Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 10. (Read 288302 times)
Capitalism as propagator of free trade is concerned only for profit! RBE is not possible if system stays same. Capitalism is not sustainable because keep destroying resources of its hosts, don't care about pollution and people are not important they count in KW just like in Matrix without machines..
the resource-dependent economy on the planet is in my opinion the only possible way to construct a system aimed at striving in the material world and that such a construction requires a lot of abstract thinking for justification of those or other enclosed forms of governance or construction of the inter human relationships, where every person is different from birth and that without breaking the essence inside and not changing it since he was born and to offer him all the already made decisions; and each time inventing or discovering any useful resource that could change , but to facilitate and to improve the life, but constantly stop and think not to happen and we have to have, different theories have been invoked and applied to contemporary economic models and where we see that simple always should die, having in mind moving forward though, but what we see with electronic money system, where there is the temptation not printing money and not mining, to make infinity money and solve many of the tasks where the only time people don't mate, though, it remains to see how will be this time and what happens and ''does not work'', lmao
My definition of "feasible" is based on experimental psychology. Organisms behave according to stimuli, pleasure, needs, etc. Your "Stalinist" pejorative belies your education and/or bias. The problem is they tried to make Marxist ideas into a political system. Higher organisms don't become "political" until they respond to "others" outside their immediate family/group. RBE seeks to allow people to treat everyone like their own family/tribe. The principles have been studied and tested by science and have shown to have predictable results. Many clinicians and organizations use these techniques and it's simply a matter of scale.
There is nothing to enforce. The alternative of not becoming an RBE is extinction as a species. The eventual culling of the population will demand it.
There is nothing to enforce. The alternative of not becoming an RBE is extinction as a species. The eventual culling of the population will demand it.
No,you get me wrong, I`m talking about everyday applicable decisions in a society? How are they decided , who decides them, and how are they enforced?
I saw the RBE model, and video, they talk about a huge global network of resource trading. It seems pretty complicated, and it needs high levels of organization, presumably a global state.
And when you are dealing with a global state, presumably heavily leftist, you can quickly fall into Stalinist ideology and turn this dream ideology into a nightmare with gulags and then rest of them.
My definition of "feasible" is based on experimental psychology. Organisms behave according to stimuli, pleasure, needs, etc. Your "Stalinist" pejorative belies your education and/or bias. The problem is they tried to make Marxist ideas into a political system. Higher organisms don't become "political" until they respond to "others" outside their immediate family/group. RBE seeks to allow people to treat everyone like their own family/tribe. The principles have been studied and tested by science and have shown to have predictable results. Many clinicians and organizations use these techniques and it's simply a matter of scale.
There is nothing to enforce. The alternative of not becoming an RBE is extinction as a species. The eventual culling of the population will demand it.
There is nothing to enforce. The alternative of not becoming an RBE is extinction as a species. The eventual culling of the population will demand it.
No,you get me wrong, I`m talking about everyday applicable decisions in a society? How are they decided , who decides them, and how are they enforced?
I saw the RBE model, and video, they talk about a huge global network of resource trading. It seems pretty complicated, and it needs high levels of organization, presumably a global state.
And when you are dealing with a global state, presumably heavily leftist, you can quickly fall into Stalinist ideology and turn this dream ideology into a nightmare with gulags and then rest of them.
How will RBE deal with decision-making, and how the decisions get enforced, i`m looking for a good answer here?
I`m curious how the RBE system will handle decision making. As in how will governing decisions be made, in order to keep the system transparent and decentralized.
If you cant answer that, or there is no feasable and applicable way to do that, then my gut feeling will become true, and this RBE will quickly turn into a Stalinist global totalitarian government.
If you can't implement a feasable way for transparent decision making, and a participatory voting system where you involve the average person into the economy and politics, then the system will quickly become totalitarian and the TPTB will assume control, and the system will become very ugly, very soon.
There is nothing to enforce. The alternative of not becoming an RBE is extinction as a species. The eventual culling of the population will demand it.
How will RBE deal with decision-making, and how the decisions get enforced, i`m looking for a good answer here?
RealBitcoin, again, nothing you just stated has anything to do with Merriam-Webster's "free market", since people are free to not use government fiat money, asses stock values by their method of choice, and aren't forced to buy them, all free market behavior.
Your job is to show the coercion, and that it is sufficiently large to give a negative impact than would a completely unregulated market.
Your job is to show the coercion, and that it is sufficiently large to give a negative impact than would a completely unregulated market.
No they are not. Taxes must be paid in legal tender fiat. And society forces you to shop with fat as well. ["forces"?? What are you smoking, RB? As part of a free market, private businesses have the right to barter anything for its products and services, even BitCoin, and there's no law that says otherwise.]
It's not that it's not feasable to shop with gold coins, it is actually impossible if not illegal. ["illegal"?? How about you show a law in support?]
Truth hurts, doesn't it, RB, that there indeed is a free market, and society still goes to sht!
RealBitcoin, again, nothing you just stated has anything to do with Merriam-Webster's "free market", since people are free to not use government fiat money, asses stock values by their method of choice, and aren't forced to buy them, all free market behavior.
Your job is to show the coercion, and that it is sufficiently large to give a negative impact than would a completely unregulated market.
Your job is to show the coercion, and that it is sufficiently large to give a negative impact than would a completely unregulated market.
RealBitcoin, you seem to be including a lot of supposition of what constitutes a free market, when I already told you its definition which you agreed with: " an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government ", my emphasis - there being nothing in there about people not working together toward a common goal, also known as a company.
If you really wanted to convince us, you'd be making the case that there isn't a free market, on U.S. soil, for example, according to that definition, but also prove that tax money could have been better spent in the free market and was not subject to competition for government projects, in the free market, and also prove that the government is indeed threatening/forcing all people on U.S. soil to pay income tax - good luck!
If you really wanted to convince us, you'd be making the case that there isn't a free market, on U.S. soil, for example, according to that definition, but also prove that tax money could have been better spent in the free market and was not subject to competition for government projects, in the free market, and also prove that the government is indeed threatening/forcing all people on U.S. soil to pay income tax - good luck!
RealBitcoin, you really need to be stating more clearly the "nonsense" and why, and not just write blanket statements.
If your drug is second to market, and both parties are equally invested, you wouldn't try to compete, but simply join them in a monopoly or cartel, keeping the price high - which is why there are laws against such behavior.
Unfortunately, there's centralization everywhere, because it's more efficient. For instance, take a company with a central management and departments who all communicate and share research with one another, it would be highly inefficient to have them perform the same task or compete internally - more like academia where research is published; that's an RBE.
If your drug is second to market, and both parties are equally invested, you wouldn't try to compete, but simply join them in a monopoly or cartel, keeping the price high - which is why there are laws against such behavior.
Unfortunately, there's centralization everywhere, because it's more efficient. For instance, take a company with a central management and departments who all communicate and share research with one another, it would be highly inefficient to have them perform the same task or compete internally - more like academia where research is published; that's an RBE.
Monopoly and oligopoly only form if there is a pressure to centralization on the market. You will never see a lollipop market become centralized in a free society, because there will be so many people doing it that it will become impossible.
The same will happen with any other market, if you introduce gradually introduce competition. But if you keep out competition with the iron fist of the state, and those laws, then it wil certainly become monopolic.
Your example of that company is not a free market, in a free market there would be no company with that many departments.
RealBitcoin, you really need to be stating more clearly the "nonsense" and why, and not just write blanket statements.
If your drug is second to market, and both parties are equally invested, you wouldn't try to compete, but simply join them in a monopoly or cartel, keeping the price high - which is why there are laws against such behavior.
Unfortunately, there's centralization everywhere, because it's more efficient. For instance, take a company with a central management and departments who all communicate and share research with one another, it would be highly inefficient to have them perform the same task or compete internally - more like academia where research is published; that's an RBE.
If your drug is second to market, and both parties are equally invested, you wouldn't try to compete, but simply join them in a monopoly or cartel, keeping the price high - which is why there are laws against such behavior.
Unfortunately, there's centralization everywhere, because it's more efficient. For instance, take a company with a central management and departments who all communicate and share research with one another, it would be highly inefficient to have them perform the same task or compete internally - more like academia where research is published; that's an RBE.
The thing is that in a real free market, there wont be just 1 person inventing the cure, but many separate people, not even knowing of eachother. [which is highly inefficient because they are not communicating and sharing ideas. Actually, this is very similar to the hashing problem in BitCoin, where if all the miners cooperated, they could cover the hash space just once. ]
That is nonsense, the separation of powers is the whole point of decentralization. Otherwise you just use a centralized system.
I can put all bitcoin addresses and balances in an excel file, and it would cost me 0$ to maintain it.
The factor is that you cannot trust a centralized system, at all. That is why we have the mining system.
And they would compete about who can release the vaccine faster to earn more money. The person that invents it first, will quickly start to sell it before the other people invent it, to ensure that he profits the most. And when the other start to sell it, the price of it will drastically drop. [Unless they go into monopoly, keeping the price high.] So the vaccine will be on the market ASAP. Greed is a 2 edged sword, and in this case, greed will save many people's lives, because as greedy is the inventor, as fast the cure will start to save lives. So if 1 out of the 100 inventors withholds the cure, he will just lose money, as the other 99 people did the right thing, and will be rewarded with big bucks.
If they dont know about eachother , i highly doubt they would conspire against people.
I mean just look at the hardware companies, you got tons of them, if what you say were true, you would not have today a PC on which to speak this nonsese.
If you have 1 point of failure, a communist research department, you can just have 1 evil person withholding the cure because he believes the "people" are not ideologically pure enough to receive it, or some other disturbed ideological delusion, and will let people die.
[And the same could happen in the free-market, by someone not interested in profit.]
Someone not interested in profit, is certainly not interested in losses.
It costs billions of $ to develop any medicine, why would he spend so much money ,and then sit on the cure just for the fun of it? Thats nonsense my friend.
Doesnt matter what system you create, if you centralize power, you wont create a paradise, but rather a hell on earth. [I guess that your body is "hell on earth" then.]
A free market is just there to balance power, nothing more, nothing less.
Well its certainly very vulnerable by being centralized, 1 body only needs to die once.
It it were decentralized, then you would not die from 1 point of failure : heart attack, stroke, bullet in a brain, etc..
Humans would be more durable then.
The thing is that in a real free market, there wont be just 1 person inventing the cure, but many separate people, not even knowing of eachother. [which is highly inefficient because they are not communicating and sharing ideas. Actually, this is very similar to the hashing problem in BitCoin, where if all the miners cooperated, they could cover the hash space just once. ]
And they would compete about who can release the vaccine faster to earn more money. The person that invents it first, will quickly start to sell it before the other people invent it, to ensure that he profits the most. And when the other start to sell it, the price of it will drastically drop. [Unless they go into monopoly, keeping the price high.] So the vaccine will be on the market ASAP. Greed is a 2 edged sword, and in this case, greed will save many people's lives, because as greedy is the inventor, as fast the cure will start to save lives. So if 1 out of the 100 inventors withholds the cure, he will just lose money, as the other 99 people did the right thing, and will be rewarded with big bucks.
If you have 1 point of failure, a communist research department, you can just have 1 evil person withholding the cure because he believes the "people" are not ideologically pure enough to receive it, or some other disturbed ideological delusion, and will let people die.
[And the same could happen in the free-market, by someone not interested in profit.]
Doesnt matter what system you create, if you centralize power, you wont create a paradise, but rather a hell on earth. [I guess that your body is "hell on earth" then.]
A free market is just there to balance power, nothing more, nothing less.
RealBitcoin, in "mission impossible 2", a company unleashes a deadly virus on the populace - thereby disrespecting property - when in possession of the cure, in order to reap huge profits. There simply doesn't exist a mechanism in free-market capitalism that would prevent something like this from eventually occurring. Hence, property yields to profit.
That event would never happen.
[Entirely plausible it could!]
And even if it would, people will just storm their building and steal the cure if they really dont give it up.
[Sounds like chaos and property being violated! That's free-market capitalism for you: inconsistency and violens!]
If there is a global pandemic and you posess the cure for it, you will sell it, even if you are a psychopath, because it can gain you billions of dollars.
[They profit, and millions die! Way to go free-market capitalism, wohooo!]
But what is the alternative? If you have this global communist system setup, how do you know that the director of the pandemic research facility (yes you will have hierarchy even in RBE) wont just run away with the cure and keep it for himself and then sell it on the black market?
[In an RBE, there's no market to sell on; there's nothing to profit from. Any withholding of the cure, from your fellow man, is a severely distorted behaviour picked up in the free-market where it's rewarded, no doubt. ]
What prevents that? At least in capitalism you have a formal market where you can drop your ideas and inventions for sale.
[Because the best ideas, such as abundance for all, is not profitable in the free market.]
If you banish money, you will have only black markets and violence. Even the soviet union had a huge black market system, people need capitalism ,you cannot comprehend it that it's a basic trait of humans to acquire capital and resources.
[I already linked you a publication showing that toddlers have not the same notion of property as adults, but are more about needs, which is more in line with an RBE. You don't have a need for property, but for access to resources, such as transportation, rather than owning it.]
The thing is that in a real free market, there wont be just 1 person inventing the cure, but many separate people, not even knowing of eachother.
And they would compete about who can release the vaccine faster to earn more money. The person that invents it first, will quickly start to sell it before the other people invent it, to ensure that he profits the most. And when the other start to sell it, the price of it will drastically drop. So the vaccine will be on the market ASAP. Greed is a 2 edged sword, and in this case, greed will save many people's lives, because as greedy is the inventor, as fast the cure will start to save lives. So if 1 out of the 100 inventors withholds the cure, he will just lose money, as the other 99 people did the right thing, and will be rewarded with big bucks.
If you have 1 point of failure, a communist research department, you can just have 1 evil person withholding the cure because he believes the "people" are not ideologically pure enough to receive it, or some other disturbed ideological delusion, and will let people die.
Doesnt matter what system you create, if you centralize power, you wont create a paradise, but rather a hell on earth.
A free market is just there to balance power, nothing more, nothing less.
RealBitcoin, in "mission impossible 2", a company unleashes a deadly virus on the populace - thereby disrespecting property - when in possession of the cure, in order to reap huge profits. There simply doesn't exist a mechanism in free-market capitalism that would prevent something like this from eventually occurring. Hence, property yields to profit.
That event would never happen.
[Entirely plausible it could!]
And even if it would, people will just storm their building and steal the cure if they really dont give it up.
[Sounds like chaos and property being violated! That's free-market capitalism for you: inconsistency and violens!]
If there is a global pandemic and you posess the cure for it, you will sell it, even if you are a psychopath, because it can gain you billions of dollars.
[They profit, and millions die! Way to go free-market capitalism, wohooo!]
But what is the alternative? If you have this global communist system setup, how do you know that the director of the pandemic research facility (yes you will have hierarchy even in RBE) wont just run away with the cure and keep it for himself and then sell it on the black market?
[In an RBE, there's no market to sell on; there's nothing to profit from. Any withholding of the cure, from your fellow man, is a severely distorted behaviour picked up in the free-market where it's rewarded, no doubt. ]
What prevents that? At least in capitalism you have a formal market where you can drop your ideas and inventions for sale.
[Because the best ideas, such as abundance for all, is not profitable in the free market.]
If you banish money, you will have only black markets and violence. Even the soviet union had a huge black market system, people need capitalism ,you cannot comprehend it that it's a basic trait of humans to acquire capital and resources.
[I already linked you a publication showing that toddlers have not the same notion of property as adults, but are more about needs, which is more in line with an RBE. You don't have a need for property, but for access to resources, such as transportation, rather than owning it.]
RealBitcoin, in "mission impossible 2", a company unleashes a deadly virus on the populace - thereby disrespecting property - when in possession of the cure, in order to reap huge profits. There simply doesn't exist a mechanism in free-market capitalism that would prevent something like this from eventually occurring. Hence, property yields to profit.
That event would never happen.
[Entirely plausible it could!]
And even if it would, people will just storm their building and steal the cure if they really dont give it up.
[Sounds like chaos and property being violated! That's free-market capitalism for you: inconsistency and violens!]
If there is a global pandemic and you posess the cure for it, you will sell it, even if you are a psychopath, because it can gain you billions of dollars.
[They profit, and millions die! Way to go free-market capitalism, wohooo!]
But what is the alternative? If you have this global communist system setup, how do you know that the director of the pandemic research facility (yes you will have hierarchy even in RBE) wont just run away with the cure and keep it for himself and then sell it on the black market?
What prevents that? At least in capitalism you have a formal market where you can drop your ideas and inventions for sale.
If you banish money, you will have only black markets and violence. Even the soviet union had a huge black market system, people need capitalism ,you cannot comprehend it that it's a basic trait of humans to acquire capital and resources.
RealBitcoin, in "mission impossible 2", a company unleashes a deadly virus on the populace - thereby disrespecting property - when in possession of the cure, in order to reap huge profits. There simply doesn't exist a mechanism in free-market capitalism that would prevent something like this from eventually occurring. Hence, property yields to profit.
That event would never happen.
[Entirely plausible it could!]
And even if it would, people will just storm their building and steal the cure if they really dont give it up.
[Sounds like chaos and property being violated! That's free-market capitalism for you: inconsistency and violens!]
If there is a global pandemic and you posess the cure for it, you will sell it, even if you are a psychopath, because it can gain you billions of dollars.
[They profit, and millions die! Way to go free-market capitalism, wohooo!]
RealBitcoin, in "mission impossible 2", a company unleashes a deadly virus on the populace - thereby disrespecting property - when in possession of the cure, in order to reap huge profits. There simply doesn't exist a mechanism in free-market capitalism that would prevent something like this from eventually occurring. Hence, property yields to profit.
That event would never happen.
And even if it would, people will just storm their building and steal the cure if they really dont give it up.
If there is a global pandemic and you posess the cure for it, you will sell it, even if you are a psychopath, because it can gain you billions of dollars.
RealBitcoin, in "mission impossible 2", a company unleashes a deadly virus on the populace - thereby disrespecting property - when in possession of the cure, in order to reap huge profits. There simply doesn't exist a mechanism in free-market capitalism that would prevent something like this from eventually occurring. Hence, property yields to profit.
It is pretty much the same as with private property, it is yours only as long as others consider it yours...
My property is my property, lol
My property is my property, lol
Yeah, but the respect for property must sooner or later yield to profit, something that the likes of Stefan Molyneux have yet to realize, and which "mission impossible 2" is a prime example of.
Does it? What if I just buy a farmland and start planting plants there.
If I dont care about the value of the land, it can go down for that matter, but I make money from the plants, and even if i dont break even, it will make that my profession.
I dont think any farmer cares about the value of his land, and only cares about the productivity of it, and to make many crops to sell them.
Land speculators? That is a totally different category. In a real capitalist society, there will be hardly any speculators. Those belong in this corporate world.
Jump to: