A Resource Based Economy

[RealBitcoin]

There is no "fair play" (let alone in sports), it is just a handy euphemism that winners use in respect to losers. Since we are talking about markets and free market in particular, it is a given that there is no fair-play as well. Why? Because if there were, there wouldn't be what is conveniently called "free" market...

Since free exchange of goods is based on a deceit of sorts

Of course there is, there is a set of traditions and customs in sport that are in most part not written, but it's honourable to play by them.

Athletes always respect their adversaries, and they are adversaries/competitors not enemies, there is a distinction between them.

Two boxers for example might do their best to beat eachother in the ring, but outside it they can be best buddies.

There have been several CEO's that were good friends despite being competitors.

You can still have honor amongst adversaries. What is so hard to comprehent about that?

Capitalism is not brutalism, even if you take the darwinist argument, two lions still respect each others hunting ground.

[1714028933]

1714028933

[1714028933]

1714028933

[1714028933]

1714028933

[1714028933]

1714028933

[1714028933]

1714028933

[deisik]

There is no "fair play" (let alone in sports), it is just a handy euphemism that winners use in respect to losers. Since we are talking about markets and free market in particular, it is a given that there is no fair-play as well. Why? Because if there were, there wouldn't be what is conveniently called "free" market...

Since free exchange of goods is based on a deceit of sorts

Of course there is, there is a set of traditions and customs in sport that are in most part not written, but it's honourable to play by them.

Athletes always respect their adversaries, and they are adversaries/competitors not enemies, there is a distinction between them.

Two boxers for example might do their best to beat eachother in the ring, but outside it they can be best buddies

Tell that to Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Just an example that I visualized when I read your post

[RealBitcoin]

Tell that to Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Just an example that I visualized when I read your post

Ok and there is a lot of doping in sports, and many fights and bribery. So what?

It's up to the athletes to defend their honor, and the fans to shame the guilty party.


Free market is not a utopia by any means, every flaw that humans have will happen regardless.

But in a Free market, conflicts would be resolved pretty fast. It would definitely not take 15 years to revoke the license of a company if they did something bad. The customers would just simply boycott them and they would go bankrupt instantly.

[ngupowered]

But in a Free market, conflicts would be resolved pretty fast. It would definitely not take 15 years to revoke the license of a company if they did something bad. The customers would just simply boycott them and they would go bankrupt instantly.

Obviously not true, because a company wouldn't tell the public if it did something wrong that could cause them bankruptcy, and some frauds are very hard to detect, such as the one below:

"When Volkswagen revealed in September that it had installed software on millions of cars in order to trick the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions testers into thinking that the cars were more environmentally friendly than they were, investors understandably deserted the company.", from fortune.com.

[RealBitcoin]

But in a Free market, conflicts would be resolved pretty fast. It would definitely not take 15 years to revoke the license of a company if they did something bad. The customers would just simply boycott them and they would go bankrupt instantly.

Obviously not true, because a company wouldn't tell the public if it did something wrong that could cause them bankruptcy, and some frauds are very hard to detect, such as the one below:

"When Volkswagen revealed in September that it had installed software on millions of cars in order to trick the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions testers into thinking that the cars were more environmentally friendly than they were, investors understandably deserted the company.", from fortune.com.

Companies need to be more transparent. I agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that my point above is invalid, the market can still force the companies to be transparent, if there is demand for it.

[deisik]

But in a Free market, conflicts would be resolved pretty fast. It would definitely not take 15 years to revoke the license of a company if they did something bad. The customers would just simply boycott them and they would go bankrupt instantly.

Obviously not true, because a company wouldn't tell the public if it did something wrong that could cause them bankruptcy, and some frauds are very hard to detect, such as the one below:

"When Volkswagen revealed in September that it had installed software on millions of cars in order to trick the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions testers into thinking that the cars were more environmentally friendly than they were, investors understandably deserted the company.", from fortune.com.

Companies need to be more transparent. I agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that my point above is invalid, the market can still force the companies to be transparent, if there is demand for it.

What to do if the demand for a company's transparency is matched and offset by the demand of the company's owners for secrecy and obscurity? Remember, this is free market, i.e. no state to set up the rules and enforce them...

Who is to balance conflicting demands and interests?

[RealBitcoin]

What to do if the demand for a company's transparency is matched and offset by the demand of the company's owners for secrecy and obscurity? Remember, this is free market, i.e. no state to set up the rules and enforce them...

Who is to balance conflicting demands and interests?

No way, there would be plenty of investigative journalists and undercover paparazzis that would uncover their secrets.

They would not grow that big in the first place, and investors always demand transparency. It's the fault of the complicated corporate laws that made the corporate structure as it is.

A corporation could be run by a blockchain, and all shareholders could vote to kick the executives out if they do shady things.

Currently only board members are allowed to vote because of logistics, but with blockchain, i would imagine a completely different capitalism than you do.

[deisik]

What to do if the demand for a company's transparency is matched and offset by the demand of the company's owners for secrecy and obscurity? Remember, this is free market, i.e. no state to set up the rules and enforce them...

Who is to balance conflicting demands and interests?

No way, there would be plenty of investigative journalists and undercover paparazzis that would uncover their secrets.

They would not grow that big in the first place, and investors always demand transparency. It's the fault of the complicated corporate laws that made the corporate structure as it is.

A corporation could be run by a blockchain, and all shareholders could vote to kick the executives out if they do shady things.

Currently only board members are allowed to vote because of logistics, but with blockchain, i would imagine a completely different capitalism than you do.

Whatever you do, you will inevitably run into a situation where the majority will be forcing the minority to do something... Is it okay in your variety of capitalism? So, who is to balance conflicting demands and interests, given there is no state with its laws...

That is, in the case of total laissez-faire capitalism?

[Xester]

But in a Free market, conflicts would be resolved pretty fast. It would definitely not take 15 years to revoke the license of a company if they did something bad. The customers would just simply boycott them and they would go bankrupt instantly.

Obviously not true, because a company wouldn't tell the public if it did something wrong that could cause them bankruptcy, and some frauds are very hard to detect, such as the one below:

"When Volkswagen revealed in September that it had installed software on millions of cars in order to trick the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions testers into thinking that the cars were more environmentally friendly than they were, investors understandably deserted the company.", from fortune.com.

Companies need to be more transparent. I agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that my point above is invalid, the market can still force the companies to be transparent, if there is demand for it.

Well there are always a way for everything. And it is true that we can force the company to be transparent but it will also take a long time to process. A single demand from a single person cannot do that it will take more or a hundred individuals and the attention of the media to fast track everything.  Even the implementation will take long. But hope the persons in charge if the free market are active and will make a move on transparency even without complains.

[deisik]

Well there are always a way for everything. And it is true that we can force the company to be transparent but it will also take a long time to process. A single demand from a single person cannot do that it will take more or a hundred individuals and the attention of the media to fast track everything.  Even the implementation will take long. But hope the persons in charge if the free market are active and will make a move on transparency even without complains.

Corporations will just buy the presstitues. Oh, wait, isn't that exactly what they are already doing and have been doing for years?

[ngupowered]

But in a Free market, conflicts would be resolved pretty fast. It would definitely not take 15 years to revoke the license of a company if they did something bad. The customers would just simply boycott them and they would go bankrupt instantly.

Obviously not true, because a company wouldn't tell the public if it did something wrong that could cause them bankruptcy, and some frauds are very hard to detect, such as the one below:

"When Volkswagen revealed in September that it had installed software on millions of cars in order to trick the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions testers into thinking that the cars were more environmentally friendly than they were, investors understandably deserted the company.", from fortune.com.

Companies need to be more transparent. I agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that my point above is invalid, the market can still force the companies to be transparent, if there is demand for it.

And there's nothing stopping consumers, in this system, voting their money; so you see, we actually DO have a free market.
In reality, this is capitalism: "2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump"

[RealBitcoin]

3 VS 1 , I love my odds

Whatever you do, you will inevitably run into a situation where the majority will be forcing the minority to do something... Is it okay in your variety of capitalism? So, who is to balance conflicting demands and interests, given there is no state with its laws...

That is, in the case of total laissez-faire capitalism?

Except that the majority also cares for the minority in most cases, humans are more more friendly these days.

I doubt slavery and things like that would happen, even if they would legalize it. Humans are much more civilized than 200 years ago.

Corporations will just buy the presstitues. Oh, wait, isn't that exactly what they are already doing and have been doing for years?

They already do that today, but that doesnt stop the alternative media to grow.

Plus there would be no corporations, so the presstitutes would be liable directly and the lies would no longer be protected.

Well there are always a way for everything. And it is true that we can force the company to be transparent but it will also take a long time to process. A single demand from a single person cannot do that it will take more or a hundred individuals and the attention of the media to fast track everything.  Even the implementation will take long. But hope the persons in charge if the free market are active and will make a move on transparency even without complains.

You can, nonviolently, force anybody to adhere to social norms.

You dont need to use violence, it's enough to socially isolate an entity, and it will be forced to cooperate.

And there's nothing stopping consumers, in this system, voting their money; so you see, we actually DO have a free market.
In reality, this is capitalism: "2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump"

If the local population didnt cared, then who would do something against it?

First it takes people to care about things before changes can happen. If everyone sits home watching TV and drinking beer in their fat bellies, then who would stand up for the principles?

If the population doesnt care, then it will happen anyway.

 

[RealBitcoin]

Let me put it this way, the free market doesn't mean, that people can't protest or express their opinions and demand the companies to do what they want.

The people are actually the clients of a company, so if a company does something bad, the clients react by protest,boycott, or isolation, or even selling their stocks, and the company is forced to obey their client's wishes.

The clients are in charge not the company, and the company only serves the clients.


If humans are dumb, and literally tolerate pollution, that is helpless, and nobody can save them.

It's not the company's fault, but the idiots who tolerate that.

[Orion25]

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.

and if people have got used to live for a brush loans, whether Bitcoin could provide such needs of users, in case if there is a massive shift in the cryptocurrency?

[MingLee]

But in a Free market, conflicts would be resolved pretty fast. It would definitely not take 15 years to revoke the license of a company if they did something bad. The customers would just simply boycott them and they would go bankrupt instantly.

Obviously not true, because a company wouldn't tell the public if it did something wrong that could cause them bankruptcy, and some frauds are very hard to detect, such as the one below:

"When Volkswagen revealed in September that it had installed software on millions of cars in order to trick the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions testers into thinking that the cars were more environmentally friendly than they were, investors understandably deserted the company.", from fortune.com.

Companies need to be more transparent. I agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that my point above is invalid, the market can still force the companies to be transparent, if there is demand for it.

And there's nothing stopping consumers, in this system, voting their money; so you see, we actually DO have a free market.
In reality, this is capitalism: "2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump"

Truthfully we don't really have a free market, in the US or in basically anywhere else, and that is because there are some things forced onto us that wouldn't necessarily be required in a free market, albeit preferred to own. Things like insurance, taxes, etc. are forced by the government which go to fund other businesses through them providing services, grants, loans, etc. and keep them afloat most of the time. If those companies do something shady, but the government keeps using them, there's nothing you can do.

[deisik]

3 VS 1 , I love my odds

Whatever you do, you will inevitably run into a situation where the majority will be forcing the minority to do something... Is it okay in your variety of capitalism? So, who is to balance conflicting demands and interests, given there is no state with its laws...

That is, in the case of total laissez-faire capitalism?

Except that the majority also cares for the minority in most cases, humans are more more friendly these days.

I doubt slavery and things like that would happen, even if they would legalize it. Humans are much more civilized than 200 years ago

Just like Stone Age didn't come to an end because of the lack of stones, slavery ended long before the world ran out of slaves. It's gone (primarily) because of economic reasons due to technological improvements that made slave labor inefficient and incompetitive with wage labor. If, for some reason, we are back to Medieval times technology wise, slavery will undoubtedly raise its ugly head again...

Strictly speaking, it is still here (human trafficking and things like that)

[ngupowered]

And there's nothing stopping consumers, in this system, voting their money; so you see, we actually DO have a free market.
In reality, this is capitalism: "2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump"

If the local population didnt cared, then who would do something against it?
 

Isn't that obvious? The people doing the dumping should have cared, but didn't, because it wasn't profitable, which is just capitalism rearing its ugly head. Yes, the locals were "lucky" just a few of them died or got sick so they found out; imagine instead, if they hadn't, but years or decades later.

[deisik]

And there's nothing stopping consumers, in this system, voting their money; so you see, we actually DO have a free market.
In reality, this is capitalism: "2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump"

If the local population didnt cared, then who would do something against it?
 

Isn't that obvious? The people doing the dumping should have cared, but didn't, because it wasn't profitable, which is just capitalism rearing its ugly head. Yes, the locals were "lucky" just a few of them died or got sick so they found out; imagine instead, if they hadn't, but years or decades later

This is called a free-market fiasco. It is assumed that for any market to be efficient all market participants should have equal access to information. In real life though, this is never the case and will never be. So those who are more informed will always have an advantage before those who are less informed (or more misinformed, lol), and free market (a total laissez-faire capitalism) can only make this situation worse, since there is no impartial arbitrator by definition (whose role is usually taken by the state)...

In short, everyone is manipulating others to the extent of their misunderstanding, and being manipulated himself to the extent of his own misunderstanding

[ngupowered]

It is assumed that for any market to be efficient all market participants should have equal access to information. In real life though, this is never the case and will never be. So those who are more informed will always have an advantage before those who are less informed (or more misinformed, lol), and free market (a total laissez-faire capitalism) can only make this situation worse, since there is no impartial arbitrator by definition (whose role is usually taken by the state)...

In short, everyone is manipulating others to the extent of their misunderstanding, and being manipulated himself to the extent of his own misunderstanding.

Short answer: it's profitable, short term, to manipulate people, be it markets or commodities, which is probably what's being done right now with some altcoins: the pump & dump; the buying of one's own coin on one's own market, boosting price; you name it.

Capitalism is like a magic trick: it isn't what is actually good from an engineering- or environmental standpoint, but how much one can deceive to make it look good. RealBitcoin suggested independent journalist and reviewers; but how do we know they aren't being manipulated as well, or are doing it themselves, or getting paid to do it.

[deisik]

Capitalism is like a magic trick: it isn't what is actually good from an engineering- or environmental standpoint, but how much one can deceive to make it look good. RealBitcoin suggested independent journalist and reviewers; but how do we know they aren't being manipulated as well, or are doing it themselves, or getting paid to do it

RB, lol, is delusional and seems to be lost in pipe dreams and fantasies. Journalism and reviewery won't help much since they will just demand their slice of the common pie in the end. Further, the real cause of this phenomenon ("how much one can deceive to make it look good") has its roots not in capitalism (capitalism is only the most straightforward way to tunnel this into reality and make use of it), but in human nature, or, rather, in the inborn difference in perception between people...

We don't need to purposely deceive each other to make something look better than it actually is (e.g. from an engineering point of view), since we are prone to deceiving ourselves even without any effort from outside in the first place