Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 22. (Read 288375 times)

What is not true? That prices don't matter to those not earning money?
"stratifying and increasing the income gap " was not the main point, but simply a side thought, hence the "-".
welfare = wealth redistribution, which actually bridges the income gap!
Money printing does increase the income gap; but since people are free to trade in any currency of choice, your point is moot.

"" Why not just let other people raise to higher income levels and then thing will be far more equal than this. ""

Because their work is not needed due to technological unemployment.

So new born babies deserve no welfare because it's wrong? The elderly and the sick deserve no welfare because it's wrong? I hope you were never a baby, ever get sick or grow old in your utopian free market world.

Or get technologically unemployed for that matter. When the robot takes your job will you be undeserving of welfare then too?

I like how you always dodge my responses and come up with a new point. Its a very shady tactic to avoid my arguments ,because you know that you are not consistent, and cannot address my points logically.

Welfare is welfare, and its wrong, no matter who gets it. Yes money printing is wrong, but it's a necessity for socialism, because you always run out of other people's money.

Now I dont know what is the difference between RBE and classic socialism, but i suspect that any form of "unnatural" organization of the human society will require tons of capital, and will probably end up printing money too.

It's a waste. I saw a documentary about the Venus Project a few years ago, and it was really presented nicely like an utopia, but there is always 1 question about any new economic model.

Who will enforce it? And from what money will they enforce it? And if the utopia gets too fantasy based, then you cannot have a solid economy built on it.

Thus I hardly suspect that the RBE , Venus, or whatever you call it, will also use fiat printed money. (so it will be the same system as we have now)

Corporate welfare and money printing is the inevitable result of the monetary market system. You're making arguments against yourself.

Lol, thats is called life. WTF.

I mean what do you expect? Just watch TV all day and let other people go to work and then being robbed to pay your welfares?

People have always worked for their income. The cavemen went to go hunt mamooths for their survival.


Imagine a socialist world in the era of the cavemen. Lazy cavemen just sitting in their caves rubbing their balls, while the others would go hunt the mamooth and they were forced to share the food. Its really crazy.

All you socialists/communists are crazy. People do have to have some individuality, you just cant expect others to work for you and share it with others, or atleast not by force, but only if they choose to do so.

______________-

If the income tax is 50% in your country then, you rob away 50% of the working class's money just so that some welfare lazy people could live for free. Now that is not very egalitarian.


No thats not true, the income gap is already maximized. Heck the rich can print their own money, how wider can it get?

Why not just let other people raise to higher income levels and then thing will be far more equal than this.

In fact there is scientific documentation that the income gap is caused by welfare & money printing.

Yes, it becomes cheaper for those earning money - stratifying and increasing the income gap - but for the others, it matters not how much prices drop, since they are not part of the economy, and therefore earns nothing, making them dependent on welfare or other drastic life-saving measures.  

The market system forces people to participate in a forced artificial labor for income/survival situation. How is that not tyranny?

They cooperate to survive, but they only cooperate when their goals are the same, so survival is a common goal, but most of their goals are personal.

Most of the time humans compete, sorry competition is a natural instinct.


Have you even been to a party? A party is a very social event, you could say that people go there to cooperate to have fun. Yet, what you see is that the dominant males compete to get the best women there. If the male is not good looking or rich enough, he will hardly get any good looking woman.

So how you resolve that? Put a law where every hot woman to have sex with fat ugly man just to not discriminate fat guys? That would be fair right? Well it would be forced rape.

So in the same way when you take taxes from people who worked for it, to give it to people who dont work for it, is also forced theft.


You see, if you dont have competition, then people would naturally dont do certain things. Now a hot woman could have sex with a fat guy if she choose so, or a rich person could donate to charity, but you cannot force them to do so.

If you do use force, then that society would end up in a nightmare tyrrany.

I already pointed that out in another thread. Basically if the technology would be very advanced, and there would be no fiat currency. Then prices would be so low, that you could get the richest and best lifestyle you`d want for a few pennies.

High technology creates abundance of resources, abundance of products and abundance of services. Basically if you could get a few pennies, you could get the best items.

This is very visible today,even with fiat crap. Even the poorest person has access to the internet, clothes, pure water, basic food, mobile phone, and other services.

A 1000 years ago, the poorest would been lucky if he had 1 cloth and some basic food. And we are 7.2 billion today, and we have this, back then there were a few million people only, and didnt had basic stuff.

Instinctively, humans cooperate to survive. It is the artificial pressures of competition and scarcity produced by the market that make them behave in ways that harm others for their own benefit.

There is no free market, something you don't seem to understand. We are all subject to the natural and physical laws of this universe and bound by the resources available to us on this planet. Capitalism depletes and destroys these resources at an ever increasing rate, making the planet inhospitable and humanity unsustainable. If we manage to alter our values and behavior sooner rather than later, we may be able to survive as a species.

Moreover, since there is no free market, the market will always tend to become controlled by monopolies or cartels for their own benefit. There is no way to stop this outcome. Humans organize and cooperate, and in accordance with the distorted values and artificial pressures produced by the market, people will behave in a way that benefits themselves over others. Your dreaded state and regulators will always exist in the context of a market.

You can appeal to the past all you want, but what you don't want to understand is that we live in the present and will continue to live in the future. The tendencies of the market are well understood now and we know that they don't work for everyone and are destructive to the planet. Please start thinking and learning beyond what you've been told by the system and investigate something that can help make the world a better place for all people.

But, as RBE proponents already have pointed out, how will the free market cope with technological unemployment, where not the entire workforce is necessary for running an advanced society - think a robot able to serve and construct a thousand robots able to serve and construct a million robots ...

So then you also understand that instinctively humans are darwinists, and the powerful will always opress the weak, which you are exactly against it, yet if you have no boundaries, this will happen exactly, and more viciously than before.





Yes capitalism could turn loose, but only if the others do not participate, or they buy off politicians/ regulators, which should not have been there in the first place.

Its really hard to bribe the regulators for licenses and special privileges, to opress competition, if there is no regulator

So capitalism is a double edged sword, and it's only dangerous if the market is not free. If it's monopolized and controlled, then it turns into corporatism, like we have now.

There were no corporations in the past, in places where trade was relatively free: The Hansean League for example


Basically the only way to keep checks and balances in power, is to let everybody participate in the economy, instead of looting rich people, we should instead elevate poor people to their levels, to even the playing field!

I advocate no utopia. I merely understand and point out that people are molded by their environment and respond to the biopsychosocial pressures that they develop with and exist under.

In the context of a monetary market economy, where all rules are predicated upon "rational self maximizing" participants, the values and incentives are distorted in such a way that it causes people to behave so abjectly against their self interest that it is ultimately destructive to the individual and the environment.

The idea of private property is exactly what allows there to be the mob-rule of the state that we have now. It has only been in the last few decades in which Americans and other western citizens have begun to feel and understand the squeeze capitalism places on people when the capitalists figure out that they can exploit them more and more when they control the state to a greater extent. If we understood that private property was an absurd notion and that we all must share and live on this one planet together, we would engender values and behavior beneficial to humanity.

It is likely that some individuals would attempt to take advantage of others and the system, but instead of rewarding them with more wealth, as the current system does, they would learn that there is no real reward for doing so when everyone has access to the necessities of life and a relevant education. These individuals would be helped and studied to determine how we can reduce their numbers, not locked up and punished in a cruel and unproductive manner. A society that values human life over imaginary wealth would produce far fewer such individuals.

It is not childish to encourage a different and better way of orienting and organizing society. It is childish to cling to the old destructive ways of doing things without clearly and honestly questioning your own assumptions and beliefs.

But you are advocating this communist utopia, as if (you admit it) that people are savages and do things from their instincts.

How is your communist utopia going to function if everybody will just run amok and loot other people's work.

Without a clear boundary (the private property) there will be no civilization, only strong exploiting the weak, it will be mob-rule, full of gangs that will loot people.

Your utopia is a total nonsense, even if people were so enlightened that this would function, there are still predators in this would, that would strike as soon as people would let their guards down.

Dont be fooled by so childish dreams, grow up and see for yourself how the world works.

There is no voluntarism. We all act upon our conditioning, our environment and our biology. People seek food because they're hungry and require it to live. We seek shelter because we need protection from the elements. We seek water because we thirst and need it to live. There is nothing voluntary in life, which is another lie that capitalists exploit.

What is money? Who determines in your market place what money is? What happens when different market participants disagree? What if someone chooses air as their money, in which case they have little to no bounds as to their purchasing power. What's that? You don't accept air as money? Perhaps you don't need to breathe at all then...

The free for all market is a sickness that we invented and it's something that we can abandon. It's time has come and gone. We can live in a better system that doesn't require us to kill each other.

No rules? That is stupid.

The rule of the free market is voluntary trade. It's not like if you go to a store somebody puts a gun to your head to buy the stuff. You go there voluntarly.

What no boundary are you talking about. The boundary limit is your money, you trade as much as you have capital, that is the boundary.

If everybody does that, then no oligarchs emerge. This would be the most egalitarian society that you can imagine.

Create wealth dont loot it!



So if you bake cakes in your house, you wouldn't mind if thugs would came in there and steal all your cakes?

You turned your home into a "means of production", or a "cake factory", so by definition, we need to take your home away and nationalize it.

Private homes is good. Private means of production is bad.

There is no free market. There never was one, there isn't one and there never will be one. Free market is an oxymoron. Free implies no rules or boundaries, market implies rules and boundaries. This is why the state must arise out of this contradiction in every instance. Without a third party to enforce market rules and norms, there is no market, only the worst form of Darwinistic mercenary behavior because that is what a market promotes and rewards.

Private property also implies some state authority. You can't have the idea of private property without the threat of those that are needy coming to take the more than fair share of stuff that you have. That is why the capitalists fund the police and military through the state.

But why would you want to give up private property?

You want to go back to local communities / hunter-gatherer societies. You know that is impossible right with 7 billion people?

Centralization is inevitable, atleast in the production sector. Substenance farming is inneficient, and will never be done with 7 billion people, sorry but that train left 1000 years ago.

Technology is needed in order to abolish slavery and feudalism. Your local communities will turn immediately into feudalist serfdom societies.

It happened once, it can easily happen again. It's only technology that can abolish slavery.


Private property is good, and its the only civilized way to organize society to 21 century levels. Take away private property and you immediately end up with feudalist serfdom , or gang-rule societies.

This makes no sense. You are asking him to give him what allows him to have a decent life within the current system coordinates. That's not a RBE. An RBE will not happen anytime soon tho, just look at your reaction. We aren't ready to evolve past money and private property anytime soon, and im the first to say nope. Im not delusional enough to think RBE will work when most humans aren't evolved enough. For this to work, it is a similar scenareo than a bitcoin hardfork. We need superconsensus, anything but superconsensus is a fail.