A Resource Based Economy

[LightRider]

So new born babies deserve no welfare because it's wrong? The elderly and the sick deserve no welfare because it's wrong? I hope you were never a baby, ever get sick or grow old in your utopian free market world.

Or get technologically unemployed for that matter. When the robot takes your job will you be undeserving of welfare then too?

[1714010812]

1714010812

[1714010812]

1714010812

[1714010812]

1714010812

[1714010812]

1714010812

[1714010812]

1714010812

[ngupowered]

The market system forces people to participate in a forced artificial labor for income/survival. How is that not tyranny?

Lol, thats is called life. WTF.

I mean what do you expect? Just watch TV all day and let other people go to work and then being robbed to pay your welfares?

People have always worked for their income. The cavemen went to go hunt mamooths for their survival.


Imagine a socialist world in the era of the cavemen. Lazy cavemen just sitting in their caves rubbing their balls, while the others would go hunt the mamooth and they were forced to share the food. Its really crazy.

All you socialists/communists are crazy. People do have to have some individuality, you just cant expect others to work for you and share it with others, or atleast not by force, but only if they choose to do so.

______________-

If the income tax is 50% in your country then, you rob away 50% of the working class's money just so that some welfare lazy people could live for free. Now that is not very egalitarian.

Basically the only way to keep checks and balances in power, is to let everybody participate in the economy,[...]

But, as RBE proponents already have pointed out, how will the free market cope with technological unemployment, where not the entire workforce is necessary for running an advanced society - think a robot able to serve and construct a thousand robots able to serve and construct a million robots ...

I already pointed that out in another thread. Basically if the technology would be very advanced, and there would be no fiat currency. Then prices would be so low, that you could get the richest and best lifestyle you`d want for a few pennies.

High technology creates abundance of resources, abundance of products and abundance of services. Basically if you could get a few pennies, you could get the best items.

This is very visible today,even with fiat crap. Even the poorest person has access to the internet, clothes, pure water, basic food, mobile phone, and other services.

A 1000 years ago, the poorest would been lucky if he had 1 cloth and some basic food. And we are 7.2 billion today, and we have this, back then there were a few million people only, and didnt had basic stuff.

Yes, it becomes cheaper for those earning money - stratifying and increasing the income gap - but for the others, it matters not how much prices drop, since they are not part of the economy, and therefore earns nothing, making them dependent on welfare or other drastic life-saving measures.  

No thats not true, the income gap is already maximized. Heck the rich can print their own money, how wider can it get?

Why not just let other people raise to higher income levels and then thing will be far more equal than this.

In fact there is scientific documentation that the income gap is caused by welfare & money printing.

What is not true? That prices don't matter to those not earning money?
"stratifying and increasing the income gap " was not the main point, but simply a side thought, hence the "-".
welfare = wealth redistribution, which actually bridges the income gap!
Money printing does increase the income gap; but since people are free to trade in any currency of choice, your point is moot.

"" Why not just let other people raise to higher income levels and then thing will be far more equal than this. ""

Because their work is not needed due to technological unemployment.

[ngupowered]

The welfare comes from printed money, so the working class, and the poor people actually shuffle the wealth between them, while the rich gets richer.

I'm afraid that it is you who ought to take an economics class. Money printing causes inflation and devalues the wealth held in those currencies, thus causing wealth redistribution to those receiving the newly printed money. It actually doesn't matter whether it is printed or actual wealth, as long as the money received has purchasing power.

The rich cannot be taxed, because they own the corporations, that can just outsource the taxes anytime. The only way to solve this issue is to not tax the poor, and not print money.

To my knowledge, the law doesn't differentiate between rich or poor, but only to the extent of percentage of tax owed.

[LightRider]

In your non existent free market utopia, who prevents individuals or cartels from printing money? Who decides what money is? Why should disparate interests agree on what money is? Isn't the addition of artificial illusory wealth the source of great and needless conflict? Isn't the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist another source of great and needless conflict? Why do the capitalists insist on systems that have conflict built in to them? Why do they never advocate for systems built around cooperation instead? Do you like the wars, violence and death that capitalism creates so much? Is it entertaining to you? Are you just ignorant of the economic realities that you advocating for? Are you stubbornly for your own destruction for reasons that you haven't shared? It's very strange.

[RealBitcoin]

In your non existent free market utopia, who prevents individuals or cartels from printing money? Who decides what money is? Why should disparate interests agree on what money is? Isn't the addition of artificial illusory wealth the source of great and needless conflict? Isn't the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist another source of great and needless conflict? Why do the capitalists insist on systems that have conflict built in to them? Why do they never advocate for systems built around cooperation instead? Do you like the wars, violence and death that capitalism creates so much? Is it entertaining to you? Are you just ignorant of the economic realities that you advocating for? Are you stubbornly for your own destruction for reasons that you haven't shared? It's very strange.

Nothing, but printed money is not dangerous if you dont use it. I dont care if the zimbabwe dollar is hyperinflated because i`m not using it.

If somebody start to print money, who cares. Just dont use it.


Also in a free market bitcoin is the most likely currecny to be used by the masses, so we know bitcoin cannot be printed.

The free market is choosing bitcoin at the moment.

......

I`m too lazy to respond to your other points 1000x times, i`ve already explained the basis of capitalism, and you keep asking thousands of questions that i have answered already.

[cbeast]

The market system forces people to participate in a forced artificial labor for income/survival situation. How is that not tyranny?

You can also stop thinking of "market" as a system and instead as a tool. There is no "free market" any more than their can be a perfectly planned society. Markets can be used for edge cases where planning doesn't work. Planning is great if it is done smartly and fairly, but we're not there yet. We can't get there if we throw away the tools we may need to build an RBE society.

"Markets" are a paradigm that can only be diminished when people understand they are not needed, but that day is a long way off. People only replace useful tools when better tools become available.

[RealBitcoin]

The only way to solve this issue is to reduce taxes on the poor, end QE and stop pilfering away the wealth of savers by endlessly printing money.

Because, by not printing money, you don't just stop the poor people being robbed, but you shrink the income gap which is the most important thing

That was my point too, but you summed up very well.

Although I feel that eliminating taxes entirely is much better than just reducing them to a smaller size.


Or atleast the income tax has to be eliminated, and gradually the other taxes can be diminished. I dont mind paying property taxes, but man a 40-50% income tax like in Belgium, Denmark, and other countries is just horrible.

[ngupowered]

The only way to solve this issue is to reduce taxes on the poor, end QE and stop pilfering away the wealth of savers by endlessly printing money.

Because, by not printing money, you don't just stop the poor people being robbed, but you shrink the income gap which is the most important thing

Believe it or not, you are neither required to pay tax nor use gov. controlled fiat money, yet people keep going to prison for not paying them and still trade in gov. money - welcome to free market capitalism!
I know how to explain that seemingly apparent contradiction - do you?

[LightRider]

In your non existent free market utopia, who prevents individuals or cartels from printing money? Who decides what money is? Why should disparate interests agree on what money is? Isn't the addition of artificial illusory wealth the source of great and needless conflict? Isn't the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist another source of great and needless conflict? Why do the capitalists insist on systems that have conflict built in to them? Why do they never advocate for systems built around cooperation instead? Do you like the wars, violence and death that capitalism creates so much? Is it entertaining to you? Are you just ignorant of the economic realities that you advocating for? Are you stubbornly for your own destruction for reasons that you haven't shared? It's very strange.

Nothing, but printed money is not dangerous if you dont use it. I dont care if the zimbabwe dollar is hyperinflated because i`m not using it.

If somebody start to print money, who cares. Just dont use it.


Also in a free market bitcoin is the most likely currecny to be used by the masses, so we know bitcoin cannot be printed.

The free market is choosing bitcoin at the moment.

......

I`m too lazy to respond to your other points 1000x times, i`ve already explained the basis of capitalism, and you keep asking thousands of questions that i have answered already.

Typical. You aren't too lazy, you just have no decent responses to offer. You know that capitalism is a failure. Why you continue to support it remains a mystery.

[ngupowered]

You know that capitalism is a failure. Why you continue to support it remains a mystery.

Pride, too much invested in the system, competitive upbringing that taught self-worth through hard work, low self-esteem, psychopathic tendencies nurtured in the competitive ethos of the free market, delusions of grandeur, stupidity, Stockholm syndrome - pick your favourite!

[V for Varoufakis]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

[deisik]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

If so, wouldn't that part (which is good in Capitalism by means of Keynesianism) have more to do with Socialism, being socialistic due to economic planning and public ownership (if I got your point right)?

[V for Varoufakis]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

If so, wouldn't that part (which is good in Capitalism by means of Keynesianism) have more to do with Socialism, being socialistic due to economic planning and public ownership (if I got your point right)?

Keynesianism is not a political system. It is a mathematic method to create and destroy money. It is not related to the question: "Who controls the means of production?" You can combine it with anything:
Keynesianism + Capitalism
Keynesianism + Socialism
Keynesianism + Communism

[deisik]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

If so, wouldn't that part (which is good in Capitalism by means of Keynesianism) have more to do with Socialism, being socialistic due to economic planning and public ownership (if I got your point right)?

Keynesianism is not a political system. It is a mathematic method to create and destroy money. It is not related to the question: "Who controls the means of production?" You can combine it with anything:
Keynesianism + Capitalism
Keynesianism + Socialism
Keynesianism + Communism

Okay, but in this case wouldn't they "who control the means of production" turn into the ones who control the "method to create and destroy money"? Further, since it is a mathematical construct (i.e. a set of predetermined rules and routines), it is opposed to the free market regulation (of, say, money creation and destruction), right?

[V for Varoufakis]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

If so, wouldn't that part (which is good in Capitalism by means of Keynesianism) have more to do with Socialism, being socialistic due to economic planning and public ownership (if I got your point right)?

Keynesianism is not a political system. It is a mathematic method to create and destroy money. It is not related to the question: "Who controls the means of production?" You can combine it with anything:
Keynesianism + Capitalism
Keynesianism + Socialism
Keynesianism + Communism

Okay, but in this case wouldn't they "who control the means of production" turn into the ones who control the "method to create and destroy money"? Further, since it is a mathematical construct (i.e. a set of predetermined rules and routines), it is opposed to the free market regulation (of, say, money creation and destruction), right?

Money is not a commodity. It is outside of the market.

[LightRider]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

If so, wouldn't that part (which is good in Capitalism by means of Keynesianism) have more to do with Socialism, being socialistic due to economic planning and public ownership (if I got your point right)?

Keynesianism is not a political system. It is a mathematic method to create and destroy money. It is not related to the question: "Who controls the means of production?" You can combine it with anything:
Keynesianism + Capitalism
Keynesianism + Socialism
Keynesianism + Communism

Okay, but in this case wouldn't they "who control the means of production" turn into the ones who control the "method to create and destroy money"? Further, since it is a mathematical construct (i.e. a set of predetermined rules and routines), it is opposed to the free market regulation (of, say, money creation and destruction), right?

Money is not a commodity. It is outside of the market.

You must be joking. Monetary markets are one of the most significant portions of the modern financial system.

[LightRider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc1Gbdy92uY

Basic Income and other ways to fix capitalism | Federico Pistono at TEDxHaarlem

[deisik]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

If so, wouldn't that part (which is good in Capitalism by means of Keynesianism) have more to do with Socialism, being socialistic due to economic planning and public ownership (if I got your point right)?

Keynesianism is not a political system. It is a mathematic method to create and destroy money. It is not related to the question: "Who controls the means of production?" You can combine it with anything:
Keynesianism + Capitalism
Keynesianism + Socialism
Keynesianism + Communism

Okay, but in this case wouldn't they "who control the means of production" turn into the ones who control the "method to create and destroy money"? Further, since it is a mathematical construct (i.e. a set of predetermined rules and routines), it is opposed to the free market regulation (of, say, money creation and destruction), right?

Money is not a commodity. It is outside of the market.

I was referring to endogenous money creation and destruction through credit (as opposed to a planned method of doing the same, by mathematical model or otherwise), which is regulated by free market mechanisms, that is, through the laws of supply and demand void of any intervention from outside...

[V for Varoufakis]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

If so, wouldn't that part (which is good in Capitalism by means of Keynesianism) have more to do with Socialism, being socialistic due to economic planning and public ownership (if I got your point right)?

Keynesianism is not a political system. It is a mathematic method to create and destroy money. It is not related to the question: "Who controls the means of production?" You can combine it with anything:
Keynesianism + Capitalism
Keynesianism + Socialism
Keynesianism + Communism

Okay, but in this case wouldn't they "who control the means of production" turn into the ones who control the "method to create and destroy money"? Further, since it is a mathematical construct (i.e. a set of predetermined rules and routines), it is opposed to the free market regulation (of, say, money creation and destruction), right?

Money is not a commodity. It is outside of the market.

I was referring to endogenous money creation and destruction through credit (as opposed to a planned method of doing the same, by mathematical model or otherwise), which is regulated by free market mechanisms, that is, through the laws of supply and demand void of any intervention from outside...

I m talking about the money creation and destruction without credit. Why you need credit? Print money and give it free. This is the Keynesian way.

[deisik]

Capitalism is good ONLY in combination with Keynesian mathematics.

If so, wouldn't that part (which is good in Capitalism by means of Keynesianism) have more to do with Socialism, being socialistic due to economic planning and public ownership (if I got your point right)?

Keynesianism is not a political system. It is a mathematic method to create and destroy money. It is not related to the question: "Who controls the means of production?" You can combine it with anything:
Keynesianism + Capitalism
Keynesianism + Socialism
Keynesianism + Communism

Okay, but in this case wouldn't they "who control the means of production" turn into the ones who control the "method to create and destroy money"? Further, since it is a mathematical construct (i.e. a set of predetermined rules and routines), it is opposed to the free market regulation (of, say, money creation and destruction), right?

Money is not a commodity. It is outside of the market.

I was referring to endogenous money creation and destruction through credit (as opposed to a planned method of doing the same, by mathematical model or otherwise), which is regulated by free market mechanisms, that is, through the laws of supply and demand void of any intervention from outside...

I m talking about the money creation and destruction without credit. Why you need credit? Print money and give it free. This is the Keynesian way.

And what's good in it? Isn't what you say looks more like Socialism, or, rather, Communism, the point that I made at the start?

By giving money for free you disincentivize those who are hard earning it, those who create goods