A Resource Based Economy

[LightRider]

There can be no free market. Humanity cannot become free from reality. The market must create a state to protect itself from reality.

Could you please care to explain this post.

Market participants who attempt to extract profits through trading activities experience significant problems. The exploitation of natural resources and other people for private gain generates conflict. To protect themselves from the consequences of that conflict, the market participants must create a state or government to quell those who are exploited. If the market did not do this, then there would be no profitable trading activity, as it would inevitably become intolerable by society as a whole. This is why the state often generates an external threat that diverts focus and attention away from the exploitative market. It's very simple, but not widely known. This is because the state is generally also responsible for education, and the market would not tolerate the widespread knowledge of this fact.

[Spring Tide]

There can be no free market. Humanity cannot become free from reality. The market must create a state to protect itself from reality.

Could you please care to explain this post.

Market participants who attempt to extract profits through trading activities experience significant problems. The exploitation of natural resources and other people for private gain generates conflict.

I exploit other people for private gain myself, it's called employment. I am not generating any conflict. I'm happy with them, they're happy with me.

To protect themselves from the consequences of that conflict, the market participants must create a state or government to quell those who are exploited. If the market did not do this, then there would be no profitable trading activity, as it would inevitably become intolerable by society as a whole.

You partially acknowledge the problem lies with governments and not the market itself. I am a market participant without the need of a state or government but still enjoy profitable trading atctivity, without the interference of any type of governing.

This is because the state is generally also responsible for education, and the market would not tolerate the widespread knowledge of this fact.

A free market will tolerate the widespread knowledge of anything. A state/government will not.

It's governments that are screwing us over.
It's governments that are creating conflict.

"Humanity cannot become free from reality." What are you trying to point out here?

You say you're very pleased to see Bitcoin growing but your Zeitgeist movement wants to kill the free market just as most people in power.

The Zeitgeist movement wants to get rid of the market system as a whole. This will completely rob me of what little is left of my freedom.

[Spring Tide]

Look a free market is simple, you trade 1 item for another, you want the other item more than yours, and the counterparty wants your item more than his, so when the trade is complete, you are both better off.

How is that not collaboration?

The trading you describe is barter, not a sophisticated monetary market of the kind generally discussed. I agree that barter is better, but it is impractical on a global scale.

Item one: My shoes.

Item two: A bitcoin.

How is this impractical on a global scale. How is this not collaboration.

[RealBitcoin]

Cartels are formed to fend off competition. That's why they engage in anticompetitive practices. Cartels engage in price fixing because they are no longer competing against members of the cartel and therefor use their position to exploit buyers. Banks have nothing to do with that particular behavior. The state is an extension of the market, and through regulatory capture, enacts laws and regulations that enable the cartels and monopolies to function while preventing significant competition or innovation. This is a fact that you can't seem to understand, but you should learn about before continuing to talk about markets because you seem very ignorant on the subject.

The trading you describe is barter, not a sophisticated monetary market of the kind generally discussed. I agree that barter is better, but it is impractical on a global scale.

No. Cartels are formed by 2 reasons:

1) Illegal collaboration (if their industry is illegal, they need organization to survive otherwise they end up in jail: drug cartels, maffia, etc.)
2) Uneven competitiveness resulting instant monopolies or oligopolies

Now nr 1) is obvious, no need to explain that.

However nr. 2) is your usual cartels (oil,bank,pharmaceuticals,contrsuction,etc.)

Why did nr.2 came into existence. It was because a handful of people got rich too quick and too early, and they were able to bribe politicians to enact laws in favor of them. These industries are not today born, the banking system exists since the 1700, sure they had time to bribe everryone.

And back then it was even easier, because there was only 1 king that needed to be bribed, so the nr 1) monopoly has always existed.

If we would start again humanity, with no kingdoms, but with current technology, I would guarantee you that no cartels would exist, since there would be nobody with sufficient power to be bribed, since everyone would start off small and be competitive from the start.

It's only when you have a 300 year old cartel that got the early power from the kings, you cannot bring in the free market here as argument, the nr.1 monopoly there was the kingdom itself.


------------------------------

I wasnt talking about barter there, because you put take 1 intermediary, between the 2 items, that will be the currency, and have the same system, but much more liquid.

It can be done in global scale, as you can see how, however a non-inflationary currency , like bitcoin would be more efficient.

[ngupowered]

No. VAT is meant to control prices.

If the government would not want to control prices then it would not have VAT or tariffs, it would just have 1 type of tax, and that would be it.

The reason why we got VAT,tariffs, income tax, etc is because they want to control the entire economy. That is not a free economy /free market.

Sorry but your logic fails.

I reiterate Webster's definition of "free market" - which you expressly agreed with:
" an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government ", my emphasis.

You need to show that the Gov. is somehow directly controlling prices "among private businesses" - who to my knowledge do not pay GST or VAT - such as thwarting price dumping which stifles competition.

Instead, you seem to be arguing for a completely unregulated market, which however is not supported by the definition. Indeed, I could argue that the gov. is controlling the oil price by warring; or that a mosquito farting in the jungle turns into a hailstorm destroying crops controls prices; or that a company employing "slave labor" moves into an area and dumps prices controls prices - the definition is however much narrower.

Besides, even if you managed to show that it's not a free market according to the definition above, you still need to show that the money paid for GST or VAT, in turn, was not competed for and not put to good use, such as infrastructure, education, medical etc. and that a completely unregulated market would have disposed of those resources more efficiently - good luck!

[Quinn]

Greetings,

I was very excited to learn about the Bitcoin currency several months ago, and I am very pleased to see it growing. I am part of an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement, who advocates a resource based economy. We are interested in seeing a radical redesign of society and an associated shift in values. We understand that the major cause of human suffering today is the current monetary system and the warped values and corrupt behavior inherent in its implementation. We know that we can provide food, water, shelter and a highly technological life style to every one on the planet if we chose to do so. What generally prevents us from doing so is the idea of money, which paralyzes us as a society, in terms of technological advancement, quality of education and healthcare, and a sick culture that encourages us to be competitive and cruel to our fellow human beings.

Knowing and understanding the underlying mechanics of a monetary system is fundamental to not being abused by it. Currently, the vast majority of people are unaware of the destructive and unfair nature of our current fractional reserve banking system, and that makes them vulnerable to all the abuses we see today. Poverty, war, crime and hunger are the result of inequitable economic practices, and will not significantly change until we end or significantly alter our subservience to this and associated institutions. I believe Bitcoin would make for an ideal transition currency until a full RBE can be implemented.

An RBE is basically the realization that there are no arbitrary restrictions on reality. Being bound to the imaginary rules of a monetary game, we limit how much we can accomplish and provide for each other. If we declared all of the earth's resources as common heritage for all the world's people, and used the methods of science to construct and provide all of life's necessities for all people, then there would be considerable reduction in hunger, crime, war and poverty, not to mention unnecessary suffering due to lack of access of medical care or inadequate educational opportunities. If people were given all that were necessary to survive, they could devote themselves to the benefit of all man kind. These would be the values of a resource based economy, not the competitive and acquisitive value based behavior we see today.

I encourage you to learn more about these ideas if they interest you. I hope to support the bitcoin system as long as I am able, and I hope to see it become a dominant and thriving ecosystem in the months and years to come. Thank you for your time and attention.

I think a radical redesign of society and an associated shift in values is impossible.  Money is a necessity for us to live.

[RealBitcoin]

I reiterate Webster's definition of "free market" - which you expressly agreed with:
" an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government ", my emphasis.

You need to show that the Gov. is somehow directly controlling prices "among private businesses" - who to my knowledge do not pay GST or VAT - such as thwarting price dumping which stifles competition.

Instead, you seem to be arguing for a completely unregulated market, which however is not supported by the definition. Indeed, I could argue that the gov. is controlling the oil price by warring; or that a mosquito farting in the jungle turns into a hailstorm destroying crops controls prices; or that a company employing "slave labor" moves into an area and dumps prices controls prices - the definition is however much narrower.

Besides, even if you managed to show that it's not a free market according to the definition above, you still need to show that the money paid for GST or VAT, in turn, was not competed for and not put to good use, such as infrastructure, education, medical etc. and that a completely unregulated market would have disposed of those resources more efficiently - good luck!

Some companies , closer to politicians, can get VAT cuts on certain products.

Also the VAT is not uniform for all products, thus it will create a gap between the supply & demand.

If you have say 5% VAT on bread, and 4% VAT on restaurant menu's, then the restaurant is better off if they produce the bread themselves instead of buying it from a bakery, since they save 5% VAT on it, and only pay the 4% vat on every menu served.

This example clearly shows how the economy is distorted by them. Not to mention the wallets of the consumers.

Direct/indirect doesnt matter, the influence is pretty big, and you cant deny it, thus it is not a free market, that is heavily controlled, or at least influenced.

The dictionary definition is correct, but it is very narrow, the free market is a broader definition, while that definition is correct, thats only 1 pillar of the free market. Far more criterias need to be correct in order for us to talk about free market for example:

-Absolutely no government interference in the market: no regulation ,no taxes, no interfering laws ,and no quotas
-Free creation of marketplaces that facilitate the supply & demand exchange
-No interference in the natural exchange cycles
-Free choice of the nature,quantity, quality, price, and currency, of the tradable item/service.

Without those criterias, I would not talk about free market.

[ngupowered]

Sorry but free market is the way to go: tiny or no regulations, and tiny or no taxes   [Contradiction a]

Merriam-Webster defines "free market" as

" an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government "

So, accordingly, to you denying the current paradigm to be a free market, in the US. for instance, where has the gov. stepped in and regulated prices for private businesses not subject to US. law?

I dont understand your question, but the dictionary definition is pretty spot on. [Here you agree with the definition]

And thus you realize that every market is controlled, because every market is either regulated or taxed, or both. And both the tax & the regulation distorts its price.

Tell me a VAT or (GST) tax doesnt distort the real price of any item? Doesnt the income tax destroy the spending power of the workers, and thus create mal-investments in the economy and tons of worthless bureocrats?

Yes it's not a free market, not by far.

[

Some companies , closer to politicians, can get VAT cuts on certain products.

The dictionary definition is correct, but it is very narrow, the free market is a broader definition, while that definition is correct, thats only 1 pillar of the free market. Far more criterias need to be correct in order for us to talk about free market for example:

-Absolutely no government interference in the market: no regulation ,no taxes, no interfering laws ,and no quotas [Contradiction a]
-Free creation of marketplaces that facilitate the supply & demand exchange
-No interference in the natural exchange cycles
-Free choice of the nature,quantity, quality, price, and currency, of the tradable item/service.

Without those criterias, I would not talk about free market.

You are talking about an unregulated market; and you also managed to contradict yourself: see "[Contradiction a]" in your quote above!

The definition doesn't have any other qualifier; it is what it is. It doesn't speak of gov:s influencing private businesses, but actually controlling/setting the price for them. I'm not talking about the end user, but about private businesses buying&selling, setting their own prices and competing; so where's the gov. regulating prices?

[Poppy]

Greetings,

I was very excited to learn about the Bitcoin currency several months ago, and I am very pleased to see it growing. I am part of an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement, who advocates a resource based economy. We are interested in seeing a radical redesign of society and an associated shift in values. We understand that the major cause of human suffering today is the current monetary system and the warped values and corrupt behavior inherent in its implementation. We know that we can provide food, water, shelter and a highly technological life style to every one on the planet if we chose to do so. What generally prevents us from doing so is the idea of money, which paralyzes us as a society, in terms of technological advancement, quality of education and healthcare, and a sick culture that encourages us to be competitive and cruel to our fellow human beings.

Knowing and understanding the underlying mechanics of a monetary system is fundamental to not being abused by it. Currently, the vast majority of people are unaware of the destructive and unfair nature of our current fractional reserve banking system, and that makes them vulnerable to all the abuses we see today. Poverty, war, crime and hunger are the result of inequitable economic practices, and will not significantly change until we end or significantly alter our subservience to this and associated institutions. I believe Bitcoin would make for an ideal transition currency until a full RBE can be implemented.

An RBE is basically the realization that there are no arbitrary restrictions on reality. Being bound to the imaginary rules of a monetary game, we limit how much we can accomplish and provide for each other. If we declared all of the earth's resources as common heritage for all the world's people, and used the methods of science to construct and provide all of life's necessities for all people, then there would be considerable reduction in hunger, crime, war and poverty, not to mention unnecessary suffering due to lack of access of medical care or inadequate educational opportunities. If people were given all that were necessary to survive, they could devote themselves to the benefit of all man kind. These would be the values of a resource based economy, not the competitive and acquisitive value based behavior we see today.

I encourage you to learn more about these ideas if they interest you. I hope to support the bitcoin system as long as I am able, and I hope to see it become a dominant and thriving ecosystem in the months and years to come. Thank you for your time and attention.

I think a resource based economy will only work for countries with rich natural resources.  We also cannot do away with money all the way.

[RealBitcoin]

You are talking about an unregulated market; and you also managed to contradict yourself: see "[Contradiction a]" in your quote above!

The definition doesn't have any other qualifier; it is what it is. It doesn't speak of gov:s influencing private businesses, but actually controlling/setting the price for them. I'm not talking about the end user, but about private businesses buying&selling, setting their own prices and competing; so where's the gov. regulating prices?

You are just spinning my words, yes an unregulated market is a form of free market, but a free market has to be more than that.

An unregulated market can become infested with cartels, because it's unregulated.

A free market doesn't have inteference neither from private governments (cartels) nor public governments (state).

[ngupowered]

You are just spinning my words, yes an unregulated market is a form of free market, but a free market has to be more than that.

An unregulated market can become infested with cartels, because it's unregulated.

A free market doesn't have inteference neither from private governments (cartels) nor public governments (state).

I gave you Webster's definition of "free market" which you expressly agreed with; but now you say that "a free market has to be more than that", when it isn't more; it is just that definition.

This stalling of yours leads me to believe that private businesses, in the US., do enjoy a free market: they buy and sell at privately set prices and compete on equal terms, without gov. price control.

You clearly are looking for an unregulated market, be it of persons or property - where for ex. cartels have a right to exist.

[RealBitcoin]

You are just spinning my words, yes an unregulated market is a form of free market, but a free market has to be more than that.

An unregulated market can become infested with cartels, because it's unregulated.

A free market doesn't have inteference neither from private governments (cartels) nor public governments (state).

I gave you Webster's definition of "free market" which you expressly agreed with; but now you say that "a free market has to be more than that", when it isn't more; it is just that definition.

This stalling of yours leads me to believe that private businesses, in the US., do enjoy a free market: they buy and sell at privately set prices and compete on equal terms, without gov. price control.

You clearly are looking for an unregulated market, be it of persons or property - where for ex. cartels have a right to exist.

You are deliberately cherry picking and spinning my words. I said that I agree with the definition, but the definition only covers 1 aspect of the free market, the free market encompasses that definition, but it's more than that.

It's like a venn diagram between the dictionary definition, and my definition, and the intersecting point is the correct one.


You know exactly how much cartels and the government distorts the market, however you dont admit it directly. How can a free (freedom) market be one that is distorted by these forces.

Cartels dont fit in the definition of free markets, because when the competition is high, then cartels cant exist, since none of the players have enough share to turn over the rest of them.

Think about it as the bitcoin mining distribution, even if the top 3 mining sites bind together they still cannot reach the 51% majority.Why?

Because the bitcoin mining space IS a free market.

[ngupowered]

You are deliberately cherry picking and spinning my words. I said that I agree with the definition, but the definition only covers 1 aspect of the free market, the free market encompasses that definition, but it's more than that.

It's like a venn diagram between the dictionary definition, and my definition, and the intersecting point is the correct one.


You know exactly how much cartels and the government distorts the market, however you dont admit it directly. How can a free (freedom) market be one that is distorted by these forces.

Cartels dont fit in the definition of free markets, because when the competition is high, then cartels cant exist, since none of the players have enough share to turn over the rest of them.

Think about it as the bitcoin mining distribution, even if the top 3 mining sites bind together they still cannot reach the 51% majority.Why?

Because the bitcoin mining space IS a free market.

Whether the gov. influences the market is a whole other question - just like a mosquito taking a dump in the jungle, thereby influencing the weather - so I won't comment on that.

I gave you the definition and you said "pretty much spot on"; you didn't say "yes, but that's only one part".

Here's a checklist for you - yes-or-no questions:
In the US., do private businesses:
 a) set their own prices among each other, and
 b) do they compete with one another.

[Spring Tide]

Here's a checklist for you - yes-or-no questions:
In the US., do private businesses:
 a) set their own prices among each other, and
 b) do they compete with one another.

He got your point, stop being annoying

The free market is free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

[RealBitcoin]

Whether the gov. influences the market is a whole other question - just like a mosquito taking a dump in the jungle, thereby influencing the weather - so I won't comment on that.

I gave you the definition and you said "pretty much spot on"; you didn't say "yes, but that's only one part".

Here's a checklist for you - yes-or-no questions:
In the US., do private businesses:
 a) set their own prices among each other, and
 b) do they compete with one another.

I think you are just trolling here. Or you are not taking my posts seriously.

What is with the mosquito comparison to the government, its the scale of the influence. The government controls the entire economy deeply embedded and ultra-influential.

Guess how much will the mosquito influence the jungle. It's like comparing the mosquito to the elephant.

A) That depends, since they would want to offer a competitive price, but they cant because of the VAT + regulations
(ex: why do you think the bank transaction fee is 5-20$ while bitcoin is <0.01$, its because the AML and KYC regulations)

B) That also depends since most of them compete for the government to give them perks. If they would compete against eachother with fair play, then cartels would have never formed.

If they compete for tax cuts,special laws, and bribing officials then that is not a free market anymore, not by a longshot.

[ngupowered]

Here's a checklist for you - yes-or-no questions:
In the US., do private businesses:
 a) set their own prices among each other, and
 b) do they compete with one another.

He got your point, stop being annoying
The free market is free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

Apparently he didn't get it, given his response below. And that's not the definition of free market we are discussing.

Or you are not taking my posts seriously.

Well, how can I?
First you say that Webster's is "pretty much spot on", only later to recant and state "that's only one part of the free market", when I pointed out what the definition really says.

It seems that you are unable to distinguish between an unregulated market and a free market. Indeed, investopedia.com calls a free market a "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control.".

So I reiterate that in the US., do private businesses
 a) set their own prices among each other, and
 b) do they compete with one another?

[RealBitcoin]

Well, how can I?
First you say that Webster's is "pretty much spot on", only later to recant and state "that's only one part of the free market", when I pointed out what the definition really says.

It seems that you are unable to distinguish between an unregulated market and a free market. Indeed, investopedia.com calls a free market a "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control.".

So I reiterate that in the US., do private businesses
 a) set their own prices among each other, and
 b) do they compete with one another?

Ok now you are getting annoying. You just cherry pick my words and get hang up on some silly misunderstanding and fail to read my content of my posts.

I already explained it like 3 times what I mean but you still stick to the definition glitch. How about you read my post and reply to those arguments.

I already answered to your questions, so either you reply to the contents of my posts or the discussion is over.

[thejaytiesto]

True, but the point is, when there is a surplus of stuff, you can just use it and send it back to a place that stores all that stuff, I think this is the correct mindset for the future. Using something for free and then giving it back so other people can use it, instead of storing useless shit we only use once.

That is contrary to human nature.

Human nature is based on hoarding and scarce resources. Whenever somebody find some rare item, he rather hoards it, instead of letting others to use it.

You are trying to change 1 million years old genetic instincts in a few years of "Venus Project" , well good luck with that. You dont understand how humanity's essence works.

Better luck trying your system with another species because with humans it wont work.

__________________________________-

Plus if you would put "income" tax on plants, in the forms of limiting the CO2 plants get, it's not like the plants will go a tax revolt.

However they will create less oxigen for humans, and we will all suffocate. Thats what government regulation does to the economy too.

"Human nature" is a very vapid concept. Humans adapt to a lot of things, humans can be a lot of things.
The example of a market is always there because "When you inhale air you trade your CO2 to the plants, and the plants give in return O2." is stretched out as hell. Pragmatically, we consider that there is no market there because of the surplus of air and CO2.

Similarly, once machines are able to deliver a surplus of goods and services, the market will get reduced to some niche things like as you said something very rare. Then again I don't know how this all will work in the context of most people not being needed to do any jobs.

[ngupowered]

RealBitcoin,

I only need you to answer whether US. private businesses set their own prices- and compete among another and, if the answer is no, provide examples to that effect, such as laws. I don't want rants about taxes being slavery or an unduly burden, etc - since they are not germane to the question.

Meanwhile, let's enjoy - ahem - what you have written so far:

Sorry but free market is the way to go: tiny or no regulations, and tiny or no taxes

VS

-Absolutely no government interference in the market: no regulation ,no taxes, no interfering laws ,and no quotas.

VS

investiopedia.com: "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control"

AND

Merriam-Webster defines "free market" as
" an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government "

[,] but the dictionary definition is pretty spot on.

VS

The dictionary definition is correct, but it is very narrow, the free market is a broader definition, while that definition is correct, thats only 1 pillar of the free market. Far more criterias need to be correct in order for us to talk about free market

, MY EMPHASIS!

[Quinn]

Greetings,

I was very excited to learn about the Bitcoin currency several months ago, and I am very pleased to see it growing. I am part of an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement, who advocates a resource based economy. We are interested in seeing a radical redesign of society and an associated shift in values. We understand that the major cause of human suffering today is the current monetary system and the warped values and corrupt behavior inherent in its implementation. We know that we can provide food, water, shelter and a highly technological life style to every one on the planet if we chose to do so. What generally prevents us from doing so is the idea of money, which paralyzes us as a society, in terms of technological advancement, quality of education and healthcare, and a sick culture that encourages us to be competitive and cruel to our fellow human beings.

Knowing and understanding the underlying mechanics of a monetary system is fundamental to not being abused by it. Currently, the vast majority of people are unaware of the destructive and unfair nature of our current fractional reserve banking system, and that makes them vulnerable to all the abuses we see today. Poverty, war, crime and hunger are the result of inequitable economic practices, and will not significantly change until we end or significantly alter our subservience to this and associated institutions. I believe Bitcoin would make for an ideal transition currency until a full RBE can be implemented.

An RBE is basically the realization that there are no arbitrary restrictions on reality. Being bound to the imaginary rules of a monetary game, we limit how much we can accomplish and provide for each other. If we declared all of the earth's resources as common heritage for all the world's people, and used the methods of science to construct and provide all of life's necessities for all people, then there would be considerable reduction in hunger, crime, war and poverty, not to mention unnecessary suffering due to lack of access of medical care or inadequate educational opportunities. If people were given all that were necessary to survive, they could devote themselves to the benefit of all man kind. These would be the values of a resource based economy, not the competitive and acquisitive value based behavior we see today.

I encourage you to learn more about these ideas if they interest you. I hope to support the bitcoin system as long as I am able, and I hope to see it become a dominant and thriving ecosystem in the months and years to come. Thank you for your time and attention.

A resource based economy is good.  It can support the whole population with its resources.