Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 30. (Read 288375 times)

What experimental evidence would convince you?

The RBE is a philosophy without experimental evidence. Give me the experiments which prove that RBE is working well. Without experiments i don't believe anything.

The RBE is still philosophy, in a RBE as defined by zeitgeist movement/venus project the dictator is science and technology.  No human would apparently be a dictator according to them.

Whether thats possible right now or ever i dont know but at least read what i wrote  

Wrong. The dictators are always humans.

The dictator would be the universe and limits of technology if we are talking about the goal of RBE.

The economy of resources is a kind of dictatorship. A great dictator decides how many resources can you have. If he wants you to live, he gives you resources. If he wants you to die, he stops giving you resources.

Agree with the great bulk of your post - voices like yours are kind of crying alone in the wilderness that is bitcointalk.org  



Yes - so what do they do ? They issue credit - then they have the employees not only over a barrel via subsistence wages, they effectively enslave them - and not only short term but long term via credit, hire purchase and the "never never" etc.
   Not so long ago workers lived in houses rented from their employer, were paid in "tokens" only spendable in the employers grocery and social club. Things haven't changed so much as it would first appear.

   Sad to say but this is kind of what the Chinese are doing with the US IMO - loaning the US money, thereby a) holding up the value of the USD so the debt that China holds isn't eroded by devaluation     b) guaranteeing that the US is able to carry on consuming their (China's) produce   and  c) reaping interest.    They have the US over a barrel - but the US can't complain too much - they've been doing the exact same thing to much of the world for the last 50 years.

   Unfortunately, the means by which the US debt could be worked off (via a lower valued dollar) is being denied them (or, at least, they are denying it to themselves through consumption) - and so it becomes a vicious circle/self fulfilling prophecy type situation. US exports are uncompetitive because of the value of the dollar - and so they become increasingly indebted. They produce less and so are more reliant on imports (and loans).

     When there is no national or international co-operation then this sort of thing seems inevitable - this 200 years Great Britain, next 70 US, then China - and so on.

   Competition is the problem - not so much for those at the top (they are doing OK thankyou very much), but for the rest of us.

You are making a tautological and arbitrary argument by saying air and water are cheap because they are abundant.

Land is abundant, but it is not free or cheap. All the world's resources are manageable to provide optimum benefits without wasting them on planned obsolescence and war. It will require unlearning conspicuous consumption and privatized capitalism.

Fair money helps people sort out these priorities because people give the money its value, not the other way around. Fiat money gives human life monetary value and enslaves them through inflation. This is the lesson Bitcoin will teach the world about who we are in relation to our world.

Eh.  The world is big enough to hold people who disagree with me.  That's okay.

Even good things can be taken too far when you take them as absolutes.  I don't like it when individual people get less than they create, but I'll tolerate some of that if it means that people as a whole manage to create more.  I don't like it when the current generation gets less than they create, but I'll tolerate it if the alternative is impoverishing the next generation.

So, yes, I believe in taking some of what people produce (including what I produce) and plowing it into education and infrastructure so that most, rather than just a tiny few, of the next generation, the poor, and etc,  can become better-trained productive people who  produce more.  Woo, basic economics.   Yes, that means I sacrifice to some extent for benefits that won't show up in my own generation. I'm okay with that.  yes, that means some of my money will go to poor people who *won't* become productive, because there's no way to tell in advance which will and won't.  I'm okay with that too; historically the odds favor the strategy in the long run.   Got a college bond?  Here, take my tax money.  Supporting families so people have *time* to go to school instead of needing to be in some near-slavery job from dawn to dusk just to survive?  Yeah, that's part of it too.  

I also believe that if the cheapest way to keep people from doing desperate things such as ripping down your power lines to sell the copper on the black market is to give them welfare, (where the alternatives are expensive things like tripling the number of police and quintupling the prison populations) then the right thing to do is give them welfare - cheaper for the people paying, less disruptive to production, more dignified for everyone, and leaves more possibilities of more people finding better ways to make a living.  Does it mean taxing the people who own the power lines (and the factories that need power, et al)?  Yes, yes it does.  But -- and this is the important point -- they're getting their money's worth.  If every other solution would be more expensive for them or make them less productive, then paying the taxes is the right thing for them to do.  

Taxation is one of those burdens where we do better - ie, we have a competitive advantage - if we can pay less than our neighbors.  But if, as a whole, *EVERYBODY* doesn't pay enough, then all of us lose the benefits of living in civilization.  That doesn't even leave anybody with enough power to enforce those contracts that the Anarcho-Capitalists would prefer were the whole of the law, let alone providing for the productivity and infrastructure needed by a next generation.  

If one is wealthy enough to be an employer, wages are the same sort of expense; we can realize a competitive advantage if we pay less than other employers, but if *ALL* the employers pay too much less, then nobody has enough money to buy the goods we're employing people to create. Also, in the long run there won't be enough people with the training we need to fill our most productive jobs.  The benefit of wages paid go to the employers who produce the goods people buy, and the benefit of education paid for goes as much to the eventual employer as the student.  So in the long run employers get their moneys worth for paying people enough to buy goods and get an education, even when they can't 'capture' all the money they personally pay out.  The point is that all employers are better off if most people do have enough money to buy their produced goods and most of the kids can afford to get an education.  This is true even if *individually* they'd be better off if they could be the one employer who doesn't pay wages that allow that while all the other employers do.  

Because the Earth's physical resources are not infinite. RBE is impossible in a finite world. Only air and water are abundant so these ones are free or very cheap. The best thing we can do is to share the money fairly through a p2p network.

Your link about China supports my argument.  LOL.

Theres's no separate min wage laws for different classification of jobs.  LOL. 

There are a bunch of Harvard Business cases that go into this in detail, but unfortunately they are not free. The best evidence, though, is that over the last two decades, over 1 billion people in the world have been pulled out of poverty (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim). More than any other government program has been able to accomplish. And none of it was due to minimum wage laws.



In fact, the only differences between the two is that liberals have been fighting for workers to either get some high minimum, or zero, while others have been fighting for workers to also get everything between that high minimum and zero. Just because there is a minimum wage doesn't mean that everyone is earning that minimum wage. Some are forced to earn $0 an hour, or work in the grey market, getting pain in cash under the table, without any legal protections.

As for the "race to the bottom" idea, sure, if the current situation is wildly inaccurate and propped up by unsustainable minimums. But the bottom isn't zero. Note that white collar jobs have no minimum wage laws, yet everyone in those positions still gets WAY more than $7.50 an hour. Likewise, factory workers in India and China get way more than their minimum wages too. The race to the bottom only goes on until everyone is employed. Then it's a race to higher wages, as more workers are needed, but fewer and fewer are available.

I can see putting a value on some things like my time and ideas, but why put value on the Earth's physical resources? Doesn't that just cheapen the value of human potential by comparing it with stuff just laying around in the dirt?

The problem with the RBE is that the resources on Earth are finite. So you must put a value on them and a money system is necessary. A better idea is the transfer of the file sharing model to the monetary system. You can share the coins like files, through a p2p network.

Source about China?  Because everything you've posted seems false from the historical record.

Everyone knows Chinese economic reform started from 78.  We also know that its still a Communist country with mostly state owned enterprise.  You are trying to convince us that the govt economic policy has nothing to do with their wage growth?  The state loosened its policies to allow private enterprise.

Also libertarians are for the workers?  OK that's pretty convoluted.  Libertarians fight for workers to earn less.  Woo hoo.  That sure benefits the workers.  Race to the bottom wages.  Employers get no benefit from paying workers less. 

Liberals have been fighting for minimum wages and the right of collective bargaining to negotiate those rights. States that have enacted laws to invalidate those bargaining rights with so called "right to work" laws we call "right to work for less"

I like to start with the absolutes of things like it's absolutely wrong to deprive someone of their property or life without their consent. Like NAP. And then I go from there. That absolute, which gives people the freedom to create and own things without the threat of someone else coming by and claiming a right to their stuff is what expands to things like Libertarianism and AnarchoCapitalism, and makes things like Resource Based Economy and Zeitgeist Movement seem very violent by comparison.


Not only do I think so, there is plenty of evidence for it. US and Europe have minimum wage, a whole lot of people earn that minimum wage, and there is a whole lot of unemployment, because you can't hire people for less, and thus less productive jobs are left unfilled. China has minimum wage, but workers in China and India earn more than that, and their unemployment is very low. It used to be that they had a ton of unemployed and extremely low wages, but as more and more companies outsourced to those countries, building more factories and offices and hiring more and more people, the number of available workers decreased. Used to be that every time a factory opened in China, there was a huge line of people outside the fence looking to get hired. Now when factory opens, there's no one coming, and companies have to look for people themselves. This meant that companies ended up having to raise their wages more and more, to try to entice workers from other companies to come work for them. As a result, they now have much better working conditions than the sweatshops that existed decades ago, and pay much higher wages and benefits. This actually became a problem in India, since over the last decade, workers actually got used to working for only a year, and then switching to another company for an up to 20% raise. Now wages in India are not very competitive at all (as high as in many other, even developed, parts of the world), and it's hard to retain employees for a long time, because they keep expecting there to be something better elsewhere, despite the economic expansion boom there slowing down rapidly. So, yes, China wage growth had nothing to do with government intervention, besides government deciding not to be as restrictively communist any more, and allowing a whole lot of foreign capitalism to come in.

Don't forget that this exact same scenario happened in India, South East Asia, and parts of Africa, too, so it can't just be Chinese government at work.


By the way, in regards to this


socialists are the ones who focus on employers, and think in terms of work and capitalism as those evil rich employers who must be constrained for the good of the workers.
Libertarians think of this scenario from the worker's point of view, not the "evil" employer's. Specifically, if the worker that employer currently has is earning $5 an hour, and I am desperate for a job and am willing to do it for $4.50, I should be able to, instead of that job having a minimum wage barrier that keeps me from getting that job despite me needing it more, and as a result keeping me starving on the streets.
Or, put another way, you guys think "I should have the right to get paid some minimum amount regardless of the quality of work I do," while we think "I should have the right to a job if I need it more than the other guy, without legal restrictions preventing me from getting it 'for my own good'".

I didn't claim any idealism.  

But for sure Chinese wage growth is not a result of market dynamics.  Its a govt mandate that forced private sector to follow suit.

Furthermore, many of the factories are state owned enterprise and they pay higher wages than the private sector.  Because they set a wage floor the private sector has to compete in wages to attract workers.  The economic growth in China has more to do w the state action including currency manipulation to increase Chinese exports abroad.  The rapid economic growth from China is the direct result of policy.  Not because of anything the private sector did.  I would even argue that the private sector business was borne out of these reformed economic policies starting from 1978

+1 - and the most sense I've seen on this forum re. US libertarianism.

    Don't know if I'm in 100% agreement with regards the Honk Kong carryings on though - could have said the same about the protests in Kiev, or the ones in Caracas etc. Its difficult to know the difference these days between what is instigated by CIA/MI5 agent provocateurs in order to fuel a propogandist media event for gullible western consumers, and that which is genuine.
     Small scale riots and (rather) large demonstrations happen in London pretty regularly - and we never hear about them.

There is absolutely no idealism involved in Chinese minimum wage laws.

The Chinese government mandates a minimum wage solely because it is clear that if they leave the employers to pay whatever the labor market will bear in the short run, there will be bloody revolution as it turns out to be less than the labor market will bear in the long run.   The same is true in the US; we're just a bit further away from it for the moment.