Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 96. (Read 288375 times)

Laws are irrelevant to solving technical problems.

There's more progress than if we didn't advocate for this direction.

You can find out about these and other types of automation advancements at www.zeitnews.org if you are so inclined.

Fresco's designs are a good place to start, but they are only a start. Improvement is the continuing goal, which is not subject to human opinion.

Difference of opinions between organizations is irrelevant to advocating for a better world for all people, which the current institutions could not and will not support.

Of course not, because the ZM wouldn't have laws, right? It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

If you know, why beat a dead horse? How much progress has been made against these 'barriers'? I don't see any that wouldn't be occurring naturally.

Really? There's 'enough' automation? Define 'enough'. Then let me know when robots can pick berries, harvest crops and fluff my pillows.

Bottom up? The entire society has already been designed. That's top-down; it might as well be a dictatorship.

Besides, with this much infighting and idiocy, I'd rather have the bumbling morons George Bush and Gordon Brown running the world. More than enough damage has been done to the entire project to relegate it to fringe nutcase status. Even if Mr. Fresco were to set the story straight, there's no way back. The world will have advanced well beyond his vision by the time ZM/VP find direction.

You do yourself a disservice by supporting the ZM. Do something productive with your time instead. If you absolutely must rally behind a cause, try seasteading.

We aren't asking for legislation.
We know that, we are trying to remove the barriers that prevent them from being scaled out and used intelligently for the benefit of all people.
It can automate enough of it to provide the basic needs for all people.
We aren't forcing anyone to do anything. We are building a bottom up movement to help implement change.

LightRider - just stop. Anyone can post ideas that have become redundant and stale. If you really want to do the world a service, find what you're good at and do that thing.

Regarding major ZM goals:

• The problems of the world cannot be legislated away.
• Most of the ideas put forth have already been implemented.
• Current technology is not capable of fully automating human labor.
• Forcing widespread top-down change has proven counter-productive compared to bottom-up development

These issue have been discussed point-by-point here: A Dangerously Outdated Zeitgeist

An example of the tedious and unnecessary work being done in service to a monetary system. It is most likely not relevant to sustaining life or the environment.

Fair enough.
Managers can have an incentive to coerce other persons to maintain their business (not necessarily to maintain profits), but at the moment they cartel, burn their competitor's office or lobby for regulations they're attacking other people's freedom.
Then you don't have a free market anymore, just a market.
A soccer player can has the incentive to hurt the best player of the other team, but when he kicks his rival knee, he's not playing football, he's playing other thing.


With hoarding, prices will just go down, but money will keep on circulating.
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of hoarding within scarce currencies. With abundance currencies like LETS, there's no problem with hoarding, people can still trade without price variations.
With freicoin hoarding is discouraged through demurrage. Yet the main advantage of freicoin is to eliminate interest.


No, new services appear every day. New professions appear every year.
Yet you call for the end of labor. You're the one using the crystal ball to claim "this time is different".


Saying that we will just switch to renewables and we still could have energy abundance in the short term is ignoring that the infrastructure creation will be expensive (just to produce as much energy as we get today from fossils) and will rely on fossils.
The problem with peak oil is not only that the production will decline, but also that production of energy (through fossil) will get more and more expensive.
Maybe you know what the falling EROI is, but it seems to me that you don't fully understand its consequences when you call for a future of energy abundance.

No you dont understand .

I guess if you had run successful company you would just wait for competition to emerge to get you and all your employees out of business instead of trying to regulate,manipulate and cartalize the market , and keep your profits, power and your own job.


It works to the point when someone withhold consumption for one or more cycles ( because he doesn't need to or want to and such a cases always happens ) and start hoarding money , then entire economy halts, thus infinite growth is required to offsets such an anomalies.

Cant put any more simple for you.



Again crystal ball.


How is me saying that since that oil consumption is unsustainable we should implement alternative technologies, is ignoring peak oil ?

Fair enough.  I guess I was using a different nomological definition of "hard."

Meh, reading one or two EXTREMELY dull and boring 27 page business cases every day, because you have to if you want an understanding of the subject and a nice degree to go with it, is hard work too. Though most of the work performed is for staying awake and not zoning out.

Excuse my ignorance for not reading through this thread.  I just happened to see that someone had written that "education is hard work."  I had to snicker at that.  I'll allow a caveat for the 'hard' sciences (i.e. those requiring extreme mathematical precision).

All the above is correct BUT NO, NO,NO........GOING TO FAR & TOO FAST.......(MY OPINION)

AN RBE is surely something that is driven by the Universal Evolution that we all are subjected to. No way to escape from this since this is one of the most important of the spiritual lows that governs the universe.

But in order to be applicable on our plane of existence, it needs a much more developed individual consciousness  for the human race. Which, at present, it is not the case.

We are living in this way since humanity still needs to reach this eighths. And cannot be otherwise until we overcome this present state of consciousness. You have said the same think in one of your posts when you were saying that people need to make mistake in order to learn the right path to follow. This is a spiritual law.

People are objects already established in the free market. The most important objects, because they're the ones that make decisions.


You can have money circulation without increased production.
I'll try it with an example:

Ana produces bread. Bod produces clothes. Carl produces.
They trade between them with money, money circulates.
None of them increases his production, production is fixed, therefore there's no growth.


You confuse many economic concepts. I'm also starting to think that there's no point to keep on discussing with you.
You're already testing my patience by making me explain you very simple economic concepts, don't insult me again or I'll stop explaining things.


Like prostitutes, musicians, teachers and providers of other services that don't exist yet.


And I claim you're wrong. I blame politics and interest.


It seems you completely ignore the coming energy crises.
Some key words for research: peak oil, EROI.


I've already answered to this one.


Who makes the decisions in a decentralized manner? The major of the city?
You can manage your local resources efficiently without knowing the world's resources.
And yes, individuals are the only decision making elements on a free market.

Read my question again and answer it this time. I said objects already established on free market not people.



Yes pretty much it is , if money dont circulate you dont produce because, no one produce for free. Money have to change hands in order for transaction to be made and good to be produced.

If you cant comprehend such a simple concept i dont think there any point to our discussion until you understand it.


It is you who is assuming that they will , i only reach the conclusion based on data i have found out on-line while you are using "crystal ball" to predict the future.

Like prostitutes , yeah perhaps.



No, i blame profit driven economy ( which includes mystical free market ).


Sustainability is a key goal of RBE. If we consume more oil than it is being replenished we have to change our way . Lucky he have plenty of alternative technologies.


"What's the point of surveying all resources on earth if you can't know what people wants?"
It is obvious that if you want to manage your inventory in an efficient way you have to know what you have , where and in what quantities.
"How the RBE is able to know what people wants? "
Surveys.
"If the RBE is going to be decentralized (I think this is the first time I hear it), what mechanism warranties the coordination between the basic elements of decision making. "
As far as i understand it ;

Action is taken in a decentralized manner while all is accounted centrally.
You cant manage resources if you have no entire data thus centralization.
People in tropic areas have different needs and want then in other areas of the world ( for example what would be the point of production very heavy clothes in the middle of Africa ) thus action is decentralized.

"In free market, those basic elements are people."
Hardly
Basic elements are companies and profit.
"What are those basic elements in RBE? Cities?"
I guess you could say that.

I don't agree. Is not in the best interest of the people to destroy free market principles.


The consumption is also "cyclical" in RBE.
No, it doesn't have to be maintained as often as possible, just as often as consumers demand. Note that the different demands compete with each other for the use of resources.
What leads to short-term thinking and unnatural high resource consumption is interest. You don't have proved me wrong in this statement.
What leads to planned obsolescence are cartels and monopolies.


Goods designed to last as long as possible is not always the best economic decision.
We eventually will recycle every resource no matter the system.


Yes it does.
How can you imagine economy based on any money where production is constant ? Money would just accumulate in few hands and economy collapse.
[/quote]

The production doesn't have to be constant to have zero growth.
Money accumulates in few hands because of interest and lobbying.

----------------------

Money circulation != growth


No.
zero profits != bankruptcy


Is good that you consider LETS interesting. Ripple is even better.
They have something in common with some scarce moneys such as freigeld or freicoin: they eliminate basic interest.


But you're assuming that different demands won't appear when our production capacities improve drastically.


But someone will always demand human labor !!!


You can't blame the free market for a hungry world. African peoples used to have their needs covered. Their problems begin when our when their politicians start talking with ours.
What I mean is that all the purchasing power in the world is held by all the people in the world, but you can't have more purchasing power than resources.


You survey population. You come up with the conclusion that the current population cannnot be sustained in the long term (when we run out of fossil fuels).
What does the RBE?


What's the point of surveying all resources on earth if you can't know what people wants?
Imagine the UN feeds the world through a global tax (pretty centralized).
How the rest of resources will be used?
How the RBE is able to know what people wants?
The free market is about decentralizing economic decision making and coordinate production with demands.
If the RBE is going to be decentralized (I think this is the first time I hear it), what mechanism warranties the coordination between the basic elements of decision making.
In free market, those basic elements are people. What are those basic elements in RBE? Cities?

Ok i will try differently
It is in the interests of all objects already established on the free market to destroy free market principles in order to secure its position .

Do you agree or not ?


The problem is that it must to be maintained cyclically as often as possible which leads to the unnatural high resource consumption , planned obsolescence , huge waste and environmental impact and many other externalized costs.

RBE promotes something totally opposite , goods designed to last as long as possible, upgradeable and recyclable.


I know .


Yes it does.
How can you imagine economy based on any money where production is constant ? Money would just accumulate in few hands and economy collapse.

There you go technological unemployment again and artificial need to sustain jobs which leads to many negative consequences.

within a free market "production doesn't need to increase( but can if possible)".

Yes it needs to sustain money circulation ............


Omg yes they do its called bankruptcy.



I am not familiar to the idea. And just so you know i consider this LETS an interesting idea propably much better would we have today , yet it still dont fix major issues connected to the monetary exchange mentioned before in this thread.


One genetic engineer can do the job of thousand workers , since when you have a seed its done deal , over ,no more work.


It is very different today, because we are reaching the point not only that human labor is diminished as in the past but can be totally replaced in many cases.
Even if some miraculous invention would come it has high chance its production,service can already be automated.



It is not true , we produce enough food to feed everyone yet 2 billion ( or less ) people dont have purchasing power to buy it.
It is wasteful and stupid and done in the name of profit.



Population can be surveyed , with the age of computers you can get input almost instantly.
Free market cant predict what people want as well it just quickly reacts to those wants , the same way would be with RBE just action would be coordinated and decentralized.

We define a free market as a market without regulations. I guess I disagree.


Yes, and I define profits as
profits = gains - costs
Wages are just another cost of production, not profits.


What's the problem with consuption?
RBE has consumption too.


You're borrowing money (or at least, value), but there's no basic interest because the seller can "lend to you" without even having the money.
In LETS, every owner of a positive balance is lending to every owner of a negative balance.


No, the monetary exchange doesn't require infinite growth.
"fiat capital-money issued on debt through state legislation monetary systems" require infinite growth.


Although with a free market most people need and/or want to have a job, within a free market "production doesn't need to increase( but can if possible)".
Production only increases if demand increases and the resources available allow it. Note that any use of a resource competes with other uses, so only the more demanded use will manage the resource.


Factories don't stop for a lack of profit.
Within capitalism when they yield less than the interest on money that the factory owner would get if he sells his factory.
With free money, when the factory produce less money than what it costs to run the factory or when someone has a better use for the factory.


Ripple is the way to scale LETS.


Ok. Let's invent a new profession. Genetic engineers are able to build "tree houses". Some construction workers will have to look for another job, but at the same time the demand for Genetic engineers will be increased. 


I don't think this time is different.


Since resources are scarce, we can't all have infinite purchasing power. In fact no one can.
Your purchasing power and your share of everything that is on sale.


I don't think you can make a clear distinction between needs and wants.
Anyway, you agree that wants shouldn't be scientifically defined or chosen.
Then how do you manage resources scientifically and attending to wants?

Again , they are emergent from free market. You dont understand or you dont agree ?


I dont understand how for example you can produce ipods for wage. Almost all productions and services has associeted cost with it.


Well all capital-based have that cyclical consumption in-printed into system. Be it fiat, gold or bitcoin.

The bartering ones like LETS , perhaps manage resources differently since you can go on negative without actually borrowing money.



"The economy", in general, requires infinite growth?"
No the economy based on monetary exchange requires infinite growth. People have to have jobs and money must circulate.

The proposed RBE is totally dispatched from this reality. People dont need to have jobs, production doesnt need to increase( but can if possible ).

If production output will be constant factories producing crucial goods wont be closed because they stopped to be profitable due to the fact money no longer circulates as it used too. Silly things like that can only happen in a monetary based systems.




Ok this requires tremendous trust and is easily exploitable thats why i only works on local level. I cant possibly see it applied on global level.


If you noticed ,none of those occupations is actually new. Those jobs are only changing its specifics not multiply it self magically .In fact those jobs suffer the same fate as simple production for example programmers can now make much more complicated programs in much less time due to established frameworks.


In past huge technological breakthroughs made so it didn't last.

Steam engine - steel - electricity - automobile industry - electronics - internet ... but now its ended .




In order for abundance to occur everyone have to have a purchasing power. If everyone have a purchasing power , money inflates .

It is a paradox that is inputted in any kind of monetary system.


No i did not mean "define the human needs/wants scientifically? No, thanks." Didn't say so, although needs can be scientifically defined for each of us ( you need to eat , defect , feel loved as a child by parents and so on) , and wants it just an individual stuff.

Um, the reason education is "hard work" is because, to quote Barbie, "math is hard." Sorry, there's just no way around it. We need basic math and science skills to survive, and for kids who aren't interested in it (most kids I think), it'll be hard, but very necessary, work.

That's the question/example I asked with regards to Saudi Arabia: Who will run the country when their oil runs out, if everyone is only interested in getting degrees in theology? (since everyone is currently paid by the government from the money it makes on oil)

Yes, children like to learn. But they can learn quantum mechanics or how to kill a dragon in WoW.
Who will program your robots if everybody want to study arts?