A Resource Based Economy

[ElectricMucus]

Neither,

I already made my point clear, the crux of the matter are the means of production. These are so unfairly distributed in our society that any discussion about if money is a necessity becomes irrelevant.
This is also where Libertarians and traditional Anarchists disagree, it's the central point of all economics.

[1713876155]

1713876155

[1713876155]

1713876155

[1713876155]

1713876155

[1713876155]

1713876155

[1713876155]

1713876155

[QuestionAuthority]

Neither,

I already made my point clear, the crux of the matter are the means of production. These are so unfairly distributed in our society that any discussion about if money is a necessity becomes irrelevant.
This is also where Libertarians and traditional Anarchists disagree, it's the central point of all economics.

But can't small scale production still be controlled by the little guy and money is just a tool (kind of like Atlas was - a tool I mean)? The junior nutball has a point.

[ElectricMucus]

Neither,

I already made my point clear, the crux of the matter are the means of production. These are so unfairly distributed in our society that any discussion about if money is a necessity becomes irrelevant.
This is also where Libertarians and traditional Anarchists disagree, it's the central point of all economics.

But can't small scale production still be controlled by the little guy and money is just a tool (kind of like Atlas was - a tool I mean)? The junior nutball has a point.

What I am saying is that the means of production shall not be subject to traditional ownership in a capitalist sense. It is not supposed to be hoarded since it isn't utilized then.
There is a (in)famous marxist quote on that matter: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

The same way Libertarians express their "freedom" as the ability to own the means of production, I express mine as the ability to seize them without payment within need.

[QuestionAuthority]

Neither,

I already made my point clear, the crux of the matter are the means of production. These are so unfairly distributed in our society that any discussion about if money is a necessity becomes irrelevant.
This is also where Libertarians and traditional Anarchists disagree, it's the central point of all economics.

But can't small scale production still be controlled by the little guy and money is just a tool (kind of like Atlas was - a tool I mean)? The junior nutball has a point.

What I am saying is that the means of production shall not be subject to traditional ownership in a capitalist sense. It is not supposed to be hoarded since it isn't utilized then.
There is a (in)famous marxist quote on that matter: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

The same way Libertarians express their "freedom" as the ability to own the means of production, I express mine as the ability to seize them without payment within need.

That sounds remarkably socialist to me, even down to quoting Marxists. You're not socialist are you?

[ElectricMucus]

I don't attribute myself to it, but I can understand that from a Libertarian perspective I can be viewed as such.

There are things in socialist schools of thought which I agree upon as well as many I disagree upon.
But if you ask me this question in a real debate I'd probably say: "Yes, I am socialist! *eg*"

[QuestionAuthority]

I don't attribute myself to it, but I can understand that from a Libertarian perspective I can be viewed as such.

There are things in socialist schools of thought which I agree upon as well as many I disagree upon.
But if you ask me this question in a real debate I'd probably say: "Yes, I am socialist! *eg*"

Well then I can agree with you. I appreciate many socialist ideals but in practice they don't seem to work.

[Rassah]

Bumping this up for further discussion.

At the beginning of this fine thread Nefario the scammer said, "The fact that bitcoin cannot be manipulated and diluted the way that fiat currency can is a big bonus and helps prevent governments or other groups stealing wealth by manipulating currency." Does anyone still believe this to be true. Perhaps he just meant he wanted the opportunity to steal all wealth for himself.

Atlas, the forums renowned nihilist super genius believed, "Money is a tool that allows people to easily convert their labors and goods. It's an essential tool that allows for wealth creation otherwise bartering would add an unsustainable amount of overhead." Quite an observation for a screwed up 16 year old kid with suicidal tendencies from Texas.

Are either of these observations correct? Would you side with the common thief over the junior nutball?

Both. It is true, you can't manipulate Bitcoin. You can manipulate the perception of it, and lie about where it's going, or how you're about to affect it, but that's typically at a great risk and cost to the manipulator. E.g. pushing up prices with tiny buys runs a huge risk that new sellers, seeing a good deal, would just over-sell to you, making you sell all your coins for a really shitty price. Manipulators can't actually manipulate Bitcoin by changing any of its fundamentals though, the way manipulators of fiat are legally required to. And Atlas is correct, too, that money is nothing more than a more easily used barter commodity that's used as a tool to make trade easier. Without money, you would see the same capital accumulation and commodity market manipulation you see now. You could even ease barter by keeping logs of who owes whom, so for instance, if i need your bread, but all I have is a cow, and we all agree that one cow is worth 250 loaves of bread, we can trade my cow for your one loaf of bread, and keep a public record that you still owe me 249 loaves. No money required, but much more complicated to do.

As for hoarding wealth, hoarding doesn't make wealth go up, producing wealth makes it go up. For example, people hoarding bitcoins did not make Bitcoin prices go up and became wealthy because Bitcoin was being hoarded. They got wealthy because there were a lot of other people, and the hoarders themselves, who were making the Bitcoin economy as a whole go up, either by building Bitcoin businesses, or by getting new people to use Bitcoin by convincing them off its benefit. The only reason Bitcoin hoarders became wealthier is because a lot of people had their lives be improved thanks to Bitcoin. If that weren't true, then new people would not have had a reason to use Bitcoin, new users would not have entered the market, and price would not have gone up.

[QuestionAuthority]

Bumping this up for further discussion.

At the beginning of this fine thread Nefario the scammer said, "The fact that bitcoin cannot be manipulated and diluted the way that fiat currency can is a big bonus and helps prevent governments or other groups stealing wealth by manipulating currency." Does anyone still believe this to be true. Perhaps he just meant he wanted the opportunity to steal all wealth for himself.

Atlas, the forums renowned nihilist super genius believed, "Money is a tool that allows people to easily convert their labors and goods. It's an essential tool that allows for wealth creation otherwise bartering would add an unsustainable amount of overhead." Quite an observation for a screwed up 16 year old kid with suicidal tendencies from Texas.

Are either of these observations correct? Would you side with the common thief over the junior nutball?

Both. It is true, you can't manipulate Bitcoin. You can manipulate the perception of it, and lie about where it's going, or how you're about to affect it, but that's typically at a great risk and cost to the manipulator. E.g. pushing up prices with tiny buys runs a huge risk that new sellers, seeing a good deal, would just over-sell to you, making you sell all your coins for a really shitty price. Manipulators can't actually manipulate Bitcoin by changing any of its fundamentals though, the way manipulators of fiat are legally required to. And Atlas is correct, too, that money is nothing more than a more easily used barter commodity that's used as a tool to make trade easier. Without money, you would see the same capital accumulation and commodity market manipulation you see now. You could even ease barter by keeping logs of who owes whom, so for instance, if i need your bread, but all I have is a cow, and we all agree that one cow is worth 250 loaves of bread, we can trade my cow for your one loaf of bread, and keep a public record that you still owe me 249 loaves. No money required, but much more complicated to do.

As for hoarding wealth, hoarding doesn't make wealth go up, producing wealth makes it go up. For example, people hoarding bitcoins did not make Bitcoin prices go up and became wealthy because Bitcoin was being hoarded. They got wealthy because there were a lot of other people, and the hoarders themselves, who were making the Bitcoin economy as a whole go up, either by building Bitcoin businesses, or by getting new people to use Bitcoin by convincing them off its benefit. The only reason Bitcoin hoarders became wealthier is because a lot of people had their lives be improved thanks to Bitcoin. If that weren't true, then new people would not have had a reason to use Bitcoin, new users would not have entered the market, and price would not have gone up.

Very nice and accurate description of each circumstance. So, do you agree with the Zeitgeist Movement that a resource based economy can work?

[Rassah]

Very nice and accurate description of each circumstance. So, do you agree with the Zeitgeist Movement that a resource based economy can work?

Yes. But only if the centrally controlling computer is able to know what everyone thinks and wants, know all the resources that exist, can track every single resource through its entire production method, is able to motivate inventors and doers with more stuff, if that's what they want, without upsetting the neighbors who are getting less stuff, and is able to make everyone happy and like itself.

Personally, I can't make everyone like me. Maybe it's possible if I abduct people and drug them, and then make sure they all take drugs from then on to stay complacent and ignorant? Have you seen Equilibrium before?

[Anenome5]

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.

Foolish ideas that have failed in practice. To consume one must produce. Try to produce for everyone under collectivist ideas like this and you'll find nothing but shortages and starvation.

Money is not the problem, money is only a medium of exchange, a way of suspending temporally a barter economy, allowing more complex transactions to occur. Remove money and return to barter or the like and the result will be a drastically less efficient economy, and you will no longer be able to afford everything we have now. The result will not be plenty by privation and want.

After we've seen commune after commune try variations on this in the micro-scale and either completely fail or else convert to capitalism, why does anyone continue to think they can work?

[QuestionAuthority]

Very nice and accurate description of each circumstance. So, do you agree with the Zeitgeist Movement that a resource based economy can work?

Yes. But only if the centrally controlling computer is able to know what everyone thinks and wants, know all the resources that exist, can track every single resource through its entire production method, is able to motivate inventors and doers with more stuff, if that's what they want, without upsetting the neighbors who are getting less stuff, and is able to make everyone happy and like itself.

Personally, I can't make everyone like me. Maybe it's possible if I abduct people and drug them, and then make sure they all take drugs from then on to stay complacent and ignorant? Have you seen Equilibrium before?

No, there is no such thing where humans are concerned. Your population would need to cooperate completely and that wouldn't happen. Civilizations failure, regardless of the system in place, is always the human element. Capitalism only works to an extent because it is basically founded in greed which everyone can support. The socialist systems fell victim to greed quickly. Peter Joseph is a typical dreamer that thought of a good idea on paper but then humans become involved and it gets screwed all up. The idea of no private property alone will keep it from ever seeing any real success. The "scientific method" of allocating resources would work until the first person decided to game the system and you know that would happen almost immediately.

[xxjs]

As for hoarding wealth, hoarding doesn't make wealth go up, producing wealth makes it go up. For example, people hoarding bitcoins did not make Bitcoin prices go up and became wealthy because Bitcoin was being hoarded. They got wealthy because there were a lot of other people, and the hoarders themselves, who were making the Bitcoin economy as a whole go up, either by building Bitcoin businesses, or by getting new people to use Bitcoin by convincing them off its benefit. The only reason Bitcoin hoarders became wealthier is because a lot of people had their lives be improved thanks to Bitcoin. If that weren't true, then new people would not have had a reason to use Bitcoin, new users would not have entered the market, and price would not have gone up.

Hoarding money does not directly make the world richer, because money has no use-value. Indirectly, it has some effects that can make a difference, it makes the remaining money more worth, that is other prices goes down, and that can change the minds of other people regarding saveing and investment.

Investment on the other hand, that is buying capital goods, raw materials, tools and factory buildings, make the world richer through higher productivity.

This difference between money and capital is often diffuse, because on the micro scale, you can easily transform money to capital by buying. In fact this is the normal way to start a company, you summon up some people, agree to pay some money into a company. This company is now said to have capital, though it still only has money. Next step is to buy the capital and start producing. At that point the world starts to get more wealthy.

Hoarding money is the same as delaying consumption, and the direct value is to let others consume now. The sum is null, but it is a prerequisite to investing. By others in the whole world since their money is now worth more, or by others through lending, or by the saver directly if he wants to invest himself.

[xxjs]

Just wanted to add: On the macro scale, printing money does not increase the worlds capital in any way. It only functions to skew the markets, from an (practically) optimal way to use capital, to a suboptimal way, reducing the worlds wealth.

[mobodick]

Bumping this up for further discussion.

At the beginning of this fine thread Nefario the scammer said, "The fact that bitcoin cannot be manipulated and diluted the way that fiat currency can is a big bonus and helps prevent governments or other groups stealing wealth by manipulating currency." Does anyone still believe this to be true. Perhaps he just meant he wanted the opportunity to steal all wealth for himself.

Atlas, the forums renowned nihilist super genius believed, "Money is a tool that allows people to easily convert their labors and goods. It's an essential tool that allows for wealth creation otherwise bartering would add an unsustainable amount of overhead." Quite an observation for a screwed up 16 year old kid with suicidal tendencies from Texas.

Are either of these observations correct? Would you side with the common thief over the junior nutball?

Both. It is true, you can't manipulate Bitcoin.

I'm sorry to tell you but bitcoin is technology.
And so it is very likey that there is some undiscovered weakness in bitcion.
Statistically it is unavoidable.

[mobodick]

Without money, you would see the same capital accumulation and commodity market manipulation you see now.

You can't think this way because without money we would not have been able to create this society.
Money makes value fungible. It means that it acts as a grease for economic activity.
None of the things we have now would be created if value didn't flow this freely in the form of money.

[mobodick]

Very nice and accurate description of each circumstance. So, do you agree with the Zeitgeist Movement that a resource based economy can work?

Yes. But only if the centrally controlling computer is able to know what everyone thinks and wants, know all the resources that exist, can track every single resource through its entire production method, is able to motivate inventors and doers with more stuff, if that's what they want, without upsetting the neighbors who are getting less stuff, and is able to make everyone happy and like itself.

You forget the most important role of this computer (and why i think it's impossible).

Based on the informaton you mention this computer still needs to take the right decision (or a desicion that people would consider right).
I don't think anyone on earth can claim to have devised such a system.
Sure, analyzing and counting etc. is easy enough.
But who decides what is the best way forward?
May situations do not have a clear choice, even when all factors are considered.

I think that people who belief in such a system are essentially running away from the hard problems.
They just put their trust in technology and hope/believe it will somehow magically save them.

It's an ideological pipe dream if you ask me.

[Anenome5]

Very nice and accurate description of each circumstance. So, do you agree with the Zeitgeist Movement that a resource based economy can work?

Yes. But only if the centrally controlling computer is able to know what everyone thinks and wants, know all the resources that exist, can track every single resource through its entire production method, is able to motivate inventors and doers with more stuff, if that's what they want, without upsetting the neighbors who are getting less stuff, and is able to make everyone happy and like itself.

Personally, I can't make everyone like me. Maybe it's possible if I abduct people and drug them, and then make sure they all take drugs from then on to stay complacent and ignorant? Have you seen Equilibrium before?

No, there is no such thing where humans are concerned. Your population would need to cooperate completely and that wouldn't happen. Civilizations failure, regardless of the system in place, is always the human element. Capitalism only works to an extent because it is basically founded in greed which everyone can support.

It's not founded on greed, it's founded on self-interest. There's a difference.

In a voluntary exchange--a capitalist exchange--I look out for my own interests, and the other party looks out for theirs. There is no conflict of interest, and if a deal completes it is because both participants feel they will be better off after the deal is done than before, or else the deal does not take place. Thus every transaction in a capitalist system results in more and more benefit to society in general.

The socialist systems fell victim to greed quickly.

Correct, the socialist system fell victim to greed because there was a conflict of interest. Bureaucrats were given power over huge swaths of humanity and asked to make self-less decisions for them. They instead made self-serving decisions that either incidentally helped those people, helped them to a lesser extent than those people would've chosen for themselves, or actively went against the interest of those other people.

That is, the bureaucrats acted in self-interested fashion, just as in capitalism, but because they could benefit at the expense of others, they more or less did so depending on individual character and chance of facing consequences.

Thus the capitalist system is far superior for it removes the ability for a transaction to take place if one party isn't benefiting, whereas the socialist system could force those kinds of transactions to take place regardless of it not being in people's interests.

Peter Joseph is a typical dreamer that thought of a good idea on paper but then humans become involved and it gets screwed all up. The idea of no private property alone will keep it from ever seeing any real success. The "scientific method" of allocating resources would work until the first person decided to game the system and you know that would happen almost immediately.

The economic calculation problem proves such socialist schemes impossible, pipe-dreams, and forever unworkable.

[ElectricMucus]

What you describe sounds more like the failure of Bureaucrat-"ism".

[QuestionAuthority]

Very nice and accurate description of each circumstance. So, do you agree with the Zeitgeist Movement that a resource based economy can work?

Yes. But only if the centrally controlling computer is able to know what everyone thinks and wants, know all the resources that exist, can track every single resource through its entire production method, is able to motivate inventors and doers with more stuff, if that's what they want, without upsetting the neighbors who are getting less stuff, and is able to make everyone happy and like itself.

Personally, I can't make everyone like me. Maybe it's possible if I abduct people and drug them, and then make sure they all take drugs from then on to stay complacent and ignorant? Have you seen Equilibrium before?

No, there is no such thing where humans are concerned. Your population would need to cooperate completely and that wouldn't happen. Civilizations failure, regardless of the system in place, is always the human element. Capitalism only works to an extent because it is basically founded in greed which everyone can support.

It's not founded on greed, it's founded on self-interest. There's a difference.

In a voluntary exchange--a capitalist exchange--I look out for my own interests, and the other party looks out for theirs. There is no conflict of interest, and if a deal completes it is because both participants feel they will be better off after the deal is done than before, or else the deal does not take place. Thus every transaction in a capitalist system results in more and more benefit to society in general.

The socialist systems fell victim to greed quickly.

Correct, the socialist system fell victim to greed because there was a conflict of interest. Bureaucrats were given power over huge swaths of humanity and asked to make self-less decisions for them. They instead made self-serving decisions that either incidentally helped those people, helped them to a lesser extent than those people would've chosen for themselves, or actively went against the interest of those other people.

That is, the bureaucrats acted in self-interested fashion, just as in capitalism, but because they could benefit at the expense of others, they more or less did so depending on individual character and chance of facing consequences.

Thus the capitalist system is far superior for it removes the ability for a transaction to take place if one party isn't benefiting, whereas the socialist system could force those kinds of transactions to take place regardless of it not being in people's interests.

Peter Joseph is a typical dreamer that thought of a good idea on paper but then humans become involved and it gets screwed all up. The idea of no private property alone will keep it from ever seeing any real success. The "scientific method" of allocating resources would work until the first person decided to game the system and you know that would happen almost immediately.

The economic calculation problem proves such socialist schemes impossible, pipe-dreams, and forever unworkable.

Ok, self interest then. I just have a very grim view of society and believe all self interest revolves around greed. I can't just be happy to have my share (even when I know I can't utilize any greater quantity) I need more. The USA version of capitalism works this way. No one wants to provide for the needy (even if it may be in their self interest to do so) they have to accumulate as much wealth as they can before the next guy gets it first.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you on everything.

[Rassah]

The USA version of capitalism works this way. No one wants to provide for the needy (even if it may be in their self interest to do so) they have to accumulate as much wealth as they can before the next guy gets it first.

That likely has a lot to do with most people here just struggling to survive paycheck-to-paycheck, bill-to-bill, let along build up capital. Wealthy corporations and individuals give to charity all the time though. Even Wal-Mart.