't agree and we already know how that works out.

[pretendo]

The above poster is correct. Economically calculable systems (markets) have benefitted from the gigantic coefficient to efficient allocation that the Information Age has brought us. Systems that simply lack price intelligence for calculation (planned economies) do not benefit. Zero times a thousand is still zero.

[mobodick]

Wow,.,., 4 sane posts in a row..

This thread is going to hell..  
Keep up the good work!

[asdf]

The free market is a myth. You can't point to something that doesn't exist and say it's working fine, or would work if the state weren't involved.

Why not. We can't have trade without a violent institution getting a cut? I think we can trade perfectly fine without being robbed and controlled. Seems pretty obvious to me.

There can be no market without the state involved at some level. Even in the bitcoin economy now we see the rise of the bitcoin foundation, a political, legal and corporate government entity.

The bitcoin foundation is not a government entity. They neither taxes me or regulates me under threat of violence. It is purely voluntary.

When you have money, you have a state, and therefore there is no free market.

Interesting. Money implies state. Could you justify that statement?

[asdf]

The "Zeitgeist movement" is nothing more than resurrected communist propaganda from the early 20th century except with computers.

It comes almost word-for-word from the propaganda that was floating around from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. The proponents of central planning always promise a scientifically-managed utopian society where money isn't necessary.

It never works for reasons Mises described as the economic calculation problem. The addition of computers to the toolset of the central planners does not solve the problem, and the Zeitgeist people always handwave around the problem of what happens when the masses don't want to listen to the self-appointed elite that will be telling everybody how many resources they are allowed to utilize. There's only way to impose central planning on those who don't agree and we already know how that works out.

It's doesn't matter because there will be infinite resources. 

[alan2here]

the Zeitgeist people always handwave around the problem of what happens when the masses don't want to listen to the self-appointed elite that will be telling everybody how many resources they are allowed to utilize.

This is very much against the whole principle of the RBE. More like every time you go to RBE.com theres another new vote about what member of goverment should be appointed and what it is they should be doing. It would have to be volentery, the populus couldn't appoint you to do something you didn't want to do again under the RBE own rules.

There are lots of reasons the RBE might not work, making this work in a way acceptable to the RBE thinking could be one. It's not coruption proof (although it's designed to encourage different motivations) but no need to suggest its corrupt by design.

[kjj]

the Zeitgeist people always handwave around the problem of what happens when the masses don't want to listen to the self-appointed elite that will be telling everybody how many resources they are allowed to utilize.

This is very much against the whole principle of the RBE. More like every time you go to RBE.com theres another new vote about what member of goverment should be appointed and what it is they should be doing. It would have to be volentery, the populus couldn't appoint you to do something you didn't want to do again under the RBE own rules.

There are lots of reasons the RBE might not work, making this work in a way acceptable to the RBE thinking could be one. It's not coruption proof (although it's designed to encourage different motivations) but no need to suggest its corrupt by design.

Unless I'm missing some big detail, it really is corrupt by design, just like it was when it was called communism a century ago.

[LightRider]

The free market is a myth. You can't point to something that doesn't exist and say it's working fine, or would work if the state weren't involved.

Why not. We can't have trade without a violent institution getting a cut? I think we can trade perfectly fine without being robbed and controlled. Seems pretty obvious to me.

There can be no market without the state involved at some level. Even in the bitcoin economy now we see the rise of the bitcoin foundation, a political, legal and corporate government entity.

The bitcoin foundation is not a government entity. They neither taxes me or regulates me under threat of violence. It is purely voluntary.

When you have money, you have a state, and therefore there is no free market.

Interesting. Money implies state. Could you justify that statement?

Money is a matter of opinion. Opinions differ. How can an efficient market exist without some level of government or force majeure deciding what the common unit of value is? And if there is none then it turns to barter of disparate goods/currencies, which is fine, but proves the assertion that money is a matter of opinion.

[memvola]

How can an efficient market exist without some level of government or force majeure deciding what the common unit of value is? And if there is none then it turns to barter of disparate goods/currencies

I'm puzzled by these two sentences. Why? And why?

[LightRider]

How can an efficient market exist without some level of government or force majeure deciding what the common unit of value is? And if there is none then it turns to barter of disparate goods/currencies

I'm puzzled by these two sentences. Why? And why?

Opinions are arbitrary.

[memvola]

How can an efficient market exist without some level of government or force majeure deciding what the common unit of value is? And if there is none then it turns to barter of disparate goods/currencies

I'm puzzled by these two sentences. Why? And why?

Opinions are arbitrary.

Is that a Jedi mind trick?

An efficient market can exist without an enforced common unit of value, and I was puzzled because I don't know of any reason why it wouldn't work. Without enforced units, there is near zero friction in exchanging units of value. There is no reason to think it is less efficient.

Consider the situation we already have with competing crypto-currencies. First, you should realize that the best one will always be dominant, without it being forced on anyone. This is precisely because nothing is forced, otherwise there would be more competition as we can observe in State issued currencies. Second, if there is a phase that market is undecided on what's best, on-the-fly conversion will always be possible, thanks to efficient currency exchange markets. Ultimately, most people will accept most currencies directly, and quickly get rid of the one they don't prefer by exchanging them instantly or nightly or whatever.

Is there anything I'm missing in this picture?

Your second sentence is confusing me because of the word "barter". But I suppose we'd agree in general.

Money is a matter of opinion, absolutely true. I don't know what `opinions are arbitrary` means. And money doesn't imply State.

[LightRider]

How can an efficient market exist without some level of government or force majeure deciding what the common unit of value is? And if there is none then it turns to barter of disparate goods/currencies

I'm puzzled by these two sentences. Why? And why?

Opinions are arbitrary.

Is that a Jedi mind trick?

An efficient market can exist without an enforced common unit of value, and I was puzzled because I don't know of any reason why it wouldn't work. Without enforced units, there is near zero friction in exchanging units of value. There is no reason to think it is less efficient.

Consider the situation we already have with competing crypto-currencies. First, you should realize that the best one will always be dominant, without it being forced on anyone. This is precisely because nothing is forced, otherwise there would be more competition as we can observe in State issued currencies. Second, if there is a phase that market is undecided on what's best, on-the-fly conversion will always be possible, thanks to efficient currency exchange markets. Ultimately, most people will accept most currencies directly, and quickly get rid of the one they don't prefer by exchanging them instantly or nightly or whatever.

Is there anything I'm missing in this picture?

Your second sentence is confusing me because of the word "barter". But I suppose we'd agree in general.

Money is a matter of opinion, absolutely true. I don't know what `opinions are arbitrary` means. And money doesn't imply State.

What money isn't associated with a state of some sort?

[memvola]

What money isn't associated with a state of some sort?

You need to clarify the context in which you use the word "association". You can't have loud music without involving the State. Thereby we can't have loud music without State coercion. Is this analogous to what you're saying?

Bitcoin happened with zero involvement from any State, and we practically proved that there can be a market without State involvement. However some parts of the State will be associated with something Bitcoin related one way or another, there is no way to avoid it completely. The State will want to control anything and everything useful to anyone. The causality is reverse.

Or, if your point is about the Bitcoin Foundation, you have to make your case, because it's not a State.

If what you were saying was limited to the fact that money attracts powermongers, I'd agree. Anything that has to do with resource allocation will always attract powermongers. Isn't it what this debate revolves around?

[cbeast]

What money isn't associated with a state of some sort?

Bitcoin happened with zero involvement from any State, and we practically proved that there can be a market without State involvement. However some parts of the State will be associated with something Bitcoin related one way or another, there is no way to avoid it completely. The State will want to control anything and everything useful to anyone. The causality is reverse.

I'm not sure that the Internet itself (let alone Bitcoin) could exist without a State. Gold exists without a state, so there can be money. There will always be a State of sorts as long as we are civilized, but it is not necessary to use force to cause humans to act civilized.

[alan2here]

The RBE is not comunist or capiltalist. At least not comunist in the way of past Russia, China etc...

[memvola]

The RBE is not comunist or capiltalist. At least not comunist in the way of past Russia, China etc...

It is some form of communism. This description on Wikipedia conforms with what you can find out from serious literature yourself:

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

No noteworthy person really thinks the regimes you mentioned were communism. Not really. It's a label the ruling parties have given themselves.

I'm not sure that the Internet itself (let alone Bitcoin) could exist without a State.

Well, even roads and sanitation wouldn't exist without the State. The claim that the State will always be there is one thing, but it doesn't follow that we couldn't manage to do these things if it weren't there. We would have to be different for it to not be there, so my assumption is that we should be able to manage doing these things ourselves to even be capable of rendering the State useless.

[pretendo]

There's tons of examples where currencies aren't government sanctions. Some American towns have their own town-unique currency that is just decided on by the people that use it, in an effort to "keep spending local". There have been many currencies that are just gold coins not minted by a government but universally accepted. Hell, in the video game Metro 2033 the currency is a common type of bullet, which is pretty ingenious since that has intrinsic utility to people and is very portable/divisible. Things being sanctioned or not sanctioned by the government doesn't make them currency or stop being currency. You'd have to lack some serious economic knowledge, historical context and imagination to believe that money can't exist without a state waving some wand.

[LightRider]

There's tons of examples where currencies aren't government sanctions. Some American towns have their own town-unique currency that is just decided on by the people that use it, in an effort to "keep spending local". There have been many currencies that are just gold coins not minted by a government but universally accepted. Hell, in the video game Metro 2033 the currency is a common type of bullet, which is pretty ingenious since that has intrinsic utility to people and is very portable/divisible. Things being sanctioned or not sanctioned by the government doesn't make them currency or stop being currency. You'd have to lack some serious economic knowledge, historical context and imagination to believe that money can't exist without a state waving some wand.

Money, not currency.

[memvola]

Money, not currency.

You used them alternatingly in your comments. Why don't you go ahead and make a case?

[pretendo]

There's tons of examples where currencies aren't government sanctions. Some American towns have their own town-unique currency that is just decided on by the people that use it, in an effort to "keep spending local". There have been many currencies that are just gold coins not minted by a government but universally accepted. Hell, in the video game Metro 2033 the currency is a common type of bullet, which is pretty ingenious since that has intrinsic utility to people and is very portable/divisible. Things being sanctioned or not sanctioned by the government doesn't make them currency or stop being currency. You'd have to lack some serious economic knowledge, historical context and imagination to believe that money can't exist without a state waving some wand.

Money, not currency.

What I said applies to both
Sounds like you have a serious case of no true scotsman