Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 81. (Read 288348 times)

You replied to my post, but I feel like I jumped into the middle of a completely different conversation.

There are many ways that the rich can avoid looters, being politically active is only one of them.  But yeah, in general I see government as the problem.  And by "government", I don't mean "government", I mean "you and me".

I'm not sure that I want to let you draw me into a discussion of the business cycle.  Parts of it seem natural, and parts seem artificial.  Without honest money on a global scale, it is hard to be sure about any of it.

I will say that cheap labor benefits from us, just like we do from them.  Division of labor, theory of trade, key concepts from economics 101.

Ahh so it's all about the government for you; the fact that the rich and powerful and the government are intertwined has no meaning for you then? Or do you just shrug it off as "lol they can protect themselves by buying politicians to do favorable things for them"? Is it not the underclassmen that support the rich? Otherwise why do recessions even happen? Money doesn't just disappear.

Is the business cycle just a necessary consequence of capitalism? Blame it on credit, sure, but isn't it the people who produced all of these things which credit can buy? Is society really advancing when we are all mortgaging our lives away to the powerful? Does this really help anyone? How quickly would the collapse of western society happen if the countries we take advantage of for cheap labor were to suddenly resist?



Are you so dense as to believe that it does not affect the whole world economy?


The Wall Street derivatives market is almost 400X the GDP of the US.


You are an idiot.

I don't care much about the things you're talking about.  Before bitcoin I owned gold.  So I was not much concerned about inflation, for instance.  Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's extremely biased to think Wall Street activity is representative of "the whole world economy".

I would not be surprised if the drug market in whole world represent much more money than WallStreet, for instance.  So your picture of an evil government-controlled economy does not fit well in my idea of what economy is.

Say the government steals 10% of each economic transaction in the world.  Well, that's 10% of the whole economy.  That's bad, sure, but that's not the entire economy of the world  (SIC).


I think you seem weirdly totally obsessed with monetary subjects.  Seems that starvation is not your only fixed idea.

Gold exists.  And now Bitcoin exists as well.  So stop complaining.

Neither of those things is what you said that made me laugh.  This is:


And nearly every part of it is funny.  If the poor were worth stealing from, they wouldn't be poor.  What I usually see is the government stealing from anyone they can steal from, and bribing the poor to not wreck up the place.  Generally speaking, the rich have the means to protect themselves from this theft, while the middle class does not.

The food thing is only a mystery if you assume that everyone's time is valueless.

The system itself certainly has no need to be fair, and shouldn't be. However, the deck shouldn't be stacked either.

People produce. Production is rewarded. Most of that production is rewarded in the form of money. Money power is universally stolen from producers. Is the world economy not about production and consumption? Is there something I'm missing when people who manipulate numbers on wall street to make millions of dollars are doing something far more productive than someone building cars or serving food? Why is it that when these "money producers" (as opposed to "product/service producers") do their job extremely well, the economy falls into a massive recession? Why do governments seem to be constantly flabbergasted as to how this happens? And why do they think that the only solution is to "produce more money"?

Are you sure that it is really a grotesque simplification?


Oh how cute you're calling the fairness of the power of money and production communism.

It's amazing how few people can see the forest for the trees when they think they're in the position to be the ones to benefit from a favorable type of money.

There is no fool proof system for fairness in macro economics:

If you like freedom and little regulative interference, some people will make better choices than you, and get a larger piece of the pie relative to their effort in society.

If you like social "fairness" and distribution of wealth, some people will make better choices than you, and get a larger piece of the pie relative to their effort in society.

People who disagree with the current distribution of wealth, should search their souls to be really sure they are not driven by the same desires as the bankers or other they criticize.

Politicians get elected by offering the best value for money. Political "ponzi schemes" get most votes. The notion of economic "growth" in politics is not a magic spell, it only tells you that this politician doesn't have a clue either.

Known busted ponzies: The housing bubble, the financial deregulation bubble, the we are better innovators than China bubble, ...add more yourself.

If you want freedom, you can't have fairness. If you want fairness, you can't have freedom and you still don't get fairness.

I'm not an advocate for minimal government interference. The game will still get rigged. Politics is no more than a mirror of your own frustrations. The "them vs. us" is a genetic trait, inherited from our monkey ancestors.

The only fairness I can think of, that is universal, is the fact that each one of us have a brain with similar specs. You can choose to do good to others and society, and you can choose to improve you own situation. Most people choose to do both.

You were talking about "the entire economy of the world".   This was a grotesque oversimplification.


Reminds me of a discussion I had in an other thread with an other adept of these communist idea about redistribution of wealth.   He also kept talking about food and starvation.   Jeez, is the situation in US that bad that you are so obsessed with starvation?   Are you personally hungry right now or do you just take starving people as an excuse to steal from rich people?

It's strange how so few bitcoiners apparently do not yet they rage against the government and monetary machine, because it does SOMETHING they don't like, they're just not sure what. Surely inflation doesn't steal the wealth and productivity of the lower castes and squeeze it to the rich. Surely 70 year copyright laws after the death of the author is for the good of the people, not the corporations.


Oh how embarrassing to accept free food when starving.



kjj are you just going to run away again after another one of your hit and run LOLs

No, I'm sorry but I do not share this very peculiar view of the world economy.


There is a "disconnect in the system".  Precisely:  people who are starving are far, far away from people who throw food away.   Either they are physically far away, and thus it would cost a lot to ship the remaining of food you're talking about (not to mention how humiliating it would probably be to accept to eat that), or they are socially far away (they don't know who they are, and they don't know they are starving).  They are literally "disconnected", as you said.

But if a guy sees a starving children in Africa on television, and a minute later he watches a documentary about LasVegas restaurant where they throw tons of food every week, he'll think "oh my god there is something wrong".

What is wrong is that he sees two things that are logistically, economically, socially and politically completely different and yet he thinks that everything would be just fine if we could, magically, teleport instantly this food from US to Africa with zero cost.

So you don't think the monetary system and the interests of government are in tune with the rich? They are actually designed for "the people"?

LOL

You do realize that the entire economy of the world is based around stealing from the poor and middle classes to give to the rich and powerful, right? When the US throws out billions of pounds of food annually yet there are millions of people who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from, there is a disconnect in the system.

Then if it must happen, let it happen.  No need for your social plan.


I've said it many times, but I'll say it again:   you can't prevent people to sell things they own.

Say we embrace your silly idea of a planet we all share.   I'll go talk to my neighbor and I'll offer him a big amount of money for his share of the planet.  He'll accept and he'll use the money to have some good times, to party all night and to travel around the world during a year.   I'll use the extra-portion of the planet to make more money in the long term.  With the extra money I'll earn, I'll buy more shares of the planet from other neighbors.

Capitalism is not just a political doctrine:  it's a truth about human nature.  Some people like to own stuff, some other like to consume.   Some people value wealth more when it's in the present, and others value it more when it's bigger, even in a far future.   Therefore savers buy means of production from consumers.   Means of production allow to buy more means of production.  And the spread between those who own stuff and those who don't increases.

That's why your idea about people "sharing the planet" is naïve.  Try to understand this:  ownership is not a static concept.  It's dynamic.  And this dynamic is what we call the free market.

Our technological and scientific progress will allow for us to meet the needs of all people. The earth we all share is common heritage to all people, no one has inherent rights to owning a piece for themselves. We share the planet we have for the betterment of all.

Yeah but what's your plan exactly to provide the means for people to have the comfortable and meaningful life you're talking about?  Does it consist on stealing the work and savings of those people who only care about profit and personal wealth?


If so, then I guess greed is not so bad after all, since it allows you to create the wealth you plan to steal.

I don't believe that I've claimed that human beings are deficient and that all we care about is profit. My point is that our social, political and economic foundations distort our value system that leads to many people placing too much emphasis on profit, greed, personal wealth etc. The majority of people just want to have a comfortable and meaningful life that they can share with others.

I don't know much about annarcho-capitalism to contrast it to an RBE, but capitalism in general is antithetical to an RBE in the first place, so I can't imagine them being very similar.

http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/2012/09/29/peter-joseph-and-the-far-seeing-emergent-zeitgeist-so-what-is-this-earth-of-ours/

This is part one of a 2 hour interview that Peter Joseph, founder of the Zeitgeist Movement, conducted with Hollywood Today.

Also, Episode 2 of Culture in Decline debuts tomorrow.

Check them out if interested!

I've read and heard a bit about the Zeitgeist Movement, and it always amounts to some ideals about what we "could" obtain if we just did this and that. They're really good at stating the "what", without answering the "how".

How do we apply all these ideals?

LightRider, you keep saying that humans being are deficient, that all we care about is profit. Does this include yourself, and if so, what are you doing to change that?

EDIT: Also, can some - point by point - explain the exact differences between Anarcho Capitalism and a Resource Based Economy, please?

EDIT2: For anyone interested in seeing Stefan Molyneux debate a ZM advocate, check out this video, starting at 42:08 (the link will take you to that time stamp in the video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hxjwBZjADiM#t=2528s
Everything before that is fairly irrelevant to the discussion IMO.

One of these days, I'll read this whole thread carefully.  I like the subject and I've been thinking a bit about it during recent years.

Post-scarcity economy?  I'd be happy to see it.  What's not to like in the idea of not having to work for pretty much anything?   But why does it have to mean that money should be forbidden??

If things must tend to become free, that just means that prices must tend to zero.  So in other words:  just let prices fell down!

To do so we need a stable and incorruptible money supply, because it is needed to correctly measure the value of things, that is to say the relative and absolute abundance of things.   As the amount of available things increases, their price will drop, until it eventually reaches zero, in ten, an hundred, a thousand years... who knows.

But making a decent monetary tool is not enough.  We also need to stop preventing people from producing.  Here in Europe, farmers can not produce cereals, milk and other basic products beyond quotas.  Believe it or not:  it is forbidden.   There is something similar regarding real estate.  For some strange reasons, it seems that everything is done to prevent entrepreneurs to build houses and residential high buildings.  As a result, there are not enough decent accommodation for everyone and people still have to struggle to pay their rent.  To me, this is much, much more outrageous than fractional reserve banking or other stuff that Zeitgeist is complaining about.

To reach a post-scarcity economy, we have to allow people to produce, so that abundance can arise and thus lower the price of things.

Trying to forbid the usage of money is just silly.  It is very much a communist idea and you'll end up with everything free indeed, but with empty shelves in grocery stores: