Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 100. (Read 288348 times)

The point is to remove the escapist fantasy that we have any decision making power at all. We are subject to reality, not dictators of it. To ask who makes decisions misses the point of what the ultimate goal is. People who make decisions today are ill informed, manipulated, deceived, corrupted or otherwise mentally impaired by the delusions that we have created in our social order. Removing such delusions of money, property or the idea of "the state" will ultimately give way to a reality based society that arrives at decisions using rational and scientific information with the relevant values of caring for all current and future people.

Then tell me what it is.
The RBE is not private property and is not public property at the same time.
I can't understand it. Can anyone explain this?
If we all share property is a commons or public property (we all own it through the state).
Is the RBE a commons? Have you heard about the tragedy of the commons?
Who makes decisions in the RBE?
A super-democratic government?
A team of experts elected by merit?
A super-computer?
Peter Joseph?
Honestly, I still prefer to manage the food I eat myself. Or at least be able to chose who produces it.
Property is about making decisions about the use of scarce resources.
You reject to talk about decision making and property in the RBE system. It doesn't help people to understand it.
Maybe not being described as a communist is more important than being understood for some RBE advocates.

By rejecting "legal tender," you are quite literally rejecting the idea that people should expect anything at all in return for their work. If I work, and I expect to be rewarded for that work by food, that food is now my "legal tender." If I expect to have a place to live, that dwelling is "legal tender." Rejecting legal tender means that everyone would have to work for entirely altruistic reasons, expecting absolutely nothing in return, yet still having things given to them (like food and shelter) in return for their work. Asking everyone to be completely selfless and altruistic is a rather far-fetched (ridiculous) proposition, especially since as soon as ONE person decides that they want to be directly compensated for their work, they will establish their own "legal tender," and the whole idea flies out the window...
I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong and I'm missing something, or I don't understand RBE/TZM. I'm eagerly waiting your explanation.

Incorrect. This is an artificial distinction. We share the same planet and the same resources. False authority does not alter this fact.

Money is a cultural convention that you're proposing to eliminate without understanding its functions for society and without providing a substitute. The same for private property.
You don't like the free market nor the governments, but there's only the public and the private sectors.

No, no and no. Again.
Free market only produces what people demand, which is more than what can be said about governments.
If you educate people to live in a sustainable way, then free market will be sustainable: no need for a brand new democracy.
RBE advocates believe that a new democratic and voluntary communism, guided by the all mighty science (mainly robots and absolutely good education), will fix everything.

For the good education, again, What's good?
Are you proposing public education for this?

And for the voluntary government, tell us more about that new democracy.
Show us an example of how a regulation would be put in place without polishitians and government employees.

Also the scale for the RBE, as far as I know from Peter's videos, would be global, introducing a Single point of failure.
I don't like centralization decision making.
As the raper Hayek said:
"Do I plan for myself or I leave it to you?
I want plans by the many, not by the few." 

This idea misses the point entirely. Legal tender is a cultural norm and value that we are trying to move away from. Making an arbitrary material a universal currency does not remove the underlying abusive tendencies associated with such a system.

Hey, this discussion is too important to let it disappear !!! Post something, comment, do something to keep it alive.

Thanks.

INJECTION

Here's an idea for critique by the no-money Venus folks. Since there are enough resources available to do anything if required, how about the following suggestion. Make silicon legal tender. This way one of the most abundant and useful resources must always be accepted in the remission of a debt. IE you have abundant money based on an abundant resource.

If someone truly believes that the ideas of the Venus project can work he can voluntarily work on aspects of it. If someone else however does not share their enthusiasm, they can voluntarily opt out but would be obligated to accept what the planners of society view as a highly abundant resource for the remission of debts against them. So now if resources are truly super abundant then it will become evident and if it is not, then that too will become evident.

Like with SecondLife's Linden Dollars, I fully expect that the idea of having to pay for the currency when you used to be able to get it for "free" will turn people away (SecondLife used to pay everyone a "stipend" of 50$L a week, but then stopped it). On the other hand, many people making money for free just makes the money worth less. I think making people pay for it will reinforce the idea that this is a real money alternative. Linden Dollars survived, and now process I think something like a few million of transactions a day. I believe Bitcoin will to. One way we can push it along is by convincing people that transferring money into Bitcoin to buy stuff with Bitcoin online is no different than transferring money into PayPal to buy stuff with PayPal dollars. The volatility of the currency exchange is still a bit of an obstacle though.



Actually, I think we need increased trading. Trading, not buying-and-holding. Traders add liquidity to the market, meaning those who want to buy and sell can do so quickly. They also stabilize the market, since if there are way more traders wishing to buy and sell around, say, a $17 mark, it will take A LOT more than just a few 1000BTC to make the price swing up or down wildly. The crazy volatility has actually been due to a severe lack of traders (aka, small volume) on the market. Traders also provide a valuable service, that being that they are willing to exchange their time (sitting on the money/trade and waiting) in exchange for someone who has no time and needs stuff NOW (retailers or customers wishing to exchange money)

ONLY if you assume that human population is not a "living system." Sure, we are altering the ecosystem, and are using up natural resources, we as a living system are quite the opposite of "in decline." Some of the other living systems that are popping up due to our activity are on the increase as well, such as rodent populations, certain types of insects, farm animal populations and bacteria and viruses. That part of the "living ecosystem" is thriving. So, the real question is really, WHICH living system do you think should be thriving at the expense of other systems?
Granted you could be saying that our economic activity is using up some of our limited resources, and that activity is unsustainable, but then you're also proposing that we can use technology to make it sustainable, which I don't see a reason why we wouldn't anyway...


How is this not what we are already doing, with people and businesses pushing for more and more green tech? Though you have already claimed over and over that you don't believe the markets deliver what people ask for (i.e. you seem to be rejecting a part of the market that goes against your believe of "capitalism=bad") when the people are asking and willing to pay more for conservation, or when companies find it cheaper to conserve.


One could say RBE/TZM people believe that somehow an invisible hand will convince EVERYONE to believe the same thing and, guided by faith in some scientific calculations, force them to submit themselves to that one god-like scientific figure/entity that will fix everything... There's likely more faith involved in believing that people will agree to go against their own free will and nature, and would be willing to submit to a single group/entity's wishes just because that group/entity tells them they'll be better off.

Well here we have : misaligned incentives, negative externalities that cause negative retro actions. Can't the common cause of all this be called greediness ?

Seeking for a dynamic equilibrium with nature is definitely a good path to follow. Since from nature itself we can actually see that there are no misaligned incentives, no negative externalities and , therefore no greediness. Nature appears to evolve by itself in a way that the whole ecosystem is always in a state of development ( evolution ) rather than declining.

Economic activities are not a natural process. But, by all means, are perpetuated by Humans since " Illo Tempore ".

Humans are surely part of the natural ecosystem of this planet. And surely denote a much higher degree of awareness as compared to any other natural kingdom. Also they denote a freewill that allows them, for example, to elaborate economic activities able to "alter" the whole ecosystem.

In seeking for this "miraculous" to happen, that we can all live a sustainable life by better rationing all available resources and bla bla bla, we should not forget, in my opinion, that this freewill, is applicable also to the individuals. Therefore making each of us capable of taking different decisions.

The main problem than, melts down to a matter of awareness : if you are not aware that you are doing something wrong, how can you possibly decide to do it in a different way ?

The above is my attempt to give a sort of "scientific" explanation. But I would have preferred a more philosophical one 

Open for discussion, if anybody wishes.

Thanks.

OK, I though a lot about the last posts, and I think it all boils down to this.

Facts
Every living system and living ecosystem on Earth is in a state of decline, due to our economic activities. There is no debate about that, every scientific paper published in the last 30 years confirms it. It's abundantly clear that a different approach is to be put in place.

Proposals
I propose we try to approach the problems scientifically, evaluate what causes negative retroactions, try to prevent them through education, non violent and non coercive manners, strive for a dynamic equilibrium with nature, use a systemic approach and adapt our ways of lives so that they are aligned with what the planet can provide, in order to ensure our long term survival.

Free market advocates believe in individual freedoms above all, and that somehow an invisible hand, guided by god-like unprovable entity, will fix everything.

I am seeing this wrong? (Of course you are going to say yes straight away, but think about it for a few days, then come back and tell me).

I have two better words:  negative externalities.

Two words: misaligned incentives.

This discussion is dealing only with the effects of the actual global system. Anyone has taken into consideration the causes ? That would save me a LOT or reading....Thanks.

Oh I see. You searched the wrong words. Here's the channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/peakmoment?blend=3&ob=5