Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 33. (Read 288384 times)

that's a giant fallacy. It's not the materials that make up prices, not even the workforce. It's demand. Even if you automate the shit out of this world, some things will always be more exclusive than others. For example, location location location.

Who's gonna get the exclusive penthouse? Who's gonna get the house at the beautiful lake?

You have two non-violent options to organize this:

• Waiting lists.
• Prices.

Even if you're gonna use waiting lists, some people may trade their positions in these waiting lists with each other, maybe with their positions in other waiting lists. Even then, congratulations, you have invented money again.

This is, objectively speaking, the only way for future societies to function. Fiat, Bitcoin, and so on, it all will be irrelevant. We are headed towards this, the question is how long will transition be? thousands of years? Maybe, and Bitcoin may serve as one of the first steps into that transition.
We already can make houses pressing a button, tons a day:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqBxEAtXZA

All of this is going to destroy any attempt at keeping a monetary system of any kind alive. Basic fact of life.

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/blockchain-bootstrapping-resource-based-economy

While this blog post is not entirely accurate, it is trying to grasp the importance of transitioning away from an infinite consumption economy to a resource based economy. I intend to contact the author to help correct several errors in this piece.

We have had massive amounts of innovation over the last 30 years. Cars have gotten more efficient and faster, the internet has gone from dial up sites to what it is now, social media has been born, we can use a device the size of a small calculator to contact anyone in the world in a matter of seconds, we can translate almost any spoken language using nothing more then copy and paste.

Can't find the New York Post article, but quick google search found this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/

It is important to note that RBE proponents advocate using the abundant, safe and sustainable energy sources we already have ready access to, including solar, geothermal, wind, wave and other lesser exploited technologies. More importantly, we can access these energy sources without having to go pay a third party for access to their technology.

Oy.  And which free energy scam are you pushing exactly?  I'll be impressed if you name something that I haven't already heard of (and don't already know what the flaw is).

I totally agree with the originator of this thread for my company is also on a similar albeit a more hands on approach. We are here to help the masses and we hope this message will be beneficial to all the free thinkers out there and maybe save our dying planet. BitCoin is the way forward just like FREE energy it empowers people against greedy governments. My company has invented FREE energy it scared the U.S government so much that they shut down Liberty Reserve and stole over $2million USD in hard currency from me (All evidence is on our website) yes my company is the REAL reason they shut down Liberty Reserve we have invented FREE energy something they said in school was IMPOSSIBLE read more about it here http://www.blaze-power.org and http://www.blaze.technology we are also about to make an IPO through a bank we believe has the balls to fight the U.S government and win visit http://www.e-bank.si to buy shares in the biggest thing yet since the internet (YES BitCoins accepted) they also have REALISTIC investments to grow your BitCoins from 4.5% interest which is normal and realistic unlike HYIP that offers unrealistic non market indicative targets. Imagine an electric car that runs forever and never needs a recharge or run your home on FREE electricity and NEVER pay the energy companies again. We have started the revolution with OUR OWN money to prove that we are not profit seekers but freedom fighters. Check it out today and empower yourselves

Yes we have a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles regardless of whether or not free will exists, that's the whole point: what we have is a probabilistic approach to reality; we don't know the inner works of particles, we just know probability. So still we don't know if our world is deterministic and causal and therefore we don't know whether fate or free will (under the actual definition) exists.

http://youtu.be/ZwysfmKNNkQ

The Zeitgeist Movement recently lost an ally. Micheal Ruppert recently commited suicide. This is the unedited interview he conducted with Peter Joseph for the Zeigeist Moving Forward film.

Indeed. If you look at the statistics of crime in our western world you can clarly see that law enforcement and regulations make crime less.
There are, however, exceptions. There are always exceptions. It is human nature.
But proposing not to have any regulations is like saying traffic lights should all be removed because some pedestrians still get run over.


What freedoms, specifically, are there that you cannot enjoy because you wear the shackles?


Obviously you're not smart enough to realize that most people are not so smart and that society depends on these people acting nicely.
How would you deal with them if you had True Freedom™ ?

In my example, with the poison, you would not know i would use poison and you would be dead before you could warn anyone. That is why it is so devious. Without repercussion i might feel no regret in killing you and noone would know what happened. Would you like to live in a world where people could do such things and go unpunnished?

"in fact if you even talked about such a thing I would probably just move away regardless of what business deals we might have had and let everyone know what sort of person you are so that everyone would abandon you as well. "

Realy? You would move away when your neighbor complains about your noise (in the example i would not mention to anyone that i would poison you)? Good for you!
Meanwhile, most people would defend their personal fortress with their lifes. And this whole law thing was created in the first place to deal with these kinds of common conflicts because they tended to get out of hand and break the peace, screwing it up for everybody.
The basis for law is to cater in justice in extensively populated area's. Its been with humanity since the dawn of civilisation and, seing as we humans are overall unable to resolve interpersonal conflicts in a peacefull manner it will be with us for a quite while yet.

The world is not about you and while you may think that you are too good for law, most people don't have these pretences and see value in it. Humanity is just not ready for letting law go.

yeah because regulation and laws totally stop people from killing each other for what ever reason, sorry but that is not a valid reason to wear shackles of slavery. I am smart enough to know if I am being such a lousy neighbor and there are far less extreme methods that do not take all the work you are talking about using to try and poison me. in fact if you even talked about such a thing I would probably just move away regardless of what business deals we might have had and let everyone know what sort of person you are so that everyone would abandon you as well.

In genera, human is competive in nature. I we live on the african savanna, the bronxe age or in the 21th century. This is due to survival, we come from nature and to survive in a world with meat eaters, different weather and other human tribes. Look at children how cruel and also competive they can be? where does it come from? Human have had to compete for resources to survive all times, even brothers and sisters fights for attention. This are embedded somehow in the genes. I liv ein Norway that is general a very good country where the governement have been formed to take care of the citizens. But even though a good society, people compete. Some parts are learneed and other are inheritaged in the genes. Some have more than others. In general I think it will go centuries until human thinks more on the entire species. Why, because people around the world are in different phases. Some societies are in the midle ages regards human thinking, others are poor, others are so rich that they only want more and do not se the exploitation. And others go to war, to point view outwards. Because we all not are in the same level the first society that gives 100% to humanity will be eaten by the other wolfes. To be ideal and kind is dangerous. Thats my personal experience and the lesson from history.

What is working in long run is NATO, where countries protect each others from enemies that treathens one of the member. This makes a environment for growth inside this borders that can be of examples of the wolfes outside. To create a society that takecares of the citizens and appreciate them as equals, rather than expoit them that many societies does today. We need UN and a defence alliance like NATO, just because the entire world is not on same level regards to maturity.

but I do not support, war, expoitations or other. But in history idelogies is one of the things that have killed most peoplein shortest time except maybe from diseases.

also its cheaper just to exterminate a homeless person rather than keep them.

thats very interesting indeed, if you have link to this i would like to see

But this is exactly the problem. Corporations are not people. Yet they have a lot of power because organisation and scale is a core business for a corporate entity. People, worldwide, are at a serious financial and legal disadvantage compared to big corporations. The big corporations, on the other hand, only think about extracting money from people. So this grey area you describe should not exist to this extent. That's why we have regulations. But those regulations should not be set by the corporations, since they are the 'agressors' in this case. They would eat up everything if left to their own.

"they don't have to keep innovating to keep on top of the game, "

You mean innovative like mark karpelles? 


"to achieve a truly free society we need a damn near anarcho-capitalist system that is more liberating than ..."

So what if i use the carbon from my garden to make a poison whith which i kill you because you're a lousy neighbour because you play loud music all the time? Is that true freedom?
That is a problem with true freedom. I can do whatever i want with it.
As long as there are people out there that may think like this (and they do exist) having true freedom is not something humanity can handle for long. That is just the sad truth of our existence.

wow look at all the black and white answers, sorry but it is not so cut and dried, the people against regulations are those who are held back by them, those who are for them are the ones that the regulations protect their businesses so they don't have to keep innovating to keep on top of the game, so they can slack off, so you have corporations and people on both sides of this fence in every area of the world, and that group of people keeps churning based on those that were on one side and having trouble, who succeed on busting through that line and get to the side where the regulations now protect them from the hungry masses that will out innovate them, with out the regulations, so the ones supporting the regulations are those protected with them, and the faces on both sides keep changing, as they move from that one side to the other.


as for any utopia that the zeitgiest people are seeking (and the venus project) we will not see anything like this no matter what is done until technology can provide it. we will just end up with 1984, another soviet union, or another Nazi Germany, where the masses are again held down against their will by those with guns to keep them doing all the work the people with the guns don't want to do, while not having to pay the masses for this dirty work.

to achieve a truly free society we need a damn near anarcho-capitalist system that is more liberating than libertarianism in the extreme brought on by the lack of control over people by their holding technology that totally frees them, and is understood by even the lowest common denominator. The computer does for data what we need to be able to do with resources as common  as the carbon in the lawn clippings in your lawn, enabling you to, with the click of a mouse button, have a device break it down and extract all that carbon, then send it to another device (all probably the size of something sitting on a desk top) to be reconstructed into any form needed to complete the task of making what the clicker wanted, such as say a new phone made of various carbon based plastics, carbon based seminconductors and non conductors to make their items they want and need (food, tech, medicine, transportation, clothing) from stuff they don't want anymore and today we pay someone to take away for us so we dont have to see it anymore. and we will not see an end to money till we have a triad of tech, an energy from something abundant, a way to convert materials in things no one wants anymore, into something usable, and a tech that lets us turn that usable material into the goods we want, all using files and data that people do not have to understand to use. Very few can build or understands how a phone is made for the most part, yet they are used by most of what we consider the civilized world, and we will need something that can basically allow sharing of information that is compiled already to get over that hurdle for the average joe, then we can start talking resource based economy, or basically where resources are the money of the day. Carbon no matter what form it is in, is worth just as much as it would be in a diamond, and diamonds would only be worth the carbon in them, at that point since we could just print out diamond objects any shape we want.

When everything is for sale, government and regulation are bought by the highest bidder to whatever ends they want.

That's way too easy an answer.
They are definitely on the anti-regulation side.
But the situation is that there are regulations. So their NEW strategy is to bend the regulations to their will. Which is bad.
So, as i said before, regulations are still nessesary, but we need to keep them in check. One of the biggest problems in the western world is that we let our governments be bribed (lobbied) by these corporate entities. This is fundamentaly a wrong way of doing it.
It's not that regulations are bad, they are simply not used well.
Still, i don't think there will be happy times without any regulations at all. It is a teenage fantasy to think it could work.

The pro-regulation side?



Then the question is, who pays for the NSA (or rather how does it earn money), and why would someone pay them (or buy their services) if they were private? (personally, I'm not as worried about someone trying to spy on me to find out what they could sell me, as I am about someone spying on me to see if they should send me to jail).



This may actually end up being an intrinsic part of the anarchy capitalyst system, anyway, simply because for security and insurance, it is cheaper to keep people fed and housed, than to prevent them from using weapons to steal such necessities. NY did a study a short while ago where they found out it cost the government about $600 a month in police and medical expenses to manage each homeless person, meaning it would be easier to just give them $600 worth of food and housing.