A Resource Based Economy

[4v4l0n42]

Places without those problems work like the rest of the free market: those trying to sell the cheapest crappiest stuff to make the most profit end up losing out to those who can sell better stuff at the same price.

In a utopia, yes.

In the real world, you just need to bribe the local politicians.

Again, profit is the problem.

In a free market perfect competition environment, profit is usually close to 0, with the most efficient producer who can make the best product winning the race.

Utopia, utopia, utopia.

RBE deals with the real world, not utopian fantasies.

So, in places like closed or private communities wo hire their own companies, or toll roads not subject to using government contracted workers (i.e. those working with a free market) usally have much better quality roads ad sidewalks for not much more money.

...and they could provide more services for free, but they don't. Why?

Cause people need to work to sustain this system, it matters not if what they do is useful.

And anyway, in the real world, a huge corporation will come and wipe out the local companies.

Free market = utopian fantasy
RBE = how to deal with real world problems

[jtimon]

Physical health is relatively easy to define. Defining mental health is more dangerous. Defining objectively happiness and prosperity is impossible.
You can't optimize happiness because is relative.

We could debate about that, but it's not the matter of discussion.

Physical and mental well being can be scientifically evaluated.

There is much scientific research on this, the emotional well being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_well-being), the Human Development Index, the Physical Quality of Life Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Quality_of_Life_Index), the Happy Planet Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index), the Gross national happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness) and many others. None of them are complete, but you don't just dismiss the whole thing outright because of that.

In the same way, we have no universal unequivocal definition of life, but I guess you don't say "oh, you can't define life, therefore you can never know when something is alive" or any of that nonsense.

So, you can tackle this issue, and evaluate scientifically. The RBE approach gives you a blueprint for that. The free market doesn't care if people are well fed, emotionally and physically well, and that's exactly why there is so much unnecessary suffering on this world.

A support for the profit-based market is a silent acceptance and reinforcement of all this violence and suffering.

I'm not talking about an unequivocal definition, I'm talking about morals. No matter how many research they make on human happiness, spiritual health and the like: I will still want to measure and seek my own happiness myself.
I just don't care what the experts say is good, because I don't believe in good. Talking about experts on happiness and quality of life reminds me the Inquisition and its moral experts.    
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and his mental health was enforced.

Ok. I like beer but I don't need it to survive. The RBE won't give me beer because it's not necessary for my health (although it is for my happiness) so I will get it in the free market.

It's pretty simple:
- the degree of freedom will be decided by what the planet can provide, or in one word, sustainability
- within that, anything is acceptable, according to the people's values

the big difference from the current system is that we don't put any limit of what can be produced/consumed, which is nonsensical if you realise that the planet from which we depend has a very finite carrying capacity.

Also what about arts?
If a reincarnation of Jim Morrison appears, will he gets the Watts he deserve?

You mean the MEGA-FUCKING Watts he clearly deserves?  

The degree of freedom will be decided? That doesn't sound like letting the free market be.
The free market doesn't put any limit of what can be produced/consumed beyond the limits of nature and the imagination of the producers.
In the RBE, some form of government (again, I don't care how efficient and democratic your new system will theoretically be, if is not the private sector the one that feeds the world through trade and charity, then is the public sector, period) will set the limits.
Some expert determined needs will be satisfied at the expense of some individual wants, that is an attack against freedom.

That's what I deny, that capitalism and free market go hand in hand.

Then please explain.

Any proft-based system is fundamentally corrupt because:
- it doesn't care about being sustainable
- it has to adhere to the price-efficiency mechanism, which makes you create crappy, useless and obscolecent products

regardless of whether you call it socialism, capitalism, or free market. it's still the same shit.

As I said before, programmed obsolescence has the prerequisite of a monopoly/cartel. In a competitive market, if people demand durable products, they're the ones that will be produced.
Also, the short-term thinking that interest imposes us makes people care less about durability.
Without interest and capital yields, maybe the term capitalism is not very accurate.
Ripple and freicoin would disable interest within a free-market.
That's why I think programmed obsolescence is not a problem caused by the free market.

Corporations may seek just monetary profits, but our society is not just for monetary profit. When a self-sufficient permaculture farmer grows his own food, he makes it in a sustainable way and for his own profit, but not for monetary profit.
You seem to demonize profit.

Very circumstantial example, 95% of production and pollution is made by 100 megacorporations seeking profits. They are the ones who will make the planet inhabitable, so yes, I'm fucking demonising profit, it's effectively destroying the only planet I have to live in.

Just a counter-example that proves your point wrong. A man working on sustainability for profit. Just like solar panels producers, permaculture advocates...
Are private profits compatible with an economic and social sustainable development?
For more private initiatives on sustainability, I recommend you the youtube channel "peak moment".

States are coerced by corporations and then states coerce any other corporation/individual that tries to compete. What I claim is that private property and free market is not enough for monopolies to appear. Coercion is needed.

Play it as you like, it's because of profit that all this happens. Try to take you hands off your keyboard, stop thinking, close your eyes, pause, then think again.

You might get it.

That's your answer? No coercion is needed, is all because of profit?

Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.

You haven't been reading the material.

No, I just watched (in addition to the 3 zeitgeist films) the couple of videos you posted (2 hours) and tried to Peter's answer to an austrian, but I must admit I can't watch the whole video due to its fallacies.
Have you been reading Gesell's book? Anything about austrian economics? Anything about economics at all?

Who owns the sidewalk on the street?

The state does.

We get free sidewalks, why can't we have automated hydroponics facilities to produce food and distribute it for free? It's technically possible, and quite simple, too.

It woulnd't be for free. That's impossible. Some resources would be used, even if they're not traded for money.

It's because it would destroy the fucking market, that's why. People won't have to enslave themselves, and will have time to read some books, think for themselves and realise that this system is fucked up.

That's why.

If it were for free, you'd do it immediately despite the "fucking market".

So called intellectual property is not private property. I'm against intellectual property.
We need private property to manage scarce resources, but information can be replicated at no cost.

Alright! You are halfway there, just a little further and you'll see that the need for private property in a system of universal access is greatly reduced.

Maybe not eliminated, I don't really care, to be honest. But reduced for sure.

Sure. In a system of universal access and infinite resources private property would be nonsense.
I just don't believe such a system is possible. If you mean universal access only to food, we still need private property for the rest.
Also the taxes (or expropriations) needed for this universal access to food constitutes a form of coercion.

Sacrificing free trade is sacrificing freedom.

And you don't have to.

Look, I'm not against free trade. You wanna do it? Fine, nobody's gonna stop you.

As I said, the limit is the carrying capacity of the Earth. Within that, do whatever you like the most.

We can't do anything beyond the carrying capacity of the earth just because it's physically impossible. You mean without reducing the future carrying capacity. You mean thinking in the long term.

The green revolution (science powered, with the noble aim of feeding the world) has destroyed our soils, but oil derived fertilizers keep us in the illusion that our land is fertile.

Errrr, politics oriented. If it was up to science, we would have made aquaponics, hydroponics, aeroponics, or even synthesised directly the enzymes needed for the production of food, without destroying any field, and without the need of any pesticide.

Mmmm. I don't think synthesizing enzymes was an available solution back then. Artificial fertilizers, mechanization and chemical plague control was the technical and scientific solution back then.
Science can tell us a lot more about soil destruction today, but that technical attempt to end starvation has only lead us to an increased population size and to soil destruction.    

All these illusions are coming to an end. There will be free market after the oil era, but without an exponential monetary system.

How will that be? o_O

Profit requires growth, otherwise you'll go steady state, which is good for us, but bad for profit.

Profit does not require growth. Not even monetary profit.
You can make profit, for example, by producing the same good in a more efficient way. By downsizing your company.
And the free market doesn't need monetary profit at all. Just needs private property and free trade.

The demand for energy will decline with its supply. Energy won't be a non scarce resource in the near future, neither food.

Ahhh, and so will people, who will starve to death, readjusting the prices, right?

I can't accept that. Billions of deaths just to preserve the profit-religion? Fuck that.

Many people will starve to death during the coming energy crises (unless we make a disruptive discovery or invention, like economic nuclear fusion).
If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve.
I can't accept that. Billions of deaths just to prove (again) that central planning doesn't work? Fuck that.

No necessarily, I see a period of transition where it might be useful. I just see the inevitable consequence of the shift in culture.

And that's your belief.

No, that's the projection I make, based on the available evidence.

But again, I don't care.

If we manage to make our living here sustainable without killing billions of people, I'll be happy.

But to replace the exponential monetary system you don't want any monetary system at all.
What qualities should have a monetary system for the transition period?

What I mean is that free market cannot give us anything different that what we want. There's no mechanism in the free market that takes us to the "good" path.

And the RBE can, it's its very basis.

So far, RBE 1, profit-based market 0.

Can RBE lead us the "good" path? You've already agreed with me that there's no such thing as good.
If you understood well being when I said "good", then free market can lead us to well being.
Better, without the need of a single definition for well being and without the need for coercion.

People don't need to work to survive, just food. Build your automated hydroponic farm, plug it to some solar panels and you're done.

Excellent! Then why don't we do it and let people starve instead?

Fucking profit, that's why.

Many people is doing it. See peak moment.
Most people rely on food that depends on oil just because they don't know "they eat oil".
On the subject of feeding the people of the third world , I would prefer to give them the rod rather than the fish.
Also stop abusing them instead of "trying to help" them.
Africa was pretty well fed before our governments (and then our macro-corporations) went there to coerce its peoples.

You believe that sustainability and social justice cannot be achieved within a free market. But that's not a scientific fact.

Oh, really?

Then, against all available evidence that shows exactly what i am saying, tell me how that could be possible.

Please, illuminate me.

"We're in a free market and we have plenty of problems. Therefore, free market causes a lot of problems."

That's not a logical reasoning even if it seems to you.
Furthermore, the premise is false. We're not in a free market, there's more regulations than have ever been.
You've not provided any evidences that prove the free market is incompatible with economic and social sustainability, just examples of non sustainable actions and industries.

[4v4l0n42]

I'm not talking about an unequivocal definition, I'm talking about morals. No matter how many research they make on human happiness, spiritual health and the like: I will still want to measure and seek my own happiness myself.
I just don't care what the experts say is good, because I don't believe in good. Talking about experts on happiness and quality of life reminds me the Inquisition and its moral experts.    
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and his mental health was enforced.

You are discussing the sex of the angels.

Do you agree that starve to death, being enslaved, drink polluted water, have no house and no access to education is not a desirable thing?

The degree of freedom will be decided? That doesn't sound like letting the free market be.
The free market doesn't put any limit of what can be produced/consumed beyond the limits of nature and the imagination of the producers.

The free market doesn't care about the limits of nature.

And that is its fundamental flaw.

In the RBE, some form of government (again, I don't care how efficient and democratic your new system will theoretically be, if is not the private sector the one that feeds the world through trade and charity, then is the public sector, period) will set the limits.

You keep thinking anthropocentrically. How arrogant.

The planet decides what is the limit. Not me, not you, not anyone else.

As I said before, programmed obsolescence has the prerequisite of a monopoly/cartel.

All companies do that, because it would not be profitable for them otherwise, and they could not survive.

In a competitive market, if people demand durable products, they're the ones that will be produced.

Nice wish. Too bad it doesn't happen, you are talking about a utopia.

Also, the short-term thinking that interest imposes us makes people care less about durability.

Goodmorning sunshine!

It's called "profit motive".

Without interest and capital yields, maybe the term capitalism is not very accurate.
Ripple and freicoin would disable interest within a free-market.
That's why I think programmed obsolescence is not a problem caused by the free market.

Could you elaborate on that, and explain how freicoin plus free market would address the two questions I posed?

Just a counter-example that proves your point wrong. A man working on sustainability for profit. Just like solar panels producers, permaculture advocates...

What those guys produce is 10 times less efficient that what could be achieved. If you think that sustainability and profit are compatible, you have never worked in a multinational corporation, you don't know how it works, and you've never talked to the guys at the top.

I have. I talked to industry professionals, biochemists, engineers and managers of multi-billion dollar corporations, and they confirm 100% what I stated.

You have nice wishes, but they clash with the real world.

For more private initiatives on sustainability, I recommend you the youtube channel "peak moment".

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22peak+movement%22&aq=f

Biceps and bibles? o_O

States are coerced by corporations and then states coerce any other corporation/individual that tries to compete. What I claim is that private property and free market is not enough for monopolies to appear. Coercion is needed.

Play it as you like, it's because of profit that all this happens. Try to take you hands off your keyboard, stop thinking, close your eyes, pause, then think again.

You might get it.

That's your answer? No coercion is needed, is all because of profit?

I'll reverse it then. How do you propose to avoid corporations coerce governments? And what do you think it's reason they do so, if it's not for profit and power?

Have you been reading Gesell's book? Anything about austrian economics? Anything about economics at all?

I read several books about economics, both when I was in college and also recently, including some of the writings you posted in the thread.

I have yet to read Gesell, and I will.

Still, you haven't yet explained how any profit-based system tackles the two issues I posted earlier.

I successfully answered dozens of you questions. You were the only one to admit a couple of times when the point I made was correct, all the others just went over the next sentence, or the next topic, trying to find a single line to debate/debunk, among the hundreds of sentences that I wrote, which were correct.

Then, I ask for two, very simple things, and nobody can give a satisfactory answer that stands the grounds of logic and evidence.

I rest my case.

It woulnd't be for free. That's impossible. Some resources would be used, even if they're not traded for money.

Don't you see what you are saying?

There are only two real things, the rest is bullshit: resources and time that people are willing to dedicate. We have both, and many people will work for free (as it has been shown). Put the two things together.

It's not that difficult.

It's because it would destroy the fucking market, that's why. People won't have to enslave themselves, and will have time to read some books, think for themselves and realise that this system is fucked up.

That's why.

If it were for free, you'd do it immediately despite the "fucking market".

Only if enough people had the right values and culture. And they don't.

That's why we want to change the culture.

Sure. In a system of universal access and infinite resources private property would be nonsense.

Corrige: in a system of universal access and finite resources private property would be very impractical and useless for most goods.

I just don't believe such a system is possible. If you mean universal access only to food, we still private property for the rest.

Let's start with universal access to the necessities: food, water, house, transportation, education.

Then you can have all the private property you want, I don't care, as long as it's sustainable.

We can't do anything beyond the carrying capacity of the earth just because it's physically impossible.

Ahahahahahahahahahahah.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_Day

We already passed it, a long time ago.

You mean without reducing the future carrying capacity. You mean thinking in the long term.

Any other way to think about it?

The Earth is a system with cycles.

Science can tell us a lot more about soil destruction today, but that technical attempt to end starvation has only lead us to an increased population size and to soil destruction.

Talk to a biochemist, please, or read some scientific literature.

Profit does not require growth. Not even monetary profit. You can make profit, for example, by producing the same good in a more efficient way. By downsizing your company.

Exactly! Technological unemployment.

So, the more efficient you are, the less people will be able to work, the more will starve in a system without universal access.

Don't you see the complete idiocy of this wretched system?

Many people will starve to death during the coming energy crises (unless we make a disruptive discovery or invention, like economic nuclear fusion).

No, we won't. We already have disruptive technologies, but underused and underdeveloped due to the profit-structure.

You know what will happen if we discover nuclear fusion? Patents, corporations, same shit over and over, prices just a litte lower than the competition, huge profits.

Fuck that. Let's liberate humanity from this nonsense.

If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve.

False.

I can't accept that. Billions of deaths just to prove (again) that central planning doesn't work? Fuck that.

False.

We don't have to speculate, billions are starving right fucking now thanks to your beloved free market.

Time to change, for the better.

But to replace the exponential monetary system you don't want any monetary system at all.
What qualities should have a monetary system for the transition period?

As I stated, what I care about is universal access of basic necessities and sustainability. You can have the monetary system of your choice within those boundaries, I don't care.

Can RBE lead us the "good" path? You've already agreed with me that there's no such thing as good.

SECOND TIME:
You are discussing the sex of the angels.

Do you agree that starve to death, being enslaved, drink polluted water, have no house and no access to education is not a desirable thing?

On the subject of feeding the people of the third world , I would prefer to give them the rod rather than the fish.

5 words: "Confessions of an economic hitman".

Also stop abusing them instead of "trying to help" them.
Africa was pretty well fed before our governments (and then our macro-corporations) went there to coerce its peoples.

You are amazing! That's exactly right. And... you know why they did it? That's right! Yes! PROFIT!

Against all available evidence that shows exactly what i am saying, tell me how that could be possible.

Please, illuminate me.

"We're in a free market and we have plenty of problems. Therefore, free market causes a lot of problems."

That's not a logical reasoning even if it seems to you.
Furthermore, the premise is false. We're not in a free market, there's more regulations than have ever been.
You've not provided any evidences that prove the free market is incompatible with economic and social sustainability, just examples of non sustainable actions and industries.

Non sustainable actions and industries act on the sole motive of making profit, and that's why they act this way.

So, if you can prove that the "free market" does not seek profit, you may have a point.

Anyway, you haven't answered my question. I'll ask again:

Against all available evidence that shows exactly what i am saying, tell me how that could be possible.

Please, illuminate me.

[Rassah]

Free market = utopian fantasy
RBE = how to deal with real world problems

It sounds like RBE = trying to convince people not to seek profit. That sounds like trying to convince people not to eat fatty foods, not to smoke, or even not to breathe, since seeking to enrich ourselves is pretty much our natural biological function. You're also proposing trying to change the culture... Makes me feel the RBE thing is more of a utopian idea than just trying to maintain us within a profit-seeking market.

[4v4l0n42]

That sounds like trying to convince people not to eat fatty foods, not to smoke, or even not to breathe, since seeking to enrich ourselves is pretty much our natural biological function.

That sounds like you haven't been reading much about the RBE.

[Rassah]

That sounds like trying to convince people not to eat fatty foods, not to smoke, or even not to breathe, since seeking to enrich ourselves is pretty much our natural biological function.

That sounds like you haven't been reading much about the RBE.

Regarding your programmed obsolescence, two examples against that come to mind. First is Japanese cars in the 70's vs US cars and Japanese cars in the 90's vs US cars. In the 70's, US cars dominated, because Japanese ones were unreliable clunkers. Japan fixed that, and is now dominating the market with cars that are more durable than US ones. Just 30 years ago, cars were expected to last maybe 50k miles, and were expected to die after 100k. My Civic today has 210k miles on it, and still runs perfectly. Reason for this drastic improvement in durability and efficiency? Japanese companies wanted to be more profitable than US companies (part of the result was US car companies almost going out of business)
Example 2 are power tools. Sure, we have a lot of crappy quality Made-in-China stuff going around, but which companies make the most profit on power tools? The ones promising that their tools are tough, dependable, and won't accidentally kill you on the job.

Finally, if what you propose is free, sustainable, can have people simply volunteering their time, and is a better alternative than what we have, then why doesn't it exist yet? What are the barriers to getting it done? (I'm guessing it needs LOTS of money, or LOTS of people willing to abandon their paying gigs and start doing stuff with no money/food/resource rewards)

[Rassah]

Oh, just remembered another obvious example regarding profit and conservation. Hotels now ask that if you stay with them for a few days that you conserve and reuse your towels, and don't ask your sheets to be changed every day. Their reason is that they wish to conserve clean water. In fact, many factories use techniques to conserve clean water. The reason? It's not them suddenly thinking green and wishing to conserve a precious resource. The reason is that clean water costs money, and saving water increases profits.
Examples like these are prevalent all over...

there's also an excelent example of consequences of a resource based economy in existence today: Saudi Arabia. That country is so oil rich that everyone is paid by the government, and doesn't really need to work to subsist. People aren't worried about food or loss of jobs, or healthcare issues, or insurance, since the country's riches sustain them. You would THINK that that country would be the most intelligent and technologically advanced country in the world, with people focusing on their interests and having lots of time to innovate. Instead, vast majority of people/youth are going into theology schools, learning about religion, and wasting their lives. That's pretty much exactly what can rationally be expected of an RBE society: as soon as the sustaining resource stops or breaks, the entire place will suddenly find itself full of useless lazy fools.

[4v4l0n42]

Regarding your programmed obsolescence, two examples against that come to mind. First is Japanese cars

You could not have chosen a worst example.

We have had electric cars that can run for hundreds of km in one charge for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solectria_Sunrise
http://www.physorg.com/news194158832.html
http://goo.gl/jcNX

Still, no sign of those in the market, only inefficient crap of very expensive luxurious cars.

That's about the worst case you could take to "debunk" planned obsolescence. And even if you could find one or two examples, the underlying principle of all the economy is planned obsolescence.

Proof: http://vimeo.com/17750184

Finally, if what you propose is free, sustainable, can have people simply volunteering their time, and is a better alternative than what we have, then why doesn't it exist yet?

Cartels, monopolies, paralyzing political structure, coercion, mafia, scientific illiteracy of the general public.

What are the barriers to getting it done?

The ones I mentioned above, which could be summarised as distorted values and bad culture.

[4v4l0n42]

Since nobody has been able to answer, I'm asking again to all the free-market advocates out there.

1. How does the free market avoid the destruction of the inhabitable planet from which we depend on to survive?
2. How does the free market ensure that no people will starve unnecessarily?

It should be pretty simple, survival 101. RBE starts from these two fundamental questions, and tries to provide a solution. What about the free market?

[4v4l0n42]

there's also an excelent example of consequences of a resource based economy in existence today: Saudi Arabia. That country is so oil rich that everyone is paid by the government, and doesn't really need to work to subsist. People aren't worried about food or loss of jobs, or healthcare issues, or insurance, since the country's riches sustain them. You would THINK that that country would be the most intelligent and technologically advanced country in the world, with people focusing on their interests and having lots of time to innovate. Instead, vast majority of people/youth are going into theology schools, learning about religion, and wasting their lives. That's pretty much exactly what can rationally be expected of an RBE society: as soon as the sustaining resource stops or breaks, the entire place will suddenly find itself full of useless lazy fools.

You can't be serious.

I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe you could consciously write so idiotic.

[Rassah]

Regarding your programmed obsolescence, two examples against that come to mind. First is Japanese cars

You could not have chosen a worst example.

We have had electric cars that can run for hundreds of km in one charge for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solectria_Sunrise
http://www.physorg.com/news194158832.html
http://goo.gl/jcNX

Still, no sign of those in the market, only inefficient crap of very expensive luxurious cars.

The only example on that list that existed for years is the Solectria. I'd like to know how much it cost (my guess is A LOT), how long it took to recharge (my guess is at least overnight/8hours), and how durable was it (considering the batteries it used, I'm guessing it lasted maybe a year before you needed to replace the batteries). My point is that, in the market, "durable" is a sales word. VAST majority of our stuff becoming obsolete is not because it's not durable, but because new technology makes old things obsolete (my SEGA Genesis and my IBM 5Mhz PC still work just fine). This, by the way, will be exactly the same in an RBE, with mountains of crap being thrown away because new technology will constantly outdo the old.

Finally, if what you propose is free, sustainable, can have people simply volunteering their time, and is a better alternative than what we have, then why doesn't it exist yet?

Cartels, monopolies, paralyzing political structure, coercion, mafia, scientific illiteracy of the general public.

What are the barriers to getting it done?

The ones I mentioned above, which could be summarised as distorted values and bad culture.

So your answer is to change the culture of the ENTIRE world, otherwise this idea won't work? And this isn't a utopian impossible dream why?

[Rassah]

1. How does the free market avoid the destruction of the inhabitable planet from which we depend on to survive?

Wasting resources costs money. Profit = revenue - cost. Those who can cut costs the most will have the biggest profit.
If the company produces and sells a resource, and all of it's profits come from mining that resource, it'll either have to find more efficient methods for mining, or go out of business once the resource becomes too expensive to mine. Unlike RBE's claims, resources are not unlimited (we have finite supply of certain minerals). However, resources have substitutes. Steel can be replaced by cheaper plastics for example. The company that produces the cheapest, least resource-intensive product will kill the old resource-wasting companies, and take their profit.

2. How does the free market ensure that no people will starve unnecessarily?

If people have free access to tools and are able to earn a living my using their minds on a free unregulated market, then the only ones who starve will be the ones not willing to do the bare minimum needed to earn a living. With the advent of the internet, anyone living anywhere can sell their services to anyone else in the world.

On that note...

It should be pretty simple, survival 101. RBE starts from these two fundamental questions, and tries to provide a solution. What about the free market?

Question for RBE:
1. Since resources like arable land, fertilizers, and metals/plastics/minerals used in farming machinery and power generating equipment are very much limited, how does the RBE idea ensure that population doesn't go over the sustainable limit (above the amount of planet-wide food production possible), and people don't starve unnecessarily?

[Rassah]

there's also an excelent example of consequences of a resource based economy in existence today: Saudi Arabia. That country is so oil rich that everyone is paid by the government, and doesn't really need to work to subsist. People aren't worried about food or loss of jobs, or healthcare issues, or insurance, since the country's riches sustain them. You would THINK that that country would be the most intelligent and technologically advanced country in the world, with people focusing on their interests and having lots of time to innovate. Instead, vast majority of people/youth are going into theology schools, learning about religion, and wasting their lives. That's pretty much exactly what can rationally be expected of an RBE society: as soon as the sustaining resource stops or breaks, the entire place will suddenly find itself full of useless lazy fools.

You can't be serious.

I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe you could consciously write so idiotic.

I'm totally serious. Why won't the vast majority of people in RBE NOT just go into mostly much easier to do things, like studying religion, arts, or philosophy?

[4v4l0n42]

The only example on that list that existed for years is the Solectria. I'd like to know how much it cost (my guess is A LOT), how long it took to recharge (my guess is at least overnight/8hours), and how durable was it (considering the batteries it used, I'm guessing it lasted maybe a year before you needed to replace the batteries).

The technology is there, just do some research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7938001.stm

My point is that, in the market, "durable" is a sales word. VAST majority of our stuff becoming obsolete is not because it's not durable, but because new technology makes old things obsolete (my SEGA Genesis and my IBM 5Mhz PC still work just fine). This, by the way, will be exactly the same in an RBE, with mountains of crap being thrown away because new technology will constantly outdo the old.

VAST majority of crap is useless in the first place and we don't need it.

Then we have stuff that could last, and it doesn't.

Then you have actual technology that becomes naturally obsolete, which, again, could be optimised if we planned things to be modular and easily upgradable.

It seems you haven't watched the video.

So your answer is to change the culture of the ENTIRE world, otherwise this idea won't work? And this isn't a utopian impossible dream why?

That's exactly the same thing people told women when they claimed equal rights.

[4v4l0n42]

I'm totally serious. Why won't the vast majority of people in RBE NOT just go into mostly much easier to do things, like studying religion, arts, or philosophy?

... and there would be no problem whatsover.

You need way less than 1% of the population to "work" on production and maintenance.

Please talk to some real engineers who know this stuff before coming back to post you opinions.

[4v4l0n42]

Unlike RBE's claims, resources are not unlimited (we have finite supply of certain minerals).

This proves you haven't read a single page of the RBE proposals. We can't go on with the discussion if you talk nonsense.

[Rassah]

The only example on that list that existed for years is the Solectria. I'd like to know how much it cost (my guess is A LOT), how long it took to recharge (my guess is at least overnight/8hours), and how durable was it (considering the batteries it used, I'm guessing it lasted maybe a year before you needed to replace the batteries).

The technology is there, just do some research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7938001.stm

Trust me, I've had A LOT of interest in electric cars since the 90's. The technology is there, but a lot of practical stuff (like these batteries or ultracapacitors) are so new ans so expensive that it'll be a few years before they can be afforded by mass consumers.

VAST majority of crap is useless in the first place and we don't need it.
Then we have stuff that could last, and it doesn't.
Then you have actual technology that becomes naturally obsolete, which, again, could be optimised if we planned things to be modular and easily upgradable.

Profit is the act of selling to people what they want, so all the useless crap and stuff that doesn't last is either actually useful to someone, or is made cheaply enough that people are willing to save money and buy it again later if they need it. The idea that "companies only sell just enough to keep us buying more" is at most a conspiracy theory, because any new company that comes in and sells more durable stuff for the same amount will wipe out all other competitors instantly.
Arguing about "how long stuff lasts" is very subjective. I could just as easily say that an RBE city is something that can last, but doesn't, because they didn't build it out of gold and diamonds, and so it'll decompose and break down within 100 years.

So your answer is to change the culture of the ENTIRE world, otherwise this idea won't work? And this isn't a utopian impossible dream why?

That's exactly the same thing people told women when they claimed equal rights.

What was the logical and human-nature based reason to deny women to think and make their own choices? There wasn't any. That's why they got their rights. Companies wishing to put women to work and thus improve their profit was another reason.

I'm totally serious. Why won't the vast majority of people in RBE NOT just go into mostly much easier to do things, like studying religion, arts, or philosophy?

... and there would be no problem whatsover.
You need way less than 1% of the population to "work" on production and maintenance.
Please talk to some real engineers who know this stuff before coming back to post you opinions.

Aside from your apparent claim that over 99% of the world's work is nothing but bureaucratic paper pushing...
My grandfather is an engineer, from a rather well known line of engineers starting with Tsiolkovsky. It took just him alone to think up of a radical new idea for a levitation system that could revolutionize our transportation. The results of that 1% of the population work is a few pieces of paper and some patents. It will take a CONSIDERABLY larger % of the population to actually make it happen, and so far we haven't found ANYONE willing to do the millions worth of needed infrastructure for free.
As for the "no problem whatsoever," what do you think will happen to Saudi Arabia when their oil runs out? What do you think will happen to an RBE city when the machines break down, or something breaks in the software, or when those machines run out of resources needed to work, and everyone got too comfortable sitting at home painting or philosophizing instead of studying the difficult math and sciences needed to keep things running? Likewise, human capital is a resource as well. What will happen when the resource of people who know how to run things drops below the amount NEEDED to run things? Your only defense has been "it takes a low number, eg 1%."

Unlike RBE's claims, resources are not unlimited (we have finite supply of certain minerals).

This proves you haven't read a single page of the RBE proposals. We can't go on with the discussion if you talk nonsense.

You mean like this? http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy
Where it says that "scarce resources" can be overcome by technology? Do we have the technology to create petroleum (plastics), steel, rare-earth minerals, or fertilizers out of nothing? At most, better technology will make those resources cheaper to obtain, which is what we're already trying to do in a free market economy. Now sure why RBE would be better. Yes, I have read those.

By the way, I love their example:

consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival.

Would an anti-RBE equivalent be something like this?
consider this: if a group of people with tablet computers, solar panels, and wind generators were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their sustainable technology would be irrelevant to their survival.

The real answer to this example should really be HOW those people got the stuff they are holding:
If the people with money got all that money from running businesses that specialized in food production, water purification, and farming equipment, chances are they'll have the knowledge to apply the skills they sold back home to this island ans still survive.
If the RBE people got their computers, solar panels, and wind generators because they were given to them, and their actual home professions were things like professional TV watchers, philosophers, or random garage-engineer tinkerers, they'll be entertained by their computers, but will otherwise likely die.

[benjamindees]

Oh, just remembered another obvious example regarding profit and conservation. Hotels now ask that if you stay with them for a few days that you conserve and reuse your towels, and don't ask your sheets to be changed every day. Their reason is that they wish to conserve clean water.

LOL, no.  The reason is that they want to hire fewer maids.  Water costs almost nothing in comparison.

In fact, many factories use techniques to conserve clean water. The reason? It's not them suddenly thinking green and wishing to conserve a precious resource. The reason is that clean water costs money, and saving water increases profits.

I'd like to see an example of this, if you have one.  I imagine that saving water has more to do with siting than with the actual cost of water.

[LightRider]

Dr Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_VpyoAXpA8

An interesting video from 20 years ago discussing these issues.

[Michele1940]

 There are a lot of talk going on around the world about virtual currency such as Bitcoins and others.

Many are arguing that virtual currency is a reality and that it's here to stay. I personally agree with this proposition but virtual currency shouldn't be used as an alternative store of value asset only.

Bitcoin is probably the most known and talked virtual currency in these days.  From what we can see in the exchange markets, that have been created to trade Bitcoin, there is a lot of daily activity in the trading environment.

What we cannot see is a similar activity in the retail environment either for on-line or real world transactions. Aside from a few examples, this virtual currency does not seem to be taking off.

What are the reasons for this ? Well there are many.

First of all, aside from the early adapters , "mining" Bitcoin for the individual has become a difficult task.
This means that if you want to have some of this Bitcoin , you can exchange them for your fiat currency on the exchange markets. So you have to take some of your stored "real money" and use them to store them again into Bitcoin. Unless, of course,  you have a real intention to use this Bitcoin to buy something that you like and you need/want to buy.

Second, why do you have to convert your "real money" into Bitcoin if you need/want to buy something ? Because Bitcoin allows you and the seller to have a cost free transaction in the same way you would have if you would hand over your cash money to the vendor.  In addition handling cash money is also a cost both for you and the vendor.

Third, is the vendor giving you any additional advantage if you pay in Bitcoin like, for example, a small discount ?  Not that I am aware of. But might be possible that same are doing it. What I know for sure is that if you pay with real cash money instead of your credit card, you have a very high possibility to get a small discount if you dare asking for it.

Fourth, there are the exchange markets that makes the conversion rate change and it is difficult for you and the vendor to forecast its future value. You may exchange your "real money"  into Bitcoin today or you can accept a payment in Bitcoin as a vendor today at a fixed current rate and find out a few days later that the value of Bitcoin has dropped. Or it has increased. This uncertainty, surely complicates the matter even more. Unless you see into Bitcoin a form of investment in the hope that its value will go sky high someday.

Many might argue that even your "real money" are subject to the same process described above.
All fiat money of course are subjected to inflation and deflation. And the conversion rate between them vary daily. Some might also argue that fiat money might collapse and that you would end up having a bank account filled up with numbers that have no purchase value at all.

So, it seems that what we need for a virtual currency to become a usable currency is a sort of stability of its value. In order to accomplish this, we have to reduce the trading and increase the actual use of our beloved virtual currency.

There are many that think that a world without any sort of monetary system would be a much better world. This is the key concept of a Resource Based Economy. It is my opinion that the present monetary system is just a paradigm, a model. Therefore it is subjected to a shift. And a Global Virtual Currency ( not necessarily Bitcoin ) could be a good entry point for the shift to occur. But it needs to be available for everybody for a Resource Based Economy to take place !!

I am working on this. Stay tuned.

Signed : Twitter @Michele1940 blog : pointapp.blogspot.com