Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 4. (Read 288301 times)

This is not fun anymore , I'm trying to explain deductively the flaws of an egalitarian systems, but seems like you guys didn't even take the effort to think about it.

And now I get insults like I'm delusional, and I'm the one who is lost in fantasies? The whole RBE is a fantasy of some hippies who can't see the real world as it is.

I will unsub from here, it is just a waste of time to explain things to leftist.

Capitalism is like a magic trick: it isn't what is actually good from an engineering- or environmental standpoint, but how much one can deceive to make it look good. RealBitcoin suggested independent journalist and reviewers; but how do we know they aren't being manipulated as well, or are doing it themselves, or getting paid to do it

It is assumed that for any market to be efficient all market participants should have equal access to information. In real life though, this is never the case and will never be. So those who are more informed will always have an advantage before those who are less informed (or more misinformed, lol), and free market (a total laissez-faire capitalism) can only make this situation worse, since there is no impartial arbitrator by definition (whose role is usually taken by the state)...

In short, everyone is manipulating others to the extent of their misunderstanding, and being manipulated himself to the extent of his own misunderstanding.

Isn't that obvious? The people doing the dumping should have cared, but didn't, because it wasn't profitable, which is just capitalism rearing its ugly head. Yes, the locals were "lucky" just a few of them died or got sick so they found out; imagine instead, if they hadn't, but years or decades later

If the local population didnt cared, then who would do something against it?
 

3 VS 1 , I love my odds

---

---

Except that the majority also cares for the minority in most cases, humans are more more friendly these days.

I doubt slavery and things like that would happen, even if they would legalize it. Humans are much more civilized than 200 years ago

And there's nothing stopping consumers, in this system, voting their money; so you see, we actually DO have a free market.
In reality, this is capitalism: "2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump"

Greetings,

I was very excited to learn about the Bitcoin currency several months ago, and I am very pleased to see it growing. I am part of an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement, who advocates a resource based economy. We are interested in seeing a radical redesign of society and an associated shift in values. We understand that the major cause of human suffering today is the current monetary system and the warped values and corrupt behavior inherent in its implementation. We know that we can provide food, water, shelter and a highly technological life style to every one on the planet if we chose to do so. What generally prevents us from doing so is the idea of money, which paralyzes us as a society, in terms of technological advancement, quality of education and healthcare, and a sick culture that encourages us to be competitive and cruel to our fellow human beings.

Knowing and understanding the underlying mechanics of a monetary system is fundamental to not being abused by it. Currently, the vast majority of people are unaware of the destructive and unfair nature of our current fractional reserve banking system, and that makes them vulnerable to all the abuses we see today. Poverty, war, crime and hunger are the result of inequitable economic practices, and will not significantly change until we end or significantly alter our subservience to this and associated institutions. I believe Bitcoin would make for an ideal transition currency until a full RBE can be implemented.

An RBE is basically the realization that there are no arbitrary restrictions on reality. Being bound to the imaginary rules of a monetary game, we limit how much we can accomplish and provide for each other. If we declared all of the earth's resources as common heritage for all the world's people, and used the methods of science to construct and provide all of life's necessities for all people, then there would be considerable reduction in hunger, crime, war and poverty, not to mention unnecessary suffering due to lack of access of medical care or inadequate educational opportunities. If people were given all that were necessary to survive, they could devote themselves to the benefit of all man kind. These would be the values of a resource based economy, not the competitive and acquisitive value based behavior we see today.

I encourage you to learn more about these ideas if they interest you. I hope to support the bitcoin system as long as I am able, and I hope to see it become a dominant and thriving ecosystem in the months and years to come. Thank you for your time and attention.

Whatever you do, you will inevitably run into a situation where the majority will be forcing the minority to do something... Is it okay in your variety of capitalism? So, who is to balance conflicting demands and interests, given there is no state with its laws...

That is, in the case of total laissez-faire capitalism?

Corporations will just buy the presstitues. Oh, wait, isn't that exactly what they are already doing and have been doing for years?

Well there are always a way for everything. And it is true that we can force the company to be transparent but it will also take a long time to process. A single demand from a single person cannot do that it will take more or a hundred individuals and the attention of the media to fast track everything.  Even the implementation will take long. But hope the persons in charge if the free market are active and will make a move on transparency even without complains.

And there's nothing stopping consumers, in this system, voting their money; so you see, we actually DO have a free market.
In reality, this is capitalism: "2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump"

Companies need to be more transparent. I agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that my point above is invalid, the market can still force the companies to be transparent, if there is demand for it.

Well there are always a way for everything. And it is true that we can force the company to be transparent but it will also take a long time to process. A single demand from a single person cannot do that it will take more or a hundred individuals and the attention of the media to fast track everything.  Even the implementation will take long. But hope the persons in charge if the free market are active and will make a move on transparency even without complains.

Companies need to be more transparent. I agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that my point above is invalid, the market can still force the companies to be transparent, if there is demand for it.

No way, there would be plenty of investigative journalists and undercover paparazzis that would uncover their secrets.

They would not grow that big in the first place, and investors always demand transparency. It's the fault of the complicated corporate laws that made the corporate structure as it is.

A corporation could be run by a blockchain, and all shareholders could vote to kick the executives out if they do shady things.

Currently only board members are allowed to vote because of logistics, but with blockchain, i would imagine a completely different capitalism than you do.

What to do if the demand for a company's transparency is matched and offset by the demand of the company's owners for secrecy and obscurity? Remember, this is free market, i.e. no state to set up the rules and enforce them...

Who is to balance conflicting demands and interests?

Companies need to be more transparent. I agree with that.

But that doesn't mean that my point above is invalid, the market can still force the companies to be transparent, if there is demand for it.

Obviously not true, because a company wouldn't tell the public if it did something wrong that could cause them bankruptcy, and some frauds are very hard to detect, such as the one below:

"When Volkswagen revealed in September that it had installed software on millions of cars in order to trick the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions testers into thinking that the cars were more environmentally friendly than they were, investors understandably deserted the company.", from fortune.com.

But in a Free market, conflicts would be resolved pretty fast. It would definitely not take 15 years to revoke the license of a company if they did something bad. The customers would just simply boycott them and they would go bankrupt instantly.

Tell that to Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Just an example that I visualized when I read your post