Pages:
Author

Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 20. (Read 288373 times)

hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
October 10, 2015, 02:27:44 PM

But, is a market really viable in a society where machines can make a surplus of a lot of stuff? is it possible to have a market when most jobs are just automated and most people simply "aren't needed"?

Well i'll tell you something, im not sure about it... and im a proposal for free market myself, but I think at some point in the future, it will make no sense. Maybe in 100, 1000 years, I don't care, it will eventually make no sense.

Yes because trading will always exist, and has always existed, since the beginning of the universe.

When you inhale air you trade your CO2 to the plants, and the plants give in return O2.

Not all trades are commercial, but trading will always be present. And for a trade you will always need a market, so the best and most efficient form is a free market, not a controlled zombie market.

Otherwise lets put trading tariffs and regulations on the plants O2 trade, and lets make the plants pay income tax Smiley

-------------------------------------

Trust me free market in its core will always be needed, even in the soviet union you could trade basic things, you just couldnt had means of productions. Imagine if you could have, people would live better.


Controlled market VS Free market  is like a disabled wheelchair person vs a marathon runner athlete, you just cant compare the two.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
October 10, 2015, 02:21:57 PM

Stop being a professional troll. You aren't fooling anyone.

Sorry but this collectivist mindsent that is poisoning us for 300 years is just not going to move humanity forward.

In the past 300 years with the collectivism we have been enslaved more than any middle age serf could have imagined.

What we need is a free society with free market, not a totalitarian "resource based" system.



But, is a market really viable in a society where machines can make a surplus of a lot of stuff? is it possible to have a market when most jobs are just automated and most people simply "aren't needed"?

Well i'll tell you something, im not sure about it... and im a proposal for free market myself, but I think at some point in the future, it will make no sense. Maybe in 100, 1000 years, I don't care, it will eventually make no sense.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
October 10, 2015, 01:39:04 PM

Stop being a professional troll. You aren't fooling anyone.

Sorry but this collectivist mindsent that is poisoning us for 300 years is just not going to move humanity forward.

In the past 300 years with the collectivism we have been enslaved more than any middle age serf could have imagined.

What we need is a free society with free market, not a totalitarian "resource based" system.

legendary
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1022
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
October 10, 2015, 01:05:21 PM
There can be no free market. Humanity cannot become free from reality. The market must create a state to protect itself from reality.

Just stop with your poetic posts, you make no sense, sorry.

Have you ever been to a grocery store? It is usually a free market there (if it werent for the regulations and taxes the owners had to pay).

I have bought food from farmers, barely regulated, and it tasted good, fresh, and no I wasnt poisoned from it.

Yet when you buy stuff from shops, that are "regulated"  & "health inspected" you often find poisonous chemicals in them, additives, preservants ,and GMO.


So your regulated economy is very efficient, at destroying itself apparently. Sorry but free market is the way to go: tiny or no regulations, and tiny or no taxes Smiley

Stop being a professional troll. You aren't fooling anyone.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
October 10, 2015, 06:29:40 AM
There can be no free market. Humanity cannot become free from reality. The market must create a state to protect itself from reality.

Just stop with your poetic posts, you make no sense, sorry.

Have you ever been to a grocery store? It is usually a free market there (if it werent for the regulations and taxes the owners had to pay).

I have bought food from farmers, barely regulated, and it tasted good, fresh, and no I wasnt poisoned from it.

Yet when you buy stuff from shops, that are "regulated"  & "health inspected" you often find poisonous chemicals in them, additives, preservants ,and GMO.


So your regulated economy is very efficient, at destroying itself apparently. Sorry but free market is the way to go: tiny or no regulations, and tiny or no taxes Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1022
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
October 10, 2015, 06:12:36 AM
There can be no free market. Humanity cannot become free from reality. The market must create a state to protect itself from reality.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
October 10, 2015, 05:36:20 AM
There is no free market.

Yes currently there isn't, unfortunately, you you are right on that.

But if there would be one, then the economy would work a lot better.

legendary
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1022
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
October 10, 2015, 01:51:40 AM
There is no free market.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
October 09, 2015, 04:58:51 PM


You ever hear of management decisions? That's no free market or democracy, but dictatorship.
But governments did ask you when you voted them into office.

Yea but you own the company, not the employees, and the employees choosed to work there.

The country you are born , you didnt choose, and whatever tyrany is inflicted on you, you didnt choosed it.



There's nothing violent or inefficient about an RBE that actually takes care of you - no more competition for the sake of profit or mundane jobs for the sake of "earning" a right to life, just efficient strategic decisions taking scarcity into account.

And who will make thses efficient decisions? A leader? Will he abuse his power? (like the 99.999999999999999999% of leaders that do).

Where is the separation of powers?



If you make a democracy, then the sheeple cannot decide strategic decisions because they are dumb morons.

If you make a dictatorship then you end up with somebody who will abuse his power.

If you mix the 2 then you have todays paradoxical system.

So the only choice left is free market, laissez faire style Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1022
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
October 09, 2015, 03:09:31 PM
I think we are already living in a resource based economy. Is the world economy today not already "resource based" in large part? How is it beneficial to give this concept such a vague name? It's hard to be against something as broad as a "resource based economy", it's basically something that goes without saying for economies everywhere to some degree.

No. The chief organizing principle is monetary value and profits. Meaning that we use our resources extraordinarily inefficiently if it means more profits can be extracted. And since money is an idea, as opposed to something real, there is no economic consequence for this behavior. However, the very real effects of environmental destruction, war, poverty and structural violence continue to increase.
legendary
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1022
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
October 09, 2015, 03:07:23 PM
It will not work because resources are limited, and human needs aren't. It would take some serious brainwashing to get people to willingly restrain their consumption. Further, economy with free goods cannot sustain population growth, because it requires continuous innovation to make the same resources feed the increasing population.

Human needs are finite. You are brainwashed constantly to consume more than you need to in service to the unending constant consumption requirements of the monetary market system.
sr. member
Activity: 344
Merit: 250
October 09, 2015, 02:07:44 PM
It will not work because resources are limited, and human needs aren't. It would take some serious brainwashing to get people to willingly restrain their consumption. Further, economy with free goods cannot sustain population growth, because it requires continuous innovation to make the same resources feed the increasing population.
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 501
October 08, 2015, 02:22:36 PM
I think we are already living in a resource based economy. Is the world economy today not already "resource based" in large part? How is it beneficial to give this concept such a vague name? It's hard to be against something as broad as a "resource based economy", it's basically something that goes without saying for economies everywhere to some degree.
member
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
October 08, 2015, 06:10:41 AM

Yes but a corporation doesn't make decisions on your behalf without asking you first.

You ever hear of management decisions? That's no free market or democracy, but dictatorship.
But governments did ask you when you voted them into office.


That is only half true. What makes you think that any other organization besides the free market [the free market is an organization??] will be peaceful.

You admitted that there is no voluntary transaction, so at this point we could just go with the free market as even if its violent, at least its efficient.

Because your system will too be violent, but it will be inefficient, so go with the efficient then.

There's nothing violent or inefficient about an RBE that actually takes care of you - no more competition for the sake of profit or mundane jobs for the sake of "earning" a right to life, just efficient strategic decisions taking scarcity into account.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
October 08, 2015, 03:21:08 AM
Monopolies, cartels and the state are inevitable outcomes in any market system. Markets are inherently violent, and there is no way to be "voluntary" within them.

That is only half true. What makes you think that any other organization besides the free market will be peaceful.

You admitted that there is no voluntary transaction, so at this point we could just go with the free market as even if its violent, at least its efficient.

Because your system will too be violent, but it will be inefficient, so go with the efficient then.
legendary
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1022
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
October 08, 2015, 03:09:45 AM
Monopolies, cartels and the state are inevitable outcomes in any market system. Markets are inherently violent, and there is no way to be "voluntary" within them.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
October 07, 2015, 10:41:20 PM
Sorry but central banks are centrally planned = communist.
We capitalists are 180 degree opposite to what you just said.

Sorry, but that is a Red Herring since every form of organization or corporation is centrally planned - a hierarchical structure; and people tacitly support governments by using their services such as fiat money - where no one forces you to.

Yes but a corporation doesn't make decisions on your behalf without asking you first. Or atleast small businesses don't, sure there might be corruption at higher levels.

I`m a pro small/medium business capitalist, not a corporatist.
member
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
October 07, 2015, 04:48:39 PM
Sorry but central banks are centrally planned = communist.
We capitalists are 180 degree opposite to what you just said.

Sorry, but that is a Red Herring since every form of organization or corporation is centrally planned - a hierarchical structure; and people tacitly support governments by using their services such as fiat money - where no one forces you to.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
October 07, 2015, 12:51:25 PM
And what's good in it? Isn't what you say looks more like Socialism, or, rather, Communism, the point that I made at the start?

By giving money for free you disincentivize those who are hard earning it 

No it is not Communism. Your property remains private. Keynesianism is a mathematical game of balance. You give free money ONLY when it needed to create balance or for funding, and you remove money for the same reason. Maybe you dont understand it and my english is not good to explain to you.

Sorry, but I don't see anything good in it. This system if applied will be heavily abused. And I don't see any merits on its own when compared to a purely free-market regulation of the amount of money in circulation
I love all this "free market" talk as we go into QE4 as if it was some promise of afterlife if you worship capitalism.

Sorry but central banks are centrally planned = communist.

We capitalists are 180 degree opposite to what you just said.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
October 07, 2015, 11:20:19 AM
And what's good in it? Isn't what you say looks more like Socialism, or, rather, Communism, the point that I made at the start?

By giving money for free you disincentivize those who are hard earning it 

No it is not Communism. Your property remains private. Keynesianism is a mathematical game of balance. You give free money ONLY when it needed to create balance or for funding, and you remove money for the same reason. Maybe you dont understand it and my english is not good to explain to you.

Sorry, but I don't see anything good in it. This system if applied will be heavily abused. And I don't see any merits on its own when compared to a purely free-market regulation of the amount of money in circulation
I love all this "free market" talk as we go into QE4 as if it was some promise of afterlife if you worship capitalism.
Pages:
Jump to: