A Resource Based Economy

[anderxander]

At least you've admitted that your goal is not to have a productive or intellectually honest discussion or argument, but to cease any talk about these ideas at all. For someone so insistent that other people be productive, that seems futile and unproductive to me. Thank you for being honest about your goal though.

Pissing back and forth about who's future dream is "right" or will be "right" is a waste of time, you must go find ways to routinely put into practice what you believe.

You want an intellectual discussion? help me figure out how to creatively use apartment space to get maximum vegetable production out of it. what systems have you used? what number of varieties have you planted and what kinds? What were your yields thus far?

How many people has TZM brought fresh water to? Number of people fed for life? Number of houses built?

[1714029383]

1714029383

[Sjalq]

Is any of the RBE crowd interrested in answering my concerns about the function of pricing mechanism or do you folks want to sling accusations of irrationality around all week?

[Findeton]

I really think everyone new to this thread should read this message:

Summarizing:

As findeton said, science doesn't tell you what is good (after reading Nietsche I'm not comfortable using that word) or bad, just creates models that predict how nature will act. Using these models models to attain a specific aim is engineering. To chose these specific aims you need morals.
Since I don't believe in natural law nor absolute values, I feel imposing morals to others is wrong.

Money is not needed to survive, it's just needed to trade. If everybody valued goods and services the same way, we couldn't even trade.
If you reject trade, you have to chose between self sufficiency with no specialization nor division of labor or some people imposing values to others (kind of communism).
If you accept free trade, you have to chose between some form of money or barter as a tool for trading.

1) Do you believe that absolute values exist?
2) Do you reject free trade (and thus freedom)?

If you answer yes to one of these questions, you should put that at the beginning of all TZM materials so people like me could stop listening and don't waste their time.

[anderxander]

Is any of the RBE crowd interrested in answering my concerns about the function of pricing mechanism or do you folks want to sling accusations of irrationality around all week?

They are only concerned with getting you to call yourself apart of TZM and puking its visions all over the internet.

[LightRider]

Pricing attached opinionated value metrics to materials, goods or services based on perceived relative worth, desirability or necessity. It is usually easier to do this when there is an agreed upon currency scale that can be used across distance, culture and time. This system hinges on the currency in which it is valued in and the entity who enforces its use, and therefor subject to abuse, waste and increasingly negative consequences.

Specifically "and the entity who enforces its use"

OK, previously you agreed money was emergent. If I wasn't clear, let me clarify I meant, money existed in a stable form before governments began enforcing it, do you agree?

Also do you agree that the opinion of whether I want a $5 latte even when a cheaper alternative is available, it is still my right to expend my resources on an overpriced item if I so choose?

Cult or no cult, the issue of the pricing mechanism is absolutely key to this whole issue. If pricing is truly the appendix of societal behaviour then the RBE view is correct.

So again;
*Is the money naturally emergent or only due to enforcement? (Question to follow on this one)
*Do I have the right to misspend my own resources on what someone else deems irrational expenditures?

As I said earlier, money was emergent as was societal structures that developed enforcement mechanisms also. Barter had been dominant due to the simple and local nature of trading and it did not require a third party to enforce arbitrary values. Money can only exist when the dominant culture enforces arbitrary and opinion based values on others. But as with many emergent behaviors and technologies, they give way to newer and better ones.

There are no "rights". You behave and act in accordance with the dominant culture and society that you have developed in. Your ability to cause positive or negative outcomes depend on what is tolerated, incentivised and punished by your environment. Your choice to be wasteful is predicated on what your environment allows for.

[Michele1940]

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.
[/quote]

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

[Findeton]

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

Because he believes that dollars are debt.

[Michele1940]

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

Because he believes that dollars are debt.

No, I do not think so. I am sure he will elaborate something for us 

[Michele1940]

A COMMENT ON THE VENUS PROJECT


This is taken from the Venus Project at http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

"Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such."
[Quoted]


Absolutely True ! In the article the author advocates that in a Resources Based Economy, all the Earth Resources become a common heritage for all humans, this making the monetary system no more needed and thus allowing a generalized growth for all people that would experience a better ( enhanced ) life - style. In addition, he states that : " our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival." [Quoted]
This rationing comes from the unproper use of the available resources that must be rationed since we are wasting them.


What else could be more appropriate for our world survival ? My hat off to you, Author.


Now, Human Intellect is also a natural resource. Most of the times it is , unfortunately, rationed through money and wasted even thought Human Intellectual is not a Scarce Resource.
Could be argued that Human Intellect is not a resource for survival, but I think this is a far fetched hypothesis.


The whole thing is therefore addressed to a better use of the available resources promoting thus a MUTUAL BENEFIT for all people.


My previous post (Basic Staff - Part Three) goes exactly on the same direction.


I haven't deepened my knowledge of the Venus project to such an extend that I can see if they have a starting point for the whole project, any entry. Most probably they have and they are already operating it ( would be glad if someone points my in the right direction about this matter so that will save me a lot of time ).


My project, instead, has a very clear starting point : the world wide web and more specifically the USERS of the web. All of us.


Good Theories are always welcome, but they need to be practical and applicable, possibly in the Near Future.


As I have already said, I am working, with a very restricted team of people, on a new web based project that would involve actively the Users. The project aims, at first , to gain control of the web by the users by re balancing the economy of it. Than goes on and on......



Anyone interested in sharing some thoughts, can contact me privately at michele.intertex2000@gmail.com.

[jtimon]

Let me try to summarize your words since you seem to have difficulties with straight answers.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but try to be concrete.

OK, previously you agreed money was emergent. If I wasn't clear, let me clarify I meant, money existed in a stable form before governments began enforcing it, do you agree?

*Is the money naturally emergent or only due to enforcement? (Question to follow on this one)

As I said earlier, money was emergent as was societal structures that developed enforcement mechanisms also. Barter had been dominant due to the simple and local nature of trading and it did not require a third party to enforce arbitrary values. Money can only exist when the dominant culture enforces arbitrary and opinion based values on others. But as with many emergent behaviors and technologies, they give way to newer and better ones.

LightRider: Although money is emergent it has to be enforced. Money is a mechanism for enforcement that emerges in pre-scientific societies.

Also do you agree that the opinion of whether I want a $5 latte even when a cheaper alternative is available, it is still my right to expend my resources on an overpriced item if I so choose?

*Do I have the right to misspend my own resources on what someone else deems irrational expenditures?

There are no "rights". You behave and act in accordance with the dominant culture and society that you have developed in. Your ability to cause positive or negative outcomes depend on what is tolerated, incentivised and punished by your environment. Your choice to be wasteful is predicated on what your environment allows for.

LightRider: Moral is relative but there are "good" governments (RBE/scientific governments).

Sjalq, it seems he avoids to answer your questions and, at the same time, contradicts himself from time to time.

[Sjalq]

As I said earlier, money was emergent as was societal structures that developed enforcement mechanisms also. Barter had been dominant due to the simple and local nature of trading and it did not require a third party to enforce arbitrary values. Money can only exist when the dominant culture enforces arbitrary and opinion based values on others. But as with many emergent behaviors and technologies, they give way to newer and better ones.

Well here I disagree because two societies could trade with gold because both realised it served as a good medium of exchange. No central enforcement was necessary. Both parties were willing to accept it, both recognized it as being in their best interest. This is important since they had an independent yard stick by which they could measure the worth of their production and the production of others. With sound money you can only enrich yourself if you produce what others need and are willing to trade for.

There are no "rights". You behave and act in accordance with the dominant culture and society that you have developed in. Your ability to cause positive or negative outcomes depend on what is tolerated, incentivised and punished by your environment. Your choice to be wasteful is predicated on what your environment allows for.

That is not what I asked. Do I have the right to misspend what I've produced?
Or rather, do you have the right to force me to spend or produce in a fashion you deem better than my own judgement, even if you are correct?

[LightRider]

As I said earlier, money was emergent as was societal structures that developed enforcement mechanisms also. Barter had been dominant due to the simple and local nature of trading and it did not require a third party to enforce arbitrary values. Money can only exist when the dominant culture enforces arbitrary and opinion based values on others. But as with many emergent behaviors and technologies, they give way to newer and better ones.

Well here I disagree because two societies could trade with gold because both realised it served as a good medium of exchange. No central enforcement was necessary. Both parties were willing to accept it, both recognized it as being in their best interest. This is important since they had an independent yard stick by which they could measure the worth of their production and the production of others. With sound money you can only enrich yourself if you produce what others need and are willing to trade for.

Such use would have been developed over time with tradition being the enforcement mechanism. Any sufficiently advanced society is held together by tradition, the propagation of the dominant culture. Once again, its value is based on opinion, as opposed to the obvious value of necessary resources, animals, food and manufacturing material. Certainly its value as a currency is obvious, but beyond that it would be subject to all the forces that affect currency. Group A might have a different opinion about the worth of gold since they live in an area with far more of it than group B. The enforcement mechanism in this case is force of violence if the groups do not come to an agreement.

There are no "rights". You behave and act in accordance with the dominant culture and society that you have developed in. Your ability to cause positive or negative outcomes depend on what is tolerated, incentivised and punished by your environment. Your choice to be wasteful is predicated on what your environment allows for.

That is not what I asked. Do I have the right to misspend what I've produced?
Or rather, do you have the right to force me to spend or produce in a fashion you deem better than my own judgement, even if you are correct?

There are no rights. My reaction to your perceived wasteful behavior depends entirely on my previous experiences in the environment that sustained me. If I have had a limited education and lacked the skills or abilities necessary to engage you with different and possibly better ideas about resource management, then I might use force as my only option. If you lack the education or critical thinking skills to understand that my ideas are better, or have an aberrant value set that doesn't allow you to understand the consequences, and I am unwilling or unable to use force to alter your behavior, then we both suffer for your wasteful actions, assuming that they do in fact lead to negative outcomes. I know that is not a simple answer, but it is necessary to point out the inadequacy of your question.

[Findeton]

There is no freedom. We all are subject to the laws of nature and the common reality we share. Anyone who promises you freedom of some sort is just looking to control you for their own benefit.

There it goes. You are a member of a cult/sect, you just demonstrated it with the "there's no freedom" sentence. BTW:

There's no scientific theory on whether you should use nuclear power plants or solar panels. You are comparing science with politics and morality and that's absurd. You might think that you haven't entered the realms of morality and politics but you HAVE. Maybe you will disagree on this subject, but then I must conclude that your reasoning is blocked by you sect/cult.

Science says something like: nuclear power plants harvest a lot of energy per mass of uranium, and create nuclear waste. Solar cells are created through a process that contaminates a lot of liters of water and releases a lot of CO2, and harvest energy from the sun with a 15-20% efficiency. Science, and the scientific method, does NOT tell you which option to choose. Science just shows you how nature works, and it's you that have to decide how to apply that knowledge to fullfill your dreams/objectives/morality.

Science doesn't tell you if you should gun somebody. Science just tells you that the bullet will hit that person at a certain velocity and it will probably provoke his death. Should you shoot that somebody? should you build that bridge? Should you use currencies or a resource based economy? Should you create prisons? Should you live in a planned economy society? Science won't decide any of that for you.  Science will (maybe) make some predictions on the result of your decision, but making the decision is absolutely out of the realms of science, and of the scientific method.

[Sjalq]

Such use would have been developed over time with tradition being the enforcement mechanism. Any sufficiently advanced society is held together by tradition, the propagation of the dominant culture. Once again, its value is based on opinion, as opposed to the obvious value of necessary resources, animals, food and manufacturing material. Certainly its value as a currency is obvious, but beyond that it would be subject to all the forces that affect currency. Group A might have a different opinion about the worth of gold since they live in an area with far more of it than group B. The enforcement mechanism in this case is force of violence if the groups do not come to an agreement.

That is one of the fascinating things about free will trades. Neither party would engage in it if they thought they would be worse off. Hence the only logical conclusion is that both parties are better off after these exchanges. In our example war would not be a necessary outcome, since if the price was not acceptable to the one party they would simply not engage in it.

Prices are the result of perceptions and those perceptions guide people to decide what projects to tackle, what work to accept or reject and what products to buy. It indicates roughly to them what effort they are supposed to expend to get what they want. Since they can only get what they want by giving others what they want, this is how society is built economically and progresses. It is what drives innovation and is responsible for all the computer based technological advancement in the past 40 years. Speeds double every year due to profit seeking, not academic science. Engineers and scientists are hired to solve the problem of increasing computer capacities and apply their skill set to that problem. This in turn leads them to discover that which would have laid undiscovered had it not been for an economic price motivation. So both economic prosperity and science are furthered. To cut out one is to cut out both, progress will completely stop.

There are no rights. My reaction to your perceived wasteful behavior depends entirely on my previous experiences in the environment that sustained me. If I have had a limited education and lacked the skills or abilities necessary to engage you with different and possibly better ideas about resource management, then I might use force as my only option. If you lack the education or critical thinking skills to understand that my ideas are better, or have an aberrant value set that doesn't allow you to understand the consequences, and I am unwilling or unable to use force to alter your behavior, then we both suffer for your wasteful actions, assuming that they do in fact lead to negative outcomes. I know that is not a simple answer, but it is necessary to point out the inadequacy of your question.

Here is what it boils down to. If you perceive my actions as wasteful and I refuse to act differently out of my own free will, you must either suffer the collapse of your model or resort to central planning to get me to act differently. If I do not submit to the central plan, then again you must either suffer the collapse of your model (since people are acting "wastefully" and not co-operating) or you must somehow force me to do it.

Historically this is what has happened to communist countries, if the absence of free will action, and being unwilling to suffer the collapse of their model, communist governments have resorted to forcing their populous as gunpoint to execute the central plan. Once this forcing mechanism is in place things deteriorate rapidly as people are no longer able to make their own subjective decisions about what is good for them and are told to continually submit to some "authority" on the matter.

[anderxander]

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

Because he believes that dollars are debt.

Dollars are debt. The creation of dollars starts with loan origination. All dollars are brought into existence through loans. All dollars represent debts.

[LightRider]

Such use would have been developed over time with tradition being the enforcement mechanism. Any sufficiently advanced society is held together by tradition, the propagation of the dominant culture. Once again, its value is based on opinion, as opposed to the obvious value of necessary resources, animals, food and manufacturing material. Certainly its value as a currency is obvious, but beyond that it would be subject to all the forces that affect currency. Group A might have a different opinion about the worth of gold since they live in an area with far more of it than group B. The enforcement mechanism in this case is force of violence if the groups do not come to an agreement.

That is one of the fascinating things about free will trades. Neither party would engage in it if they thought they would be worse off. Hence the only logical conclusion is that both parties are better off after these exchanges. In our example war would not be a necessary outcome, since if the price was not acceptable to the one party they would simply not engage in it.

Prices are the result of perceptions and those perceptions guide people to decide what projects to tackle, what work to accept or reject and what products to buy. It indicates roughly to them what effort they are supposed to expend to get what they want. Since they can only get what they want by giving others what they want, this is how society is built economically and progresses. It is what drives innovation and is responsible for all the computer based technological advancement in the past 40 years. Speeds double every year due to profit seeking, not academic science. Engineers and scientists are hired to solve the problem of increasing computer capacities and apply their skill set to that problem. This in turn leads them to discover that which would have laid undiscovered had it not been for an economic price motivation. So both economic prosperity and science are furthered. To cut out one is to cut out both, progress will completely stop.

Progress occurs in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. Trade secrets, patents, copyright and a corrupt legislative and legal system work to inhibit the free flow of ideas, cooperation and faster progress. We are stuck with medieval institutions and methodologies that have been around for centuries despite our enormous advancements in productivity and capability. Servicing the profit motive is no way to make things better for people. If we each understood that the individual does better when all of society does better, then personal profit would not be rewarded as much as it is now.

There are no rights. My reaction to your perceived wasteful behavior depends entirely on my previous experiences in the environment that sustained me. If I have had a limited education and lacked the skills or abilities necessary to engage you with different and possibly better ideas about resource management, then I might use force as my only option. If you lack the education or critical thinking skills to understand that my ideas are better, or have an aberrant value set that doesn't allow you to understand the consequences, and I am unwilling or unable to use force to alter your behavior, then we both suffer for your wasteful actions, assuming that they do in fact lead to negative outcomes. I know that is not a simple answer, but it is necessary to point out the inadequacy of your question.

Here is what it boils down to. If you perceive my actions as wasteful and I refuse to act differently out of my own free will, you must either suffer the collapse of your model or resort to central planning to get me to act differently. If I do not submit to the central plan, then again you must either suffer the collapse of your model (since people are acting "wastefully" and not co-operating) or you must somehow force me to do it.

Historically this is what has happened to communist countries, if the absence of free will action, and being unwilling to suffer the collapse of their model, communist governments have resorted to forcing their populous as gunpoint to execute the central plan. Once this forcing mechanism is in place things deteriorate rapidly as people are no longer able to make their own subjective decisions about what is good for them and are told to continually submit to some "authority" on the matter.

There is no free will. Your actions, thoughts and ideas are limited to the experiences and environment you have developed in. You will continue your actions until you experience the consequences of them. That is why our main focus as an movement is making people aware that there are alternatives and that we can choose a better way of life. Our model has nothing in common with historical failed experiments in social control.

[jtimon]

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

Because he believes that dollars are debt.

Dollars are debt. The creation of dollars starts with loan origination. All dollars are brought into existence through loans. All dollars represent debts.

Not always. The fed issues dollars simply by buying things. If what they buy is, for example, US bonds or a debt (at interest) from a bank, then you're reasoning can be applied. But they can buy stocks, ETFs, gold, bitcoins or just tons of shit if they want.
Not that I like the Fed, but that's how it works.

[jtimon]

There is no free will. Your actions, thoughts and ideas are limited to the experiences and environment you have developed in. You will continue your actions until you experience the consequences of them. That is why our main focus as an movement is making people aware that there are alternatives and that we can choose a better way of life. Our model has nothing in common with historical failed experiments in social control.

Never minds if there's free will or not for this case. I agree with you in that: if you accept determinism there's no such thing as free will. But when we talk about freedom we just mean the opposite of social control.
What we can't understand is how you disable people from wasting resources without any kind of money nor social control/planned economy.
Just with education?
Ok, but that's not new: Jesus also believed that education was enough to achieve social harmony.
Are you that innocent?

[Findeton]

There is no free will. Your actions, thoughts and ideas are limited to the experiences and environment you have developed in. You will continue your actions until you experience the consequences of them. That is why our main focus as an movement is making people aware that there are alternatives and that we can choose a better way of life. Our model has nothing in common with historical failed experiments in social control.

Do you know anything of physics at all? SCIENCE and PHYSICS tell us that, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we DON'T KNOW right now if we live in a causal deterministic world or not. Therefore you cannot scientifically state that there's no free will.

But this is something too deep for the mind of a sect/cult member, I must recognize.

Dollars are debt. The creation of dollars starts with loan origination. All dollars are brought into existence through loans. All dollars represent debts.

You can create dollars from debt. But dollars are not debt.

You release shit to the world every time you go to defecate, but that doesn't mean you are a shit-man   Indeed there's more shit created by you than your body mass, and in the same way there are more dollars than debt at any given time.

[Fakeman]

I'm still not sure how these ideological allegiances relate to a "resource based econonomy". Is the world economy today not already "resource based" in large part? How is it beneficial to give this concept such a vague name? It's hard to be against something as broad as a "resource based economy", it's basically something that goes without saying for economies everywhere to some degree.