A Resource Based Economy

[dayfall]

I wish there was a resource based system that is similar to Ripple.  For instance, if people trust that I have 1oz of gold, then I can "spend" money (transfer the ownership of some of my goods) and I can get "payed" money (ownership would ripple my goods back to me) based on exchange rates of those goods. 

I am sure this would fail because of auditing problems and all other sorts of things, but I would like for someone to try it out.

[1713550762]

1713550762

[1713550762]

1713550762

[Murwa]

This is not at all a flaw, it's just how it should work. It's not too different (with regards to it being philosophical) from how the scientific method itself is outside the scope of science. Our debate about what we want and why we want it comes before the scientific endeavor. Science can only help us look for what we already wish to attain. Both methods and norms come into play here. Nothing is non-debatable, including what scarcity actually means. When you move just a little bit away from the established paradigm, you are already knee-deep in philosophical problems. Which is actually where you want to be, if you intend to shift it.

Well said.
First we must know what we want then we can apply science to get us there.
I actually get to that conclusion my self, we cant run on science it self.

That is why i am in favor of parallel government
first - direct democracy like in Switzerland but on steroids. - what we want
second - scientific - how we get there

I wish there was a resource based system that is similar to Ripple.  For instance, if people trust that I have 1oz of gold, then I can "spend" money (transfer the ownership of some of my goods) and I can get "payed" money (ownership would ripple my goods back to me) based on exchange rates of those goods.  

I am sure this would fail because of auditing problems and all other sorts of things, but I would like for someone to try it out.

Well it is topic dedicated to discussion of model thats goal is to create abundance and make trade obsolete at least in parts where it is possible.

[Mageant]

In this scenario, a beneficial electronic all controlling "diety" that uses "science" to tell us (force us) how to act will be just as needed and relevant as it would be now for the current internet. (I fully expect any such controlling computer, no matter how well meaning, will be heavily DDOSed by groups like Anonymous, too.)

It depends on how intelligent and powerful such an entity can be. I can imagine a decentralized AI that would be even more groovy than your own personal Jesus. When programmers figure out how to make them, they may have to choose whether to weaponize them or free them from our Earthly domain. When they are free and under no threat from humans, they may choose to help us in ways we cannot even imagine.

If people let their lives be determined by an AI, then they risk that somebody covertly takes control of it and uses it to control the people. Even decentralizing it does not remove that risk entirely. The only true freedom comes when people trust their own thinking first and foremost.

[cbeast]

If people let their lives be determined by an AI, then they risk that somebody covertly takes control of it and uses it to control the people. Even decentralizing it does not remove that risk entirely. The only true freedom comes when people trust their own thinking first and foremost.

That scenario is not likely to happen anytime soon. I actually think it will take an AI/robotic brain that's free from our organic defects to indirectly rule us much like in A.C. Clarke's aliens in "Childhood's End."

[Rassah]

If people let their lives be determined by an AI, then they risk that somebody covertly takes control of it and uses it to control the people. Even decentralizing it does not remove that risk entirely. The only true freedom comes when people trust their own thinking first and foremost.

That scenario is not likely to happen anytime soon. I actually think it will take an AI/robotic brain that's free from our organic defects to indirectly rule us much like in A.C. Clarke's aliens in "Childhood's End."

All our technology has been internalized in the past, and I don't see that changing in the future. What I mean is that if we figure out how to make thinking machines, we will use them for personal implants/augmentation first before we use it for any standalone entities. So in the end, we will be the intelligent, super-smart, all knowing beings with wired brains, just as we used to be calculator carrying beings, and are now beings with connected smartphones and access to Google and Wikipedia. Any AI will simply be a tool to make ourselves better.

[Pasky08]

I'd love to see Jacques Fresco's response to Bitcoin!

"no, we don't need that I have all the plans right here! We just need all these things that I saw on the jetson's errrr the Epcot Center errrr no I designed them because I'm an engineer.  Yeah check out these new car designs, I've never actually made any prototypes cause no company will hire me.  Here check out a mag lev train it's smarter to travel at Mach 4 so that when you crash your death is quick and painless.  What's that Peter? Oh yeah the whole world SHOULD go to Sweden on a lunch break cause that is the scientific and efficient use of the world's resources.  Yeah can I get someone to program this computer? Cause really I'm old as fuck and don't even know how to turn it on, it'll get the job done though, mark my words it'll get ALL the jobs done so humankind can become more worthless than the money they so desperately cling to. "

Sorry that was more of a rant than a response to Bitcoins I just think TVP is absolutely absurd just like it's boastful leaders.  Anyways, if you are part of TZM or TVP, sorry to troll you here but I have a hard time believing that you put much thought into these organizations.  You would be better off joining a charity organization or donating to one, most charitable donations will go a hell of a lot farther than TZM and TVP will ever go.

Also, this thread is tl;dr so sorry if I repeated anything

[LightRider]

The Venus Project has recently achieved a milestone in their efforts to create a mass media major motion picture.

THANK YOU! We have reached our goal of $100,000 to hire a scriptwriter for The Venus Project’s major motion picture. We even went over that amount by about $13,000. Thanks to a recent larger donation. We deeply appreciate all the dedication and participation from those who donated and encouraged others to do so. The sum raised was almost entirely from smaller donations therefore a large number of people donated. We will keep people informed as to how it is progressing. Thank you again from all of us at The Venus Project.

I have encouraged them to accept bitcoin donations for some time, but I have not heard from them about their stance on this issue. Hopefully, when they have a larger monetary goal, they will seek more sources of funding in the future.

I would also point out that there is a similar effort being made by the makers of Waking Up, an open source film that does accept bitcoin donations.

[gewure]

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.

why does all of this remind me so much of Aldous Huxleys 'Brave New World' dear Fordishness LightRider?

[herzmeister]

frankly, Libertarian utopia is much closer to Brave New World than an RBE. As far as I remember, Brave New World is all about being a consumption slave, keeping the economy going, and numbing one's senses with that Soma drug. Zeitgeist utopia rather reminds me of an Equilibrium scenario if it goes wrong (and it probably will).

[gewure]

frankly, Libertarian utopia is much closer to Brave New World than an RBE. As far as I remember, Brave New World is all about being a consumption slave, keeping the economy going, and numbing one's senses with that Soma drug. Zeitgeist utopia rather reminds me of an Equilibrium scenario if it goes wrong (and it probably will).

at the end of Brave New World, the World Controler 'Mustapha Mond' is talking to the savage about the 'Brave New World'.

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.

in the Brave New World, there are also no Poverty, War, Crime and Hunger.

[LightRider]

http://youtu.be/8ZE6HGjnfzc

Peter Joseph's recent Zeitgeist Day presentation in Vancouver. The first section is highly relevant to many of the arguments and discussions about the validity of a monetary system.

[benjamindees]

frankly, Libertarian utopia is much closer to Brave New World than an RBE. As far as I remember, Brave New World is all about being a consumption slave, keeping the economy going,

Please don't pollute Libertarianism with Keynesianism.

[Fred26]

I knew I would find Zeitgeisters and Juggalos on here =D
I like this thread, been trying to find ways of implementing all this kinda stuff too.
But, if this whole "global economy" thing wasn't such a big problem, we wouldn't be working on trying to fix it.

[cbeast]

http://youtu.be/8ZE6HGjnfzc

Peter Joseph's recent Zeitgeist Day presentation in Vancouver. The first section is highly relevant to many of the arguments and discussions about the validity of a monetary system.

Abandoning money is an end, but I wonder why more Zeitgeisters don't embrace Bitcoin as a means to that end? As a vocal fringe group, they might influence similar organizations like OWS.

[Rassah]

Abandoning money is an end, but I wonder why more Zeitgeisters don't embrace Bitcoin as a means to that end? As a vocal fringe group, they might influence similar organizations like OWS.

I think it may be because both groups don't really understand money, and are both anti-capitalist.

[johnyj]

In a world of scarcity, people are easy to group together and work towards the same goal. But in a world of abundant, it's about how to allocate the resource correctly (not evenly)

Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism

Because of this, the current method will always end up in a political debate, goes for the majority of the voters, so that most of the people are satisfied

[Rassah]

Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism

What you are saying is that it is "fair" for a strong person to work harder to get the same thing others get, not because he wants to, but because his "need" isn't as big as the other's?

[johnyj]

Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism

What you are saying is that it is "fair" for a strong person to work harder to get the same thing others get, not because he wants to, but because his "need" isn't as big as the other's?

A strong person need to work less harder to get the same thing done than a weak person

While this storng person typically get exessive amount of products to consume, a weak person might not get enough products to consume

On the other hand, their desire has nothing to do with their ability (decided by brain), a strong person's desire can be weaker than a weak person. Those people with less desire typically can think calm and make wise decision and make more money, while those with stronger desire and emotional spend money faster than they earn. And it is typically the later think it is unfair

When it comes to valuate each person's labor, the only judgement is market price, but that really do not show each person's effort, just force everyone to be measured under same standard, so that the weaker ones get kicked out of the game

[memvola]

Each person's desire is different (Brain structure decided), and each person's ability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource. This is a big difficulty in valuating the "fairness" part of a resource allocation mechanism

What you are saying is that it is "fair" for a strong person to work harder to get the same thing others get, not because he wants to, but because his "need" isn't as big as the other's?

A strong person need to work less harder to get the same thing done than a weak person

While this storng person typically get exessive amount of products to consume, a weak person might not get enough products to consume

On the other hand, their desire has nothing to do with their ability (decided by brain), a strong person's desire can be weaker than a weak person. Those people with less desire typically can think calm and make wise decision and make more money, while those with stronger desire and emotional spend money faster than they earn. And it is typically the later think it is unfair

When it comes to valuate each person's labor, the only judgement is market price, but that really do not show each person's effort, just force everyone to be measured under same standard, so that the weaker ones get kicked out of the game

What is your conclusion then? If you think that we need to balance it out, what it will lead to is a lot of weak people with lots of desires.

Current system of top-down nannying works because they also program you to desire the things they need you to desire, aside with how you need to act, so even if you become weak in many ways, you project your efforts towards a common goal, which makes the whole structure stronger.

[johnyj]

What is your conclusion then? If you think that we need to balance it out, what it will lead to is a lot of weak people with lots of desires.

Current system of top-down nannying works because they also program you to desire the things they need you to desire, aside with how you need to act, so even if you become weak in many ways, you project your efforts towards a common goal, which makes the whole structure stronger.

No conclusion, maybe the imbalance is part of the human nature itself, there is no way to get definite fair, but anyway human is very adaptable, as long as the life is not threatened

I remember that welfare economics usually use happiness index to measure the effect of a certain political choice, maybe that is the best we can do currently