A Resource Based Economy

[pretendo]

Not really, I am not very political, but I dislike when people treat facts as opinions when there is objective truth (math/econ is my specialty and these sciences leave little room for opinion)
One mans ignorance is not as good as another man's knowledge. But ask my anything non-mathematical and non-economic and I will not feel very strongly, other than hurting and  forcing people to do things one way is not a good thing.

[1715125073]

1715125073

[1715125073]

1715125073

[1715125073]

1715125073

[LightRider]

Not really, I am not very political, but I dislike when people treat facts as opinions when there is objective truth (math/econ is my specialty and these sciences leave little room for opinion)
One mans ignorance is not as good as another man's knowledge. But ask my anything non-mathematical and non-economic and I will not feel very strongly, other than hurting and  forcing people to do things one way is not a good thing.

How can you claim that economics is a science when it is based on subjective opinion? Money is a matter of opinion. Price is a matter of opinion. Market regulation is a matter of opinion. Government intervention is a matter of opinion. The free market is entirely mythical. On what do you base this assertion that economics "leaves little room for opinion"? And to be technically factual, even math is a matter of opinion ultimately, so even bitcoin is ultimately someone's opinion.

[pretendo]

How can you claim that economics is a science when it is based on subjective opinion?

Some or even most people holding an incorrect belief does not make something a matter of opinion. 1+1=2 no matter how many people disagree.

Money is a matter of opinion.

Money certainly exists, not sure what you mean

Price is a matter of opinion.

No, things certainly have prices, your personal valuation is an opinion though.

Market regulation is a matter of opinion. Government intervention is a matter of opinion.

Some regulation and intervention leads to positive results, a vast majority does not. This isn't opinion if we are talking about economic results. Spiritual or cultural results? Maybe.

The free market is entirely mythical.

Markets can certainly be free, it's more of a sliding scale between free and unfree, with most places being shades of gray. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking here's a cool list

On what do you base this assertion that economics "leaves little room for opinion"?

Because some actions, systems and policies lead to better results than others. This both be observed and can be derived from immutable laws, just like physics.

And to be technically factual, even math is a matter of opinion ultimately, so even bitcoin is ultimately someone's opinion.

to be technically factual eh? No, math isn't a matter of opinion, but you are more than welcome to be wrong, I don't think anyone will care much

[LightRider]

Would you agree that price, cost and value are entirely separate things?

[memvola]

This is technically inaccurate. An RBE can only exist in the context of a global economic model, because the basis of such an economy is the understanding that all people share one planet. If you don't understand that you cannot divide the world into pieces for your own pleasure because we are all intrinsically connected via a common biosphere, then you are not yet understanding what an RBE is all about. It requires a shift in values, not a PhD in economic "science".

So, back to my hypothetical "alien human race" example, the RBE will automatically switch to not being successful the moment we discover there is another portion of humanity (or let's say other intellectual beings) that doesn't abide by the fundamentals of RBE.

I can understand that we share the planet and the resources are too liquid for us to imagine a perfect man-made bubble.

But I don't get how we would resolve this. Maybe I'm missing something and I'm willing to be corrected, so I'll give a dumb example.

Let's say I have a matter very urgent to me half way across the world, that I can't prove that it's urgent. Not in the proper time frame anyway, or a matter that is not mentioned in the rule books.

I meet Bob at the airport waiting for his flight and propose to switch flights. He doesn't agree even though he is ultimately altruistic because his matter is provably urgent. I propose to give him the right to switch flights with me in the future and he accepts.

Are this types of contracts agreeable in a RBE world?

Now, the next week, Bob is in the same situation and manages to get the flight by trading the contract with Alice. Alice, wary of being in the same situation with me and Bob, decides to accumulate these contracts with hopes to trade them in the future. Flight switching contracts becomes a currency.

If this is all agreeable, I will continue this line of thought to reach a point where we can call money exists.

I don't have ulterior motives with this, just want to know what the perspective of Zeitgeist and RBE people are. I would say I'd desire a RBE, but I won't call it possible unless I can plausibly claim that it is. If I can't do that, it's not even a hypothesis.

Would you agree that price, cost and value are entirely separate things?

This would be a more mature conversation if we all decided to speak with the relevant terms from das Kapital, don't you think? At least my dumb questions wouldn't feel that dumb in that context.

[pretendo]

Would you agree that price, cost and value are entirely separate things?

price and value are separate things
cost is ill-defined but can influence price if you're using it the way I am

[ElectricMucus]

I advocate using technology to help people to make a better society for everyone.

Me too.

I go first: I am an Primitivist Anarchist with Futurist influences.
Now you!

Lesson about Primitivism:
Get off the fucking internet.

I'm dependent on it  
And in itself it isn't a bad thing from a primitvist perspective, it's just the way it's used. And in current society internet forums are the closest thing society has to offer to tribes.
I don't really use it for much else.

[Atlas]

Would you agree that price, cost and value are entirely separate things?

Does the fact that you could get a thousand different answers for this question give you a clue?

Value is subjective and the price and cost comes from that; which tend to vary enormously depending on location, time and other variables.

[pretendo]

And in current society internet forums are the closest thing society has to offer to tribes.

credibility lost

[ElectricMucus]

And in current society internet forums are the closest thing society has to offer to tribes.

credibility lost

How so?

[pretendo]

how is this at all like a tribe? it's a loose association of strangers that really don't know anything about each other or care about each other or depend on each other, and are only tangentially associated in one small aspect of their lives

[memvola]

Would you agree that price, cost and value are entirely separate things?

Does the fact that you could get a thousand different answers for this question give you a clue?

Value is subjective and the price and cost comes from that; which tend to vary enormously depending on location, time and other variables.

True in general.

Value can't be known until there is an established exchange value (even this is unclear with RBE). Transformation of exchange value to prices is a problem that can't be solved into everyone's satisfaction, so there is another hidden subjectivity there. Cost is indirectly related to exchange value among other things, and is an integral part of the transformation problem. Use value, which you missed, is totally free of all this.

[Atlas]

Would you agree that price, cost and value are entirely separate things?

Does the fact that you could get a thousand different answers for this question give you a clue?

Value is subjective and the price and cost comes from that; which tend to vary enormously depending on location, time and other variables.

Use value, which you missed, is totally free of all this.

Who defines "use value"?

[memvola]

Who defines "use value"?

It's subjective in a different sense. For instance breathable air has almost infinite use value whereas an old family photo has almost zero. But from a communistic perspective, a generalization could be made by a naturalistic argument to keep this subjectivity out of the picture. Luckily, since it's already free (of exchange value), this shouldn't necessarily result in oppression.

Though I can see a problem with regards to the non-scarcity rhetoric because of the vagueness in definition of value. If no exchange takes place, how do you know value? This may result in the calamity of defining respective use values.

[ElectricMucus]

how is this at all like a tribe? it's a loose association of strangers that really don't know anything about each other or care about each other or depend on each other, and are only tangentially associated in one small aspect of their lives

I'm sad you feel about it that way.
Forums usually have a sense of identey which grows independently of the main site. Of course every forum is differnt. and some exibit this behavoir more than others.

FYI I have been on forums since over a decade. If you are new to this you'll notice it after a year or two.

[Atlas]

Who defines "use value"?

It's subjective in a different sense. For instance breathable air has almost infinite use value whereas an old family photo has almost zero. But from a communistic perspective, a generalization could be made by a naturalistic argument to keep this subjectivity out of the picture. Luckily, since it's already free, this shouldn't necessarily result in oppression.

Though I can see a problem with regards to the non-scarcity rhetoric because of the vagueness in definition of value. If no exchange takes place, how do you know value? This may result in the calamity of defining respective use values.

So this whole things relies on things not being scarce?

The most pertinent question is how do we get from scarcity to total non-scarcity in a short period of time?

[memvola]

The most pertinent question is how do we get from scarcity to total non-scarcity in a short period of time?

Do we have a good definition of non-scarcity? Obviously it doesn't literally mean non-scarcity. If we knew what the question means, then maybe we could reason about it.

ETA: I think the idea is to perpetually be in movement from scarcity to a post-scarcity state. But I don't see a paradigm shift during that journey. It's scarcity all the way.

[mobodick]

Not your associations, your professed beliefs. Someone that believes in leprechauns or a faked moon landing almost certainly lacks critical thinking skills.

Because the ideas of a society based on relevant education, life sustaining values and an actual economy are equivalent to a belief in leprechauns?

If you expect these things to be accepted by all human beings then yes, you do believe in leprechauns.
And in a way your ideas are exactly like that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Nice to get the pot but no real life rainbow will lead you there.

You believe that you can make an assertion about all human beings? What compels you to assert such a statement? I don't say that absolutely everyone has to agree with these ideas, but a society that does would be far better than the one we have now.

I assert that people are different and not everyone will listen.

And a society agreeing with your ideas would not be better off because they would not be able to implement these ideas and make them work.
I mean, the main goal is nice and all, but you absolutely have to throw most of those ideas away because they are not realistic and unachievable from current perspective.
It's not only about the goal, it is also about getting there.

But, you know, it is always nice to dream.

[mobodick]

Are you trying to tell me government debt is a market failure?
Am I being trolled here?

Government is the dominant institution of humanity. Do you disagree with the way people have chosen to organize themselves? If so, why? Don't people have the right to organize themselves the way they see fit? If not, why not? Would you make them behave the way you would want them to? What makes you qualified to tell them how to behave? What happens when they choose not to behave in that way? Will you punish them?

What makes you think there will be enough people wanting to organize themselfs to create a global change?
Why did all the 'small segregated community' experiments fail miserably?
There is no need to punnish these people, they are only hurting themselfs.

[mobodick]

I advocate using technology to help people to make a better society for everyone.

Me too.

I go first: I am an Primitivist Anarchist with Futurist influences.
Now you!

Lesson about Primitivism:
Get off the fucking internet.

I'm dependent on it  
And in itself it isn't a bad thing from a primitvist perspective, it's just the way it's used. And in current society internet forums are the closest thing society has to offer to tribes.
I don't really use it for much else.

Bad excuse, man.
Internet is so deep into what primitivists don't want.

We had to go through the industrial revolution, then we switched to an oil economy and built the information age from that.

A tribe as seen from a primitivists point of view is realy a tribe living out there in the bush.
Just some people trying to live together without the use of technological development.
Even better, primitivists would like it to be tribes of hunter-gatherers. So no farming, ok?
No technology whatsoever if possible (but i wonder how they will make clothing for the winter without technology).

So, please, go offline, switch off your computer, get into your bear suit and find a nice piece of land to frollic on and search for berries.