Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Resource Based Economy - YES or NO?

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 1:18 p.m. EST by lifesprizes (298)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A Resource Based Economy means All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few.

It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude.

Do you agree on such a system - YES or NO?

978 Comments

978 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by TheEconomist (12) 2 years ago

YES. I have studied economics at a post graduate level and am on my way to completing my doctoral thesis.While doing all my studies and research so far I have come to accept RBE to be a viable alternative. Some of the Austrian economists maintain their position about the monetary system as the final frontier of human society. The thing is humans are the only species in the universe who use money to live on their planet. Things like value for goods and services in terms of economics have a very limited frame of reference. For example we value diamonds at a conspicuous level and have put a high price tag due to its scarcity. But is a diamond really valuable? It is just a worthless piece of stone with no actual value whatsoever. In addition to that it is responsible for the deaths of thousands of labourers who are exposed to inhumane conditions, destruction of eco-system diversity (3000 plant and animal species are directly effected) and high energy consumption (for artificial diamonds).

This among various other applied examples suggests that money has no purpose in identifying the actual value of any good or service. value is a subjective term that can be manipulated by advertisements, popular culture, traditional beliefs etc. So, as a professional economist I say, "Economics as a discipline is nothing but bullshit and should be done away with". As to those who still advocate or think in terms of free market economy, capitalism, communism, socialism, statism etc. know there there is no such thing. It is just human construction based on semantic understanding. A proper way to go about is to know more about nature and natural law. Not man made constructions that are subject to individual interpretations. The methods of science through uninterpretable data (meaning same results from tests conducted) is the best option for our species. When plants grow, they don't pay for their existence. They are the most scientific creatures and their level of understanding their environment is beyond human ingenuity today. They have highly computerized mechanism of sensing and remote sensing. It is through the laws of nature that we humans get all our information. So it is not us who are the intelligent creatures. We need to learn more from nature as to how they function in a neural network and get by without the use of money. How they give and take in a highly advanced form of communication and not in the conventional sense of barter.

Therefore, a RBE is a definite system that uses non-established evolutionary perspective to attain resources for the human species to "get by" keeping in mind the "standard of living" and proper resource management. Oh and yeah..."I have checked and found that it is technically achievable but socially a little bit difficult but not impossible".

[-] 5 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

We need to concentrate on pure water, fresh food, a living environment and healthy relationships wouldn't you say? http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution

[-] 2 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

Continuing living on earth how we have been living, soon we don't have pure water or fresh food or environment to live.... that's actually hitting nail in box, we don't have anymore relationships because everybody dead.

Some people like to think they are protected by some magical powers from death but they still get in coffin and are dropped in hole and ground is thrown over. Isn't it interesting how our biology works?

[-] 2 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

We should start taking responsibility together from this planet before it dies away from life.

[-] -1 points by jesus2012 (3) 2 years ago

but we have pharmaceuticals to take care of us, what do you want to live in a commune, hippie communist??

jesus is coming to save us, again... http://wesower.org

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Jesus called people "hippie communists" all the time in the bible. You are so misguided about the bible. Have you ever actually read it? I'm sorry but if anything Jesus was for redistribution of wealth with his whole feed the homeless campaign he had. Jesus never said "I enforce minimum wage, maybe even lower if possible, and outsourcing labor and even utilizing sweat shops. It is fine for the few to have everything and to dictate the land while many and even some have absolutely nothing and starve to death." Jesus said that. It's on page Get Real.

[-] 3 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Well God said this: "When you have nothing to fear, you have nothing over which to be angry"

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I don't believe in God so to me he has said nothing. I just know what the bible is about and I don't like when people use it for hate and persecution. Considering that's how Jesus died in the bible, you'd think these people would learn from that.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

All conditions are temporary. Nothing stays the same, nothing remains static. Which way a thing changes depends on you.

[-] 2 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

Some people using closests words what they can get to describe what they thinking.

Right now our words is lined mostly to middle age books and stories. Later when we develop our language advanced it becomes more "scientifical terms" what most of people from "today" would not understand. (When we advance in language, it becomes more complex in terms of understanding, but describing one thing becomes more wider and deeper than it was in the beginning)

Most used term is "frog in pot, burning without knowing its dieing". (Old cook joke) - This was off topic and just example to words of describing, why someone talking how they talk but trying to get point what they "thinking".

[-] 3 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Jesus would be welcome at the Venus project.

[-] 3 points by krwinger (5) 2 years ago

Which Jesus? The White one? Or one of the other ones, there are so many....

[-] 2 points by Wired (16) 2 years ago

So, you've been to Tijuana? Just yell "Jesus!" real loud, and you're guaranteed a taxi, johnny on the spot!

[-] 2 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

I once found a black jesus last supper framed painting at a swap meet. AWESOME!

[-] 2 points by Onihikage (35) from Chapin, SC 2 years ago

All those guys we're killing in the middle east? Jesus actually looked like them. Sad, isn't it?

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies.

[-] 1 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

Sadly the biggest killers, destroyers of ALL TIME have been and are WHITE.

[-] 2 points by letmein (6) 2 years ago

the bobble head kind with the "thumbs up" attitude.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

All men are created equal, it is only men themselves who place themselves above equality.

[-] 2 points by Wired (16) 2 years ago

Darwin would have an argument with your remark!

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin

[-] 2 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

You won't need pharmaceuticals (or you'll need a lot fewer of them) in a society that's not actually trying to poison you with it's version of "food."

Even if you believe in Jesus, allocating resources according to a more rational model of behavior that addresses societal need overall--rather than the needs of a few--just makes common sense.

--And BTW, Jesus was interested in accepting and helping others, and not vilifying them. Is that how you are?

Peace.

http://www.groobiecat.blogspot.com

[-] 5 points by grene (10) from Talent, OR 2 years ago

Yes, we must cooperate to survive, the time for change is now!

[-] 2 points by seeker (242) 2 years ago

co-operatives i see as a solution..Agreed we must act now.

[-] 2 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

Cooperativity is great tool, no fight over things, everything is discussed and planned together. In cooperativity, everything stays in focus and focus is what is needed.

Other people focus to do other things ready when other people focus to do other things ready. When more people organize together, more things we can focus on. More we focus, more new we create everyday.

[-] 3 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

No- we already have a cooperative system in place

Money doesn't 'evaluate' the value of goods and services, money is a way to convert what you produce into something that you can trade with others

For instance; a tree by itself is worth nothing (in economic terms); you can't use it as furniture, firewood or anything else. It just grows there. It is only with the addition of human effort to harvest the tree and turn it into furniture or firewood that gives the product value. If things like furniture sprouted out of the ground ready made, then I might agree with a resource based economy.

Money measures the value that is produced by humans, not simply tangible goods. Thats why its cooperative, because we are already agreeing to trade our labor product with others

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

Well think of it like this: If we ”own” the forests together in equal share, and we have power-plants, infrastructure and machines that we also owned together doing most of the labour in harvesting and processing the material into what we wanted, then there is no reason why people would need to trade in order to receive what is already our fair share. If you made something yourself out of your fair share by expending your own labour, then you could of course trade it if you wanted to.

[-] 2 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

That makes sense, but it only holds if everyone's labor product is the same. For example, the labor of the person who designed the power plant is more valuable than the guy who mixes the cement for the foundations. Thus, the guy who designed the plant gets paid more.

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

I understand what you are getting at, but it is hard to accurately or objectively measure utility-value in such a way, even in a market system( or should I say, especially in a market system) and you must consider the new context.

Both are needed to complete the power plant and while it would seem that more people can mix and pour cement (if that process for some reason is not mechanised) then design a power plant, it comes down to level of education, creativity and how to select and process information already available (when you "invent something, you compile information which is pretty much already there, but you do it, or compose it, in a new way. You are basing your work on the work of others).

If we have a system of some type of differentiation in rights to consume (”wage”, stipends, budgets, economic compensation, whatever we want to call it) from commonly owned resources, what matters here are different factors such as how important the contribution to the commons and the impact the labour has one ones well-being. For example, after holistically analysing the societal system, scrubbing the sewers where the sewer cleaning bots cant reach might turn out to be both much more important and have a greater impact on the workers well-being then designing a new computer screen, because if the pipes clog, you will have all kinds of resource expensive problems to deal with.(also, if it is a dirty, vile and pretty damn stimulating job, people will not do it if the compensation – whether it be moral praise or more access to resources – is not high enough considering that those who can fix it already have all their basic necessities secured). Of course, people who do important and/or creative stuff, such as medical researchers, system designers and so on should not be ”poorer” then people who does less demanding work, but for the sake of efficiency their extrinsic reward (”wage”) can not be too high (being a researcher with access to all kinds of cool equipment and testing prototypes is more intristically rewarding,), because it will not just start to generate problems associated with class, it will result in inefficiency (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y ).

So I do think that you can have some general extra few % in resource access for those who formally contribute to society (instead of just sitting home eating and playing video-games and going surfing all the day). And you can add some additionally extra symbolic % for those who do really important stuff that either require long and complex education (medical doctors, engineers, researchers etc) or those who do any eventually really hard, repetitive or vile work not yet automated.

[-] 2 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Not sure what it is you're tryin to argue here- phrase your argument better and then repost.

If you're trying to argue that we need a system that rewards labor based on it's contribution to society, then we already have that system. Letting the free market set wages does this. It's why CEOs get paid millions (their benefits to society are immense) why garbage men can make almost 50$ an hour ( it's disguting and horrible work that few want to do but society needs trash removal so they get paid bank) and why a mcdonalds worker gets paid diddly squat (not much value to society to flip burgers)

[-] 3 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

Read it again. I am sure you can piece it together.

But let me expand the reasoning a bit To make a long story short, ”contribution” is hard to accurately value because its consequences are hard do decode, its an information problem, The market can not measure it in a sustainable way unless all its agents are highly informed a can interpret and act upon the information in a way that is best for everyone (highly unlikely, especially in a competitive environment)

Yes, the CEO gets paid millions, but what says that such a wage is proportional (or beneficial) to what "good" he or she does? Some would argue that the flow money within a free market does so, but the information problem still exist (what people want and value is one thing, what they know, understand and does not know about the issue is another and how accurate this is in relation to the empirical world and our collective long term interests is a third) and his contribution is specific to the system in which the business is organized. The CEO might employ people and lead his business to success by developing valuable services or products, (which brings him his high wage) but at the same time doing so in a way that is both unsustainable and breeds corruption (for example a CEO that brings people cheap products and ruins the environment or whatever)

A CEO would not be much of a benefit to a successful RBE because the position and business structure is basically obsolete. Society is no longer divided into small economical agents competing for bigger market shares, there is no more secret recipes or patents. Al information is out in the open. As soon as some group or researcher make a breakthrough regarding products or whatnot, this solution can be used by all concerned R&D teams and production-facilities. Open source development is the closest contemporary example.

Also, one contributing reason for high CEO wages is the life style inflation. To get a good leader, one must offer a good salary and what is good is defined in relation to what other people get. Its not just that you want to get more then others, its also about not wanting to get less. Thats part of the reason why we have this strange bonus culture going on, today it seems CEOs can not be expected to do their best without large bonuses on top of their salary. Its an expensive mentality that drains society on resources. Especially so when we now know that big extrinsic rewards (like money) also decreases efficiency in all types of work, except those that are simple, boring and repetitive.

[-] 2 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I see what you're saying, but people are too individualistic to produce the results that you want in a resource based economy, to put it simply. People want as much as they can get, and will strive to obtain it

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

I don't think being individualistic have much to do with it. Of course people want to be individuals and get as much of value as possibly in their life, but there is nothing that keeps you from doing so in a successful RBE, in fact it would probably be a lot simpler and rewarding for a vast majority of the population.

The problem is achieving critical mass and having a sound plan to transition to a RBE-type society.Without an alternative that actually seem realistic and safe to ”invest” in, people will continue to invest in what they are familiar with (which often involves chasing the dream and hoping to become part of the 1% - you know: "What a RBE? No way! What if I want 10 private jets!" ).

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I agree- I said 'produce' the results. I didn't say that it wouldn't be best- best or worse is debatable- what I'm saying is that the end result wouldn't happen. This is simply because individualism would prompt people to get all they can which would skewthe system.

We had this system 10000 years ago, then agriculture happened. So this debate has already happened and is settled

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

While I think it is a monumental challenge, and an enterprise that might prove extremely hard to succeed in, I would not write it off as impossible or think that the debate is settled.

A system like this would of course need to have a robustness against abuse and manipulation, just like any other vital system.

And no, we did not have a system like this 10.000 years ago, as this system relies on machinery doing the hard and monotonous labour. Its more like our current socio-economic system is based on conditions that becomes increasingly obsolete due to technological development.

[-] 3 points by seeker (242) 2 years ago

Diamonds are not valued due to scarcity..There is probarbly not another resource thats price is so manipulated..And diamonds have loads of industrial uses.. Glad i didn't get an education.

Not Against the idea though.

[-] 2 points by derek (302) 2 years ago

"Glad i didn't get an education."

See "Lies my teacher told me": http://loewen.homestead.com/ "Students who have taken more mathematics courses are more proficient at math than other students. The same is true in English, foreign language and almost every other subject. Only in history is stupidity the result of more, not less, schooling. Why do students buy into the mindless "analysis" they encounter in American history courses? For some students, it is in their ideological interest. Upper-middle-class students are comforted by a view of society that emphasizes schooling as the solution to intolerance, poverty, even perhaps war. Such a rosy view of education and its effects lets them avoid considering the need to make major changes in other institutions. To the degree that this view permeates our society, students automatically think well of education and expect the educated to have seen through the Vietnam War. Moreover, thinking well of education reinforces the ideology we might call American individualism. It leaves intact the archetypal image of a society marked by or at least striving toward equality of opportunity. Yet precisely to the extent that students believe that equality of opportunity exists, they are encouraged to blame the uneducated for being poor, just as my audiences blamed them for being hawks on the ware in Vietnam. Americans who are not poor find American individualism a satisfying ideology, for it explains their success in life by laying it at their own doorstep. This enables them to feel proud of their success, even if it is modest, rather than somehow ashamed of it. Crediting success to their position in social structure threatens those good feelings. It is much more gratifying to believe that their educational attainments and occupational successes result from ambition and hard work - that their privilege has been earned. To a considerable degree, working-class and lower-class Americans also adopt this prevailing ethic about society and schooling. Often working-class adults in dead-end jobs blame themselves, focusing on their own earlier failure to excel in school, and feel they are inferior in some basic way."

The case for working with your hands: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?pagewanted=all

The last chapter of "A People's History of the United States": http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html

From an Undergound History of American Education: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm "I’ll bring this down to earth. Try to see that an intricately subordinated industrial/commercial system has only limited use for hundreds of millions of self-reliant, resourceful readers and critical thinkers. In an egalitarian, entrepreneurially based economy of confederated families like the one the Amish have or the Mondragon folk in the Basque region of Spain, any number of self-reliant people can be accommodated usefully, but not in a concentrated command-type economy like our own. Where on earth would they fit? In a great fanfare of moral fervor some years back, the Ford Motor Company opened the world’s most productive auto engine plant in Chihuahua, Mexico. It insisted on hiring employees with 50 percent more school training than the Mexican norm of six years, but as time passed Ford removed its requirements and began to hire school dropouts, training them quite well in four to twelve weeks. The hype that education is essential to robot-like work was quietly abandoned. Our economy has no adequate outlet of expression for its artists, dancers, poets, painters, farmers, filmmakers, wildcat business people, handcraft workers, whiskey makers, intellectuals, or a thousand other useful human enterprises—no outlet except corporate work or fringe slots on the periphery of things. Unless you do "creative" work the company way, you run afoul of a host of laws and regulations put on the books to control the dangerous products of imagination which can never be safely tolerated by a centralized command system."

More: http://disciplinedminds.com/

[-] 2 points by e000 (371) 2 years ago

Some day I hope to see a combination of individualism, and individual concern for the community deep enough to provide all the same benefits of a communal society without subverting free will or individual expression. sigh I think empathy is key to this possibility. True, deep empathy, and evolving communications on a global scale, paired with unbiased and thorough education.

Heh, maybe that's my "faith" to believe that it's possible, even with this species (especially with this species).

[-] 2 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

That is what I see happening in the group conversations in this movement.

On the streets that is, not on forums like here.

[-] 2 points by derek (302) 2 years ago

E.O. Wilson has suggested natural selection within groups has led to what we call evils -- like competition and deceit. Natural selection across groups has led to what we call virtue -- cooperation, altruism, and so on.

Another way to look at it is this: http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm "Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation."

More on empathy: "RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilisation" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

There are several other great videos on YouTube by the RSA on motivation and so on.

A good general book on cooperation is "No Contest: The Case Against Competition" by Alfie Kohn: http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

A big issue is that our possibilities from technology have grown so big that petty fighting might doom us all through nuclear war or plagues or killer robots. We need to transition to a different socioeconomic paradigm based on abundance for all instead of abundance for the 1% and strife for all.

Sounds like a faith worth keeping. :-) Even in troubled times: http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC "“Every human life is made up of the light and the dark, the happy and the sad, the vital and the deadening. How you think about this rhythm of moods makes all the difference.” Our lives are filled with emotional tunnels: the loss of a loved one or end of a relationship, aging and illness, career disappointments or just an ongoing sense of dissatisfaction with life. Society tends to view these “dark nights” in clinical terms as obstacles to be overcome as quickly as possible. But Moore shows how honoring these periods of fragility as periods of incubation and positive opportunities to delve the soul’s deepest needs can provide healing and a new understanding of life’s meaning. Dark Nights of the Soul presents these metaphoric dark nights not as the enemy, but as times of transition, occasions to restore yourself, and transforming rites of passage, revealing an uplifting and inspiring new outlook on such topics as: ..."

John Gardner on the need for each generation to relearn what the words carved on the monuments mean and to renew society: "Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society" http://books.google.com/books?id=U5hXpnwUmW4C

We do need both the individual and the collective. Balancing both is an ongoing issue especially as our technology changes and our related culture changes. Even some conservatives can see that, and even as they ignore the value of health and community to happiness: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/ "The most fundamental problem with [Propertarian right-leaning] libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments. ... Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?"

[-] 2 points by e000 (371) 2 years ago

Ah, yeah, I've seen the RSA video on the empathic civilization - love that :)

[-] 3 points by 5thelement (27) 2 years ago

Great post, I've been of the same thought for a while. Time for new ideas, new simpler systems.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

How is replacing all human labor with automation "simpler"?

[-] 2 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

It's not "simpler" it's simply applying science and technology to allow for the focus on "real problems" such as basic human needs as opposed to focusing on monetary gain and hoarding of wealth. Debt = Social stratification and control.

[-] 2 points by letmein (6) 2 years ago

you do the work once, and an automation program records what you do, so that you don't have to do the same thing everyday you wake up.

[-] 2 points by 5thelement (27) 2 years ago

I actaully don't agree with that part. I don't think it's realistic, but that doesn't mean people can't come up with something else.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Coming up with something else would make Zeitgeist into a completely different movement. Their whole gimmick is that technology is salvation. They replaced "God" in their religion with the machine. It's deux ex machina, literally.

[-] 3 points by ferghingaro (6) 2 years ago

Absolutelly!! In a RBE society, machines are just tools to help humans to arrive to the best decisions about what and how to use resources; and also to replace humans in the boring, repetitve and hard jobs. Why shoud we have bus drivers driving everyday the same roads and getting sick cause of the repetitive movements, for example, if we can have a computer calculating and controlling sensors wich are much more precise and will provide a safer and comfortable ride? And TZM is not a religion or party, it´s just a group of people studing and spreading the RBE concepts for those who want to know more.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You say:

machines are just tools to help humans to arrive to the best decisions

If you entrust your decision-making to machines, then you're really entrusting your decision-making to the people who make the machines.

[-] 3 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Do you entrust your decision-making to weighing-machine when shopping for potatoes?

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Why waste time shopping for something when you can have higher quality for free? http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution/

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

OMG, can you forget about your gardens for a second? We are talking about machines decision-making and potatoes were just an example, it could very well be temperature and thermometer or a water heater :)

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Well to answer your question. No you don't entrust your decision to the weighing machine but you do put misguided faith in the system that the potatoes are safe to eat.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Oh, no. I'm just assuming that they are not poisonous enough to considerably damage my health. :D Don't worry, I know about Monsanto and others... ;)

[-] 2 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

And if you have a voice, if you are part of a group that gains no monetary, political or religious gain, and only are a part of said group so to aid ALL OF HUMANITY then I would probably support you. You have to imagine that there are actually people out there, perhaps like your self, that would give their time, their energy, their knowledge and expertise towards a common goal for no credit and to simply serve others and therefore serve themselves.

If you begin to investigate these types of groups, you may find many involved that have true common goals without desire for personal gain.

[-] 2 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

You have little understanding of the "Z" concept. There is no religion relevant to the global management of resources. And there is no salvation, i.e. utopia. Anyone alluding to such concepts believes that such a fantasy would be sought after by intelligent people. It clearly would not.

The truth is that we will never be "established" and we will always be emergent. Just like life, always changing.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Zeitgeist cult members place their faith in technology instead of in a deity.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

"There is no single philosophy or point of view whether religious, political, scientific, or ideological, that someone would not take issue with. We feel certain, however, that the only aspects of The Venus Project that may appear threatening are those which others project onto it." Jacque Fresco

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I don't find any of this "threatening". I see it as an opportunity for technologists to take over society. I think it's a fantastic idea.

[-] 2 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

There is no "taking over" of society. It would be true social consensus. It's not "who" makes the decisions, it's "how" decisions are arrived at.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

You have a good point. Cognitive robots are a fantastic idea.

[-] 2 points by doctorproteus (84) 2 years ago

open the pod bay doors hal

[-] 2 points by e000 (371) 2 years ago

"Yes, I want to play a game, damnit! I want to play marbles. You go first."

[-] 1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Why give your power to people who wish to "take over society"?

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Elaborate a bit, if you will?

[-] 2 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

No- we already have a cooperative system in place

Money doesn't 'evaluate' the value of goods and services, money is a way to convert what you produce into something that you can trade with others

For instance; a tree by itself is worth nothing (in economic terms); you can't use it as furniture, firewood or anything else. It just grows there. It is only with the addition of human effort to harvest the tree and turn it into furniture or firewood that gives the product value. If things like furniture sprouted out of the ground ready made, then I might agree with a resource based economy.

Money measures the value that is produced by humans, not simply tangible goods. Thats why its cooperative, because we are already agreeing to trade our labor product with others

[-] 1 points by TimCampion (9) 2 years ago

clearly you have never been for a walk in a forest where thousands of trees as you put it just stand their and create a peaceful tranquil relaxing environment off immense benefit to the individual arguably worth far more than a table or other piece of furniture. open your mind.

[-] 2 points by derek (302) 2 years ago

You might then want to sign this appeal for more diveristy in the economics profession? http://www.responsiblefinance.ch/appeal/

See also for a broader view than just resourced-based economics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY "This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

[-] 2 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

I'm not sure currency and a resource based economy have to be mutually exclusive, and removing currency does not in any way eliminate the "bullshit" issues you have a problem with. The value of resources will always be variable, a chaotic and semi-predictable product of the critical worth of the resource, it's immediate availability, and human perception. Currency is well positioned to accommodate this because unlike goats it is itself worthless an ephemeral.

So, money may not be ideal in "identifying" the value of a good or service, but it is ideal for quantifying that value at a given moment. I don't understand why you would say economics is bullshit based on the realization that it is just a human construction based on semantic understanding. If that is the damning feature of economics then you can essentially throw out every single field of academia along with every other thought process that ever lead us out of a cave. I want a just sustainable society, the cave is not that.

[-] 2 points by derek (302) 2 years ago

You can have a "basic income" where everyone gets some currency every month and then decides how to spend it in the market. Take 1/2 the GDP and divide it evenly. Let people compete to earn the other half (and tax those wages and profits). Right now in the USA that would mean everyone would get about US$2000 a month as a basic income. The GDP earned would be equivalent to the US GDP in the mid 1990s -- which was enough to motivate everyone back then. Assuming people need to be motivated by money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

There is also subsistence production (3D printing, local solar panels), gift transactions (Wikipedia, posts to the OWS sites, Linux), and better participatory planning (the General Assembly) as ways to organize a society besides exchange -- or we can use a mix of all four.

A resource-based economy is mostly about planning, and so leaves out those other three types of transactions and so is likely incomplete.

Look up "Kanban" for a view of currency as just a token to express demand not as a store of wealth.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Nice ideas but do we really need to be competitive? Some may not be able to perform as others. What do we do with these individuals? Money is only a motivator if its taught to be so.

[-] 2 points by derek (302) 2 years ago

Yes, there are many other motivations besides money as that RSA video goes into. You might like this, too, related to Alfie Kohn's work: http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

One can also "compete" in who gives the most away: http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary

Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

[-] 2 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 2 years ago

Only if you backup money with some tangible , like food or energy. In that case money will not be just a "semantic". For sample if money is made just for each Kilowatt produced, there will be balanze.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Well, it's not so much mutually exclusive, as the fact that resource based economy was developed with intention to eliminate currency. You see any system that uses currency can be corrupted, no matter if it is capitalism or socialism. That's why they both failed. When Jacque Fresco came to realization that currency is the root of corruption, he decided to design a system that wouldn't require currency to function Resource Based Economy. So, if you add currency to Resource Based Economy, it would fail like any other currency based system. Ability of the system to work without currency is a strength, not a drawback. Why economics is "bullshit"? Well, most of the regulations proposed by economists are "bullshit". Only Free Market Economists got it almost right, the more regulations you add, the worse it become as it adjusts for the regulations. Basically you, you can't regulate the market out of it's nature, which is competition. You see, people complaining that there is unemployment and wages are too low, but there is nothing that can be done about it. If you give unemployment benefits, you discouraging competition, so more people getting pushed out into unemployment category. If you set minimum wage, companies will not be able to hire some people. Even if you take all the unemployed people out of the country, the system will adjust and push out exactly the same percent of people into the unemployed category to restore the competition. So Free Market Capitalists decided that it's the best to abolish ALL regulation. What they don't understand is that products are not getting created out of labor, they created out of resources are limited therefor have to be regulated, but as soon as you giving the power to some one to regulate them, the corruption starts. And the system naturally degrading to the condition we're in today. Now, how do you imaging "sustainable society" in a currency based system? To visualize it on a small scale, imaging astronauts selling their limited supply to each other. And see if all of them are going to survive the trip if they won't start sharing.

[-] 2 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

I agree that any system that uses currency can be corrupted, but at the same time I would say that any system dependent on human involvement can be corrupted. The "problem" is not currency, it's people. Therefore our choices are to either fundamentally change human nature (unrealistic at this time, possible undesirable), or make sure whatever system we have assumes a certain amount of corruption and has reasonable controls for dealing with it. Reasonable in this case meaning striking a balance between ensuring a low level of corruption while impinging as little as possible on human rights. Corruption in our current financial class is too high, hence the need to reinstate a greater degree of financial regulation.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

It is NOT problem in human nature. It's adaptation mechanism. The market encourages such behaviors. If you put artificial intelligence in market system, it will to get corrupted if it have survival logic. We can construct a system that cannot be corrupted. Just realistically, visualize living in RBE. How can it get corrupted. If you find a way to corrupt it, then you most likely misunderstood that corruptible aspect, try to search it and make sure you visualizing it the way it's intended.

[-] 2 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Sorry, trying to understand. What do you mean by "It is NOT problem in human nature. It's adaptation mechanism."? I feel as though I can't evaluate your statement otherwise.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Basically, it's not humans specifically, any intelligence with survival logic will inhabit these behaviors in this kind of environment.

[-] 2 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Ok, fair enough, but this is the environment we have. Do you think RBE modifies the environment so radically that our nature changes? In any case, corruption and competition seems to occur in regimes of both abundance and scarcity.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

The abundance needs also to be equally accessible for everyone without ruling classes or anybody in power. It doesn't even have to be complete abundance, it could just be abundance of necessities, what's more important is equality and stability.

[-] 2 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Not that you have to be forced into a choice but what is more important to you, equality / stability or freedom of expression / action? Just curious.

[-] 3 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

"freedom of expression / action" has it's limitations, what if I want to blow up the planet as an expression or start shunting people as an action? Freedom is important, but in the range of sustainability and coexistence. We would have much more freedom to do what we actually what to do in RBE, which can be considered luxury in this system. I don't know who said it:"One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins." we need to coexist with each other and with the environment. They all are very important to me, that's why I'm advocating RBE. Because in RBE, the only freedom limitations we would have are freedom of others and nature, while nature limitations are diminishing with our technological advances.

[-] 2 points by Greentara (205) 2 years ago

Every resource on the planet gets assigned a value in any group of humans. Look at animals, the strongest get the best hunting ground, shelter and mates. Humans seem no different

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

That also guarantees the survival of the species. Humans are no different. Those in favor of rbe are out of touch with reality.

[-] 2 points by Greentara (205) 2 years ago

No law says we need to be the last species left standing. Neanderthal probable thought they were the strongest and smartest

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

And if we continue with this attitude, the top 1% will be the last to die when we finished exterminating all the other life forms on this planet. I guess, that's because they are the best and the strongest. ;)

[-] 2 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

These viewpoints are actually quite reconcilable. Competition and survival of the species are inevitable drivers in human behavior and nothing will change that. What we CAN change is human awareness of the rules of the game. 50000 years ago if a person not directly related to me peed in front of my cave I would club him to death (if I could). Today if someone dents my car I get a little ticked off, take his information, maybe get hold of a police officer. The point being that civilization has instilled a degree of restraint in me based on the knowledge of a larger world around me. I have a larger and more abstract sense of my self interest than the caveman, but my calculations are still made in the context of that self interest and sense of competition.

As issues such as global climate change and ecology become "common knowledge" instilled in all of us, behavior will change because people's competitive sense of self interest will encompass that awareness. The only question is will this happen fast enough to benefit humanity. I assure you the earth, bacteria and insects don't care.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

"survival of the species" is a part of any species' behavior, though, competition is not. Humans have community/tribal instinct so cooperation has higher priority then competition in the environments where it's encouraged. Now, self interest/individualistic behavior is what's incentified by market based economy and while it's exists, there is nothing you can do about it and no "common knowledge" will help you while the market system is in place. And I don't see what you tried to show with that cave man example. Let me ask you this. What are you trying to change at the occupywallst? Do you know how can it be changed and why it's there?

[-] 2 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

To me the main purpose or benefit of occupywallst is to apply sufficient pressure and awareness of pressure on the financial and political elite such that they respond with reforms to the current system.

As for community / tribal instinct, that's largely what I was talking about above. But tribal instinct is an adaptation we have that helps us implement a competition strategy. It's been one of our tools in our warchest in the "survival of the fittest". The problem is this adaptation thus far has been sufficient only to raise us up as stewards of an increasingly damaged planet. I am arguing that with effort I hope we can expand our tribal instinct outward so that more of our daily decisions better impact our true self interest, which of necessity now needs to be global. nevertheless, the instinct of self interest still applies, it's just a mater of perceptual scope.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

"survival of the fittest" - Oh, here you go, you basing you assumption on obsolete theory. This therm is invalid. Read everything there to understand the subject better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Now. I want to demonstrate it to you that no reform will ever fix it. So, I'm not asking what's the purpose of the ows, I'm asking what you specifically what to reform? What is your biggest concern about the system?

[-] 2 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Sorry, all I was doing was trying to reference your own "survival of the fittest" comment, trying to keep the discussion in the context you established. I'm not an orthodox social Darwinist any more than I draw conclusions from measuring the bumps on people's heads.

As for the demonstration that "no reforms will ever fix it" (what is it?), I'm hoping that the pressure caused by OWS and like protests causes a comprehensive sweep of non-revolutionary reforms to our economy, similar in scope though not necessarily in content to the original New Deal. I am not predicting nor advocating revolutionary change, unless it's measured over decades. Somewhat more specifically, many financial instruments (such as virtually the entire class of derivatives) should be carefully evaluated and possibly scrapped, and our tax code needs to be simplified with the 1% paying somewhat more than they do. Politically, gerrymandering should be abolished and ideas should be floated to greatly reduce the impact of lobbyists on our political class, probably via a real round of campaign finance reform. While I wouldn't adopt what people have represented here as direct democracy, I think a lot of ideas and principles can be taken from that to improve what we have.

How about you?

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

I'm hopping that people share enough information with each other and as many people as possible so people could see all the problems our system has. I'm hopping that when people see all the problems they could trace them to their root, see how they interconnect and how they are emergent from the system itself. I understand concerns of most of the occupiers and most of them are emergent from the profit motive. I don't think the system reformed enough to take care of at least quarter of all the problems and it's only going to deteriorate. I'm hopping that at least people will be aware of the problems before it's too late. I'm also hopping that at least mass media could be reformed to actually represent the people. Everything we apply profit motive is used against humanity. We producing enormous amount of waste. We using resources faster then they can be renewed. We destroying our environment. We murdering people in wars for resources. We strawing to death millions of people around the world just to keep the competition going so we can enjoy law prices for the products we don't really need. Service sector is bigger then ever because of the technological unemployment. "natural unemployment" is about 15-20% which means these people have to also starve to death because it keeps pressure on the minimum wage workers and drive wages down. Corporations like Monsanto destroying our plants, infecting fields with genetically modified ones, spraying poisonous chemicals over large areas of forests which kill or damage all the life forms in the area and poisons ground waters because it's less expensive then to do deforestation manually. We suppressing natural cures and everything else that gives less profit(like preventing disease instead of treating them of medicine that can't be patented) because of the big pharma. We purposely producing low quality products(planned obsolescence). We money as commodity by buying large amount or resources just to sell it for twice the price or in some cases 40 times. We keeping majority of people uneducated to keep education marketable and competitive. But everything we experienced before is nothing comparing to what we will experiences in the near future. Scientists on the age of understanding how to program microscopic bacterial biological life forms for what ever propose they want and nano-robotics is in active development. Guess what are they going to program them to do? What will happen when we run out of oil? Did you see new bbc documentary about global dimming? What will happen when global dimming will stop interfering with effects of the global worming? How much wealth the 0.01% are going to have when almost all jobs are going to be automated and all of us will be servants to the 0.01%? Think progressively. Where it's all going?

[-] 2 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 2 years ago

A diamond has value because people want it. The price is set at the supply/demand equilibrium. Despite the fact that you may think its a "worthless" piece of stone, i'm sure there are many wives-to-be out there that would argue otherwise. I agree that money has a no purpose in assigning value, but it is a mutually agreed upon unit of account which also acts as a store of value. I don't know where you learned economics but I think it may be time to go back to the drawing board.

[-] 2 points by LaughinWillow (215) 2 years ago

It isn't "mutually agreed upon." It is "universally forced upon." I would love to reject the monetary system and go build my own home in the woods, live outside the system. But the system claims that someone "owns" the woods because they "bought" them with "money." It's bullshit, really, because I should have the right to reject a system that doesn't work for me and live as I choose. I didn't create this bullshit system and I hate it.

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

You learned all of this in College? I see a college education really is useless!

[-] 2 points by Sid861 (10) 2 years ago

The free market has given the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. If you want to help the "1%" give them this system.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The money- based system was designed hundreds of years ago and was hardly appropriate for that time. We still utilize this same outmoded system, which is probably responsible for most of today's problems.

[-] 2 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 2 years ago

Is it not true that resources are limited? How can we efficiently distribute limited resources without assigning a value(price) to it. The problem is fiat currencies, not money! Gold has always worked!

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Gold standard is not a panacea, it facilitates accumulation of wealth in the hands the rich.

[-] 2 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 2 years ago

I suggest getting together with your peers and put a working RBE on a peice of paper. Its all fun talking about it, but someone has to actually sit down and write up a book on a how to.

Something for this movment to sink its teeth into and try to push. It will be a long hard battle but if its a sound document with procedures and methods then it has a chance.

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Jacque Fresco has a book that you may be interested in reading. You can read it online. http://www.thevenusproject.com/downloads/ebooks/Jacque%20Fresco%20-%20Designing%20the%20Future.pdf

[-] 2 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

i understand your points about how the value of goods and services can be manipulated, but i am confused about how any proposed system eliminates this. just because you are claiming the system is a RBE, how do you stop people from valuing things that have no real value, like diamonds? and when it comes to trade and distribution of resources, exactly how is this determined in an RBE? mind you, I have lived in RBEs. If you have ever been to Black Rocky City, Nevada, you would see one in action. But this is a short-term system where there is arguably an over-abundance of resources. How would this work when resources are scarce and in the long-term? i am very curious about discussing this further.

[-] 2 points by jfbp (6) 2 years ago

nice

[-] 2 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

So if we need to get by without money, I agree that we should be able to do so. But such person cannot expect to receive anything for free without the provider's agreement, or such arrangement is slavery, forcing another person to work for you for free.

[-] 2 points by Wildcat682 (178) 2 years ago

"The thing is humans are the only species in the universe who use money to live on their planet."

Humans are also the only species in the universe that use up more resources than are necessary to live naturally. What do you need to survive naturally? Food, Water, Shelter.

So what do we use resources for? Watches, rings, clothes(though in some places clothing is necessary), cars, forks, spoons, factories, playstations, tv's, the Internet, computers, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

You want to compare us to other species. There is no comparison. All humans have within them several characteristics that no other species does. The greatest being greed. The need for more and more things well past what is necessary to simply live.

"But is a diamond really valuable?" An object's value is determined by the one who wants that object and the one who possess the object, whichever one is higher. Outside of that "value" does not exist in anything or anyone.

"How they give and take in a highly advanced form of communication and not in the conventional sense of barter"

You are advocating something that just does not exist. This is not Avatar. There is no natural communication going on between the sun, earth, plants, animals, and water.

You want everything to be natural? How about this for natural. You introduce an invasive species to an area, whether it be animal or plant, and that species will quickly begin eliminating other species within the area until it eradicates it's food source and its population balances out due to death, or until the invasive species runs into a more dominant predatory species.

Natural means pure liberty, 100% freedom to do what you want, when you want, where you want, how you want, to whoever you want.

In nature there is no good and evil, no right or wrong. It just is what it is.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Free market fits naturally in predatory world. Doesn't it? :) Trough, we are predatory only when the environment demands that. If our current or future survival is on the line we will do what ever it takes to survive. Greed is ether a form of saving for the future or investment in the status. Saving for the future is not unique for humans, there are many animals that save for the future, like squirrels or dogs. Many women like jewelry not only because our culture dictates it(acquisition of status) and advertisements using nlp to associate certain products(rings) with positive/desirable event(like weddings) with, but also, because it's safe investment and can be used as a reserve in special cases. People don't naturally want too much stuff, they just want fill secure about their future. And that what RBE is all about.

[-] 2 points by JaxSinclair (3) 2 years ago

We're all brothers and sisters after all. It's about time we stopped slitting each other's throats!

[-] 2 points by Wildcat682 (178) 2 years ago

tell that to my muslim brothers.

[-] 2 points by meep (233) 2 years ago

I don't know that much about RBE theory, but I'd believe that our scientific technology level is close to being able to maintain an RBE. I'm just not sure we have the social technology. Monolithic government lead to corruption and mismanagement. Local governments leaves room for one locality to decide it would like to own it's neighbors resources instead of fairly engaging in what it's neighbor would understand as RBE. Is there a suggested solution to the social problem? Also, what if some people like a "free market" economy or an agrarian economy or something else, does an RBE preclude those things also existing?

[-] 3 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

That's why there should not be neither ownership nor monolithic or any kind of government. If some people will still like "free market" then let them trade among each other all the things that others have for free :D Free Market implies competition, which implies minority wins and majority looses. It's like in sports, no matter how prepared player are or how much they try to win, only few will win every time they play. We should stop playing the game! I don't even want to speak about agrarian economy...What if someone likes to kill or torture people...

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

Hey as an economics graduate, have you ever thought much about making a transition to a RBE through a land tax. I am part of TZM and I haven't seen any viable ideas on how to transition from this economic model to RBE. I don't see any possible way of just ditching money overnight, but maybe a system based on using surplus rents for public use can smooth the transistion.

The theory of economic rent has been around for some time, but land taxation has seldom been implemented throughout history. It is well known that the factors of production are composed of land, labor and capital. Land, in the economic sense, can be explained as anything with a productive capacity that has not been created by men or women, but has value created by the community. Labor is any human energy spent , whether by the mind or through brute force, that contributes to a means of production. Capital is mainly what is spent from savings for future production. Under the current system, mainly labor and capital are taxed, while the landed elite make out like bandits with the rents that are created by the community! It is no surprise that civilizations have suffered from vast inequalities since the founding of the first governments.

What we need to fight for is a redistribution of these economic rents for the sake of the people, while at the same time reducing the tax rates on labor and capital. These rents from land are the source of all wealth and are presently held by a small number of wealthy people who will speculate and slow there productive capacity in order to increase profits.

This demand goes out to the people of OWS! If there is one thing we need to change in order to promote equality, environmental protection and job creation through increased productive capacity, this is the solution we need. Please read about economic rent and land taxation in order to fully grasp the concept.

This is something proven in theory and not based on anyone's personal opinion or ideology. While we are divided on many things, it's time to come together with some real demands to benefit the majority of unrepresented individuals of the world. Lets show the top 1% that we know where their unearned wealth is coming from and that we know exactly what is needed in order to bring them back to the real world!

[-] 3 points by TrisHouse (7) 2 years ago

The United States of America has a land mass of 3,717,813 square miles; the US government holds and controls around 30% of that land and buys more each year. That is equivalent to 1,115,344 square miles and is equal to the combined land masses of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Greece, New Zealand, Ireland, Bahrain, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands, Anguilla, and Bermuda. We are a land rich in resources yet we have millions of people homeless and hungry because we have been neglected by a government based on greed and hoarding.

We need to get arable land and vital resources released for use by the Commons - that's us. Together, those that want it, can make self sustaining eco villages throughout the country for use of any American in need. Built and maintained by the people they would have common kitchens, dining halls, libraries, laundries, business centers, organic veggie gardens and farming, schools and clinics, etc. If the basic work of the community was done in 3 hours of community work per day then the rest of the day could be spend in creating non-exploitive commerce to share with folks outside the communities. Had these been available after the Katrina disaster, for example, those folks could have comfortably moved into a safe zone and helped with the work of feeding themselves, etc.

[-] 1 points by homoamnesius (6) 2 years ago

Right on! We don't need a government solution - government is the problem. The USA does not 'own' the land. They only claim so because they can use bureaucrats and 'law enforcement' to enact barriers (including violence) to stop people who want to settle in these places. There is so much free space, except those in power are keeping it un-free. Any semblance of 'ownership' must include tending to the land, and should never require exorbitant costs that most cannot afford.

[-] 1 points by eidos (285) 2 years ago

the former owners of family farms would be furious to see land that could have been returned to them, given to others. Maybe they should be first in line if they agree to institute these practices. They are still deeply bitter. Farming is not like other jobs. Losing a farm and losing a job aren't the same. Losing the farm is devastating/

[-] 3 points by TrisHouse (7) 2 years ago

You are correct. It is land hoarding that should be eliminated. Ted Turner with 2+ million acres while others go homeless is WRONG. T. Boone Pickins able to own a massive aquifer in drought stricken Texas and sell for profit that vital resource, water, to other Americans in need is WRONG. It should be part of the common wealth of ALL of us. Letting land lay fallow while holding it for speculation is WRONG. Hoarding and profit through usury are insanity.

[-] 1 points by eidos (285) 2 years ago

Turner's ranch is land that should be preserved as wild, whether he owns or the public does. Wild lands are important. His ranch is huge and undeveloped and should stay that way

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That's why the government and the rich are buying up the land. Not for the land but what's below the land. And above (airspace). Your other comment about the Commons. I think that's a good idea. Many early US settlements (I know the French settlements did) had common areas for the benefit of the adjoining settlement. You probably knew that though, I just thought I'd throw it in there for those readers that that didn't.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

I suggest all land tax advocates read "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George. He was one of the first to lay out a detialed analysis of the benefits of taxing land over capital and labor. Below is a pdf, re-written in modern English.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pdfs/PandP_Drake.pdf

[-] 1 points by homoamnesius (6) 2 years ago

I'm with TZM and I think taxation is a very wrong idea that would not be viable for making such a transition. Government is not an acceptable means to achieve any positive end.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Yes, I also thought about land and resource taxation as anti-monopoly treatment. Trough, I think regular taxation is not enough, I think it would be much better to introduce quadratic function taxation per owner. Say one unit is enough for one person to live, then number of units a person have squared and multiplied by rate one person can afford. In result, if a person have 1 unit, the person will pay 1rate, if 2units, then 4 rates, if 3 units, then 9rates and so on. That could prevent, for example land monopolization, domain names monopolization, radio spectrum monopolization and other resource monopolization. People would start forming unions instead of corporations, like apartment unions, agriculture unions, tv unions, cell-phone unions. And when hundreds or even thousands people are democratically controlling the union, shady and unsustainable business practices would mostly be eliminated also.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

I never thought about having an exponential increase in a land tax based on the amount of land one owns. I'll have to give that idea some more thought. I feel like having a tax like that would have an unfortunate effect of bringing perfectly useful land out of production and would have an undesired effect on the market. It's still nce to see people out there who actually understand what land means in an economic sense.

[-] 0 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

It could take the land from the monopolies to the unions. The amount of land could be divided by the number of owners(of even considering their share) and then quadratic function could be applied to each of the share. BTW there is difference between exponential function and quadratic functions. Example tax=unitsrate, exp_tax=(exp^units)rate, quad_tax=(units^2)*rate

[-] 1 points by homoamnesius (6) 2 years ago

You can't take land away, because no one really owns it in the first place. The only thing signifying 'ownership' is a piece of paper which supposed guarantees that the government will defend it for you in exchange for property tax. So abolish the paper and you're done! The only way someone can claim land is if they actually use it. No one can 'own' thousands of acres of land. And besides, in your scenario who would divide out the land? Another governmental bureaucracy? These ideas wouldn't work, sorry.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

I agree that "no one really owns it". Depropriation is just one of the ways and it could potentially get violent. Because they believe in that piece of paper and they can still defend it with their guns. This solution is to game the game by it's rules. In my scenario we're using "RBE" and "Market" as "Good Cop and Bad Cop" ;) So while market naturally rejects more and more people, because it's the nature of it's core concept(competition), we can accept them into our RBE Cooperatives. And so could continue until market reject the majority and we will be in RBE. :)

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

So if there were a quadratic increase on the land tax, I am assuming a lot of land would be dumped because the people and companies that own a lot of property wouldn't want to absorb that entire loss. What do you propose should happen to that land? Should it be taken by the government and then leased back out to the public? I can see how this could encourage a redistribution of the land by making it significantly for people to only one one plot of land, but it seems like some things would still need to be considered. The system would need to allow for a gradual redistribution of wealth and at the same time not tax corporations out of business. I'm all against the greed we have witnessed among some of the largest corporations, but they still should be able to make some profit in order to provide more goods and services. Do you know if any countries or cities have attempted this system? I know of some places in the world that do have LVT on a small scale, but I haven't heard of this type of structure.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Well, that's the idea, to drive the monopolies out of business. Maybe to notify them earlier so they could sell the land to people, sell the company to union/cooperative or become union/cooperative. We could a little complicate the Idea by making sure that person's share of taxes in union/cooperative would be proportional to his/her income in relation to incomes of the other members in the union/cooperative. What to do with land that nobody buy? Well, make it free/unallocated, then somebody will buy it ;) :D I haven't heard of it's implementation trough. I think it should be called "quadratic tax".

Disclaimer: This idea is not related or promoted by RBE, TZM or TVP, trough in my opinion might facilitate the transition.

[-] 1 points by eidos (285) 2 years ago

I would have to read up. Sounds really wierd.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

I strongly suggest you take some time to read the link below. With an ECON background it will be really easy for you to follow and you might be surprised about what you learn. I know I have never seen any of this in my undergraduate ECON classes, but it has been accepted by economists as sound economic theory since Adam Smith.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pdfs/PandP_Drake.pdf

[-] 2 points by eidos (285) 2 years ago

Will read, promise, but not sure we need total land reform when shift in cultural values will do

[-] 1 points by TrisHouse (7) 2 years ago

Land reform is vital to break away from the very powerful existing systems that are rigged against us. Only by giving each American a fair share of the land and resources they need to be self sustaining can we release ourselves from the grip of corporate and government wage slavery.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I have to agree, the rent is too damn high.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

Under this system, there is no incentive to decrease rental value. Since we don't have to pay a tax on unused land, it is more profitable to stop using the land and hoard it untill the value goes up. I just read recently that the largest landowner in the U.S. owns over 2 million acres of land. Two million acres?! And most of that land is undevoloped, just waiting for a rise in value.This is exactly what a land tax is designed to put an end to. These peope who large quantities of land, wait for people to move around the land and build infrustructure to increase the land value. These people didn't work for that. They didn't create the land's value and they put forth absulutely no labor of their own to reap the rewards. This is a very extreme case of land speculation, but any transaction made has it's roots from land. Taxing the land would have a ripple effect through the economy, stabalize and nearly eliminate speculation. We as a society claim that hard work will get you anything you want in life, but at the same time people get extremely rich while doing nothing. We need to put the wealth back into the hands of the capitalist and laborer and out of the hands of the speculators and the market changers.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

A federal tax on land? And you don't suspect his might somehow impact the rental price? The rent is just too damn high.

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

The rental price would be affected by a land tax and would have a natural effect of driving rents down. If a landowner has a piece of land and a land tax is implemented they either have the option to hold onto that land and pay the entire value of that land, find someone willing to buy that land, or find someone to rent. If they try to inflate the prices by placing the land value onto the buyer or renter, there will be nobody able to afford to buy or rent. The holder of land would never have an incentive to inflate the prices becuase they would then be forced to absorb the entire costs of the land. this essentially drives prices down to a level where every piece of land owns will be used to it's maximum capacity by elimiminating or greatly reducing inflated land prices.

So you are correct that rent right now is way too high for people to afford and this problem could be eliminated by taking the incentive away from speculative landowners. Another positive by-product would be that borrowing for mortages would not be needed anymore. Many people holding onto land with be practically giving land away to avoid paying the land tax. Best of all people are not accountable for huge lifetime debts. If a family faces hard times from a weakened economy, no longer are they stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. They can simply move to a place that has a lower land value. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people had that mobility and were not bounded by a mortgage that has a diminishing return? This tax is superior in every way to taxes on capital and labor and I propose phasing out the existing system of taxation and moving to a system that is actually based on something tangible.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Typically if a property is mortgaged at 80%, it will see a return over the life of the mortgage of at least double. In more recent years, we've seen values increase by as much as five or six times the original investment, including interest. A landlord might see a return of many times that. And what of the local taxes we already pay on land, other wise known as "property" tax? Increased property taxes diminish market value. Stupid question, but what kind of a world are people living in... when they don't understand that there are but three investment options available to any of us... a home, a business, or the market? Would you prefer to see a lifetime of work, say forty or fifty years, yield a zero profit to yourself? Is working, in whatever manner you choose, merely about survival? And if so, are you not then but a slave unto yourself? I couldn't do it without some profit to myself. And that's not greed - it's equity.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

"Would you prefer to see a lifetime of work, say forty or fifty years, yield a zero profit to yourself? Is working, in whatever manner you choose, merely about survival?"

Yes sir/ma'am these are definitely the questions that everyone should be asking. What kind of life does one have when their entire existence is based on paying down a home that is diminishing in value? Is that what the "American Dream" was supposed to be? I thought the idea was to get everyone to own a home so we all had some sort of chance to life. How does anyone have a right to their existence if they don't have the right to the land they are standing on?! Can we please educate people on land ownership and how 99% of people throughout history have been exploited by the 1% who have owned the majority of the land? We need to stop treating land as capital but as something that is a right to each individual.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

We already have that right in this country. So your statement is rather foolish. There is huge difference between privilege, right, and entitlement. You're asking for an entitlement. No one is entitled to anything without some realistic material contribution. You are not even entitled to respect if you do not afford respect. All is a reciprocal relationship.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

This is not an entitlement program at all. There is absolutely nothing being handed out, no cost to government function and no impedence to the free market. What I am saying is to restructure our tax system based on something that phyically exists, not someone's personal opinions. I mean seriously, someone's very existence requires the land they are standing on. I am not trying to change the free market, but land should not be treated as capital. In economic theory it's not capital, in nature it's not capital and in logic it's not capital.

"No one is entitled to anything without some realistic material contribution" No shit, so why are wealthy land owners entitled to 100% of profits from land when they didn't contribute anything to it's creation? This is not a left-right issue, but a restructuring of the tax system to take the taxes off of capital and labor and to place the taxes on land.

There is nothing foolish about what I'm saying and has been based on sound theories since the days of Adam Smith. Maybe before you start calling people foolish, you should really try to understand the topic you're debating.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I am aware of all the colonial speculation in land... what occurred was exactly as you describe. It was viewed as valuable because of basic differences of economy, the result of thousands of years of territorial war, that served to gradually create landed estates. The colonial viewed land ownership as the only true guarantor of status... and in fact, despite all focus on other motivators, the desire for economic status was equally valid. They came for the land. and there was a tremendous amount of speculation going on that most are not even aware of. But land is no longer a measure or guarantor of status and such a suggestion of a tax only on those who own real estate is ridiculous.


Since you cut me off, or censored me, in your below reply, I will reply here. There is nothing insightful or profound in Adam Smith's writings... he was disregarded in his own time as overly simplistic.

But it should apply here because this is simple math: you have an approaching 20 tril debt. Divide it by 2 billion acres in the US. That equates to ten thousand dollars per acre in Federal tax... add to that the typical state and local income taxes in the northeast of say five to twenty thousand...

The basics of all economic logic begins with the ability to do cost analysis... versus market value. In your example, it just doesn't add up to "feasible."

Worse, those that are motivated to take action against another do it entirely to promote their own self - interest.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

We live in such a complex society that we don't relate one's wealth to the amount of land they have. But, in fact, the land elite still exist. There is a direct correlation between the classes and how much wealth you have. We have so many trading instruments now, we can harness the Electromagnetic spectrum, we can send sinals of light through fiber optics, but all of these things still have their origins from the environment. So do you think we should continue taxing capital and labor, which causes waste and inefficiencies in the market, over taxing land that has no effect on the market. Maybe you just don't understand how taxing capital and labor destroys wealth through a dead weight losses. Taxing land is not some radical idea, but is meant to allow the market to achieve perfect efficiency. I'm not really sure why you are arguing with me?

[-] 2 points by eidos (285) 2 years ago

I can see you are part way through backing out of everything you learned in school, which is good.

You're saying we need to live within our means and understand that money is not wealth, merely currency, and that wealth is the resources linked to nature and human assets and abilties.

It's doable. A matter of values becoming widespread in our culture.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

"The thing is humans are the only species in the universe who use money to live on their planet. "

Did you learn this during your post graduate studies, or did you just make that up?

"This among various other applied examples suggests that money has no purpose in identifying the actual value of any good or service. value is a subjective term that can be manipulated by advertisements, popular culture, traditional beliefs etc."

Who ever said that money attempted to identify the actual value of a good or service? The value is estimated from offer and demand and money is used to represent that value, not identify it.

"When plants grow, they don't pay for their existence. They are the most scientific creatures and their level of understanding their environment is beyond human ingenuity today. They have highly computerized mechanism of sensing and remote sensing. It is through the laws of nature that we humans get all our information. So it is not us who are the intelligent creatures."

Ok, so you are not a post graduate after all.

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

You know, some of the things people say and write on this topic makes me cringe as well. But remember that all problems invite to less educated suggestions, and that is true when it comes to argumentation for theoretically valid solutions and more or less functional or dysfunctional variations of such a solution as well.

Money in the current form might not be needed if we start to move towards a system of sustainability and real freedom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_freedom ) but we would still need a system that keeps the resource budgets in check and in balance, just like we today need to keep voting in check.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 2 years ago

A diamond has value because people want it. The price is set at the supply/demand equilibrium. Despite the fact that you may think its a "worthless" piece of stone, i'm sure there are many wives-to-be out there that would argue otherwise.

I agree that money has a no purpose in assigning value, but it is a mutually agreed upon unit of account which also acts as a store of value.

I don't know where you learned economics but I think it may be time to go back to the drawing board.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

The problem with much of your theory is that you've confused "economics" with "economic logic." There are no viable means of attaining that which humans desire except through trade; "money" is but a tool that facilitates that trade.

We can't survive on sunshine, nor are we capable of deriving H20 or other vital nutrients from the earth.

Human beings have never existed anywhere with out some form of viable economic logic. And the value of resources is determined through a desire versus availability rationale.

Take it from those who have tried it (or not, the choice is yours) - the techno commune is a very boring place to live, as a result of self imposed limits.

[-] 3 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

Yes but the whole existence of economics is from the prisoners dilemma we have created for ourselves. I am well versed in economics and it was a viable system when the world didn't have enough abundance to cater to everyone's needs. The whole idea of "money now is an archiac system that is doing a disservice to humanity. We now can produce more than enough for everyone to live a high quality of life. Have you ever noticed that with all of this increase in technology and displacement of labor, people actually have to work longer to get the basic necessities. Sure we have more gadgets but that is not social progress, that's just building on earlier technologies. It doesn't matter what kind of policies we have in place, as long as there is "money", there will always be people struggling. Why? How is it possible that we produce exponentially more with less labor and it's still just as hard to afford th basic necessities? It's because of price discovery and people will seek to maximize profits based only on what people can afford.

The market doesn't care what our capablities are, but only how much paper money we have. Under this system we could produce Jesus Himself and he would never show up to the market because nobody could afford Him. I know it's hard for anyone to think of a world without money, but money is only a tool that humans have used to allocate resources. Now that we have computers with massive amounts of memory, we don't have to leave the market up to human error anymore. We can design such systems not based on personal opinions, but based on exactly what people demand.

[-] 2 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Yea but you're leaving out major portions of rationale here... money, it's creation, it's invention... is the product of evolutionary desire. No locale is capable of generating all necessary resources, we meet on the crossroads and trade. That's reality. Money enables us to facilitate trade - it's but a tool of trade.

And storage for lean times is evolutionary.... what we label as "greed" is born here with this evolutionary desire.

A world as you envision is only possible through nanotechnology - the ability to meat all needs in absolute abundance with but a magic pill. And we don't have the technology for that yet. But in a world such as this all necessary and material desire is freely met. Then maybe we will have the ability to become the humanity that you would prefer.

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

I agree that the idea of money was something based on human evolution. It is just a natural progression of the human race. But to think that we will have money forever is just silly. Money has only been around for a small part of human history; for tens of thousands of years people were bartering.

Moving to a non-monetary system is something that could be possible with our current technology. We have the abilty to survey the resources of the entire Earth and calculate what people need. We can build databases to act as an online ordering system that would be directly linked to every distribution facility. Really our only limitations to moving to this type of system is that we find it hard to imagine anything different to the system we are used to.

[-] 2 points by Advency (2) 2 years ago

I've tried striking this conversation up with friends and family. The reoccuring critique is simply "What about those that seek to abuse a system?". In the example of databases to record demand and put forth the supply, how do you prevent the hacker that changes the numbers to benefit his own area?

It's a rather sad fact that world we live in seems to breed people that would rather do less for more reward. At least, that is how it seems in this country...

I've been told the only way around this is through time, decades and such. I don't believe we that kind of time, though.... Not at this pace.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

I'm curios about this. Perhaps they are misinformed about the ideas of such a project and do not have the proper concepts to reach proper definitions?

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

"What about those that seek to abuse a system?"

What gain does this person have? Why is someone going to steal or abuse the system if there is no monetary reward? There is no incentive. They can't see it and if they really wanted it, they can just order in from the system that's in place. I know it's hard for anyone to wrap their mind around, but thievery is only a symptom of the system.

So next time someone asks you that question you come right back and ask them, "Why would you steal anything if you couldn't make money off of it?"

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

I agree with ddiggs on this one. An RBE would clearly work its just getting our fellow humans beings to work together as a collective whole.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Again apply some rationale here... Let's say, just as a means of theoretical example, that we need uranium to enrich to fuel our nuclear plants or to build nicer bombs - we must turn to Nigeria. The problem is that we are not the only country or region of the world that wants uranium 235 - China wants it, Russia wants it, in fact virtually every country or people on the planet want it. We offer 50 apples, the Chinese offer 40 oranges... Nigeria wants apples, it doesn't want oranges... so a common medium of exchange or reserve currency in some form helps level the playing field. We call it "money," presently the US "dollar." They're just labels. The point is that we will always be competing for resources.

And the reality is that we have already replaced the dollar - they exist as pluses and minuses, or units of credit to another's account as just digital symbols in a computer database. There really aren't that many dollars in circulation.

Even in the world of the Native American, basically an agricultural society that relied on reserves of corn to survive the winters, moving to follow other resources throughout the rest of the year... some trade with those who commanded other territories - in essence, bordering "states" - was necessary to survive. Some tribes had no access to the ocean or to fishing, others lived too far north to rely on a crop - they traded.

And we do NOT yet have the technology to create resources from thin air. Or from units of carbon. But perhaps someday we will... the closest we can come at the present time as a possible means of resolving this is "nanotechnology." In the meantime, we WILL compete.

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

Your example is still assuming we are using money for trade. I am going to close this discussion because neither of us are going to budge, but I want to respond to your last point. An RBE does not say we create resources from thin air and I have no idea how you even caame up with that. RBE proposed surveying the worlds resources and setting up systems that will reallocate them without the use for money or human error. Money would be replaced and trade would be conducted based on the resources we have, not on what some party decides we need. The database would be entirely sustainable and would be removed from individual opinions. This would have to be a global project because resources are spread all over between countries, but you saying we don't have technology to implement this is just wrong. We just don't have the will to do it.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Just reallocate resources? Are you kidding me? You're joking right? Ok, let's suppose you're serious... an 'RBE' and whose army?

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Our current system is not working. Unless people are aware of, or knowledgeable about what is needed, they will continue to repeat the same mistakes--war, recession, boom and bust, hunger, poverty, and much unnecessary human suffering.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

We will repeat them anyway.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yes this would be true if we were still back in the stone ages. Through advanced technologies all regions become capable of self sustenance. You can now have self contained green houses, Geo thermal power, wind and solar, wave and other automated energy methods to compensate lack and there of.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

You have the opportunity to import resources but that is not the same as self-sustaining. You can go solar if you import the solar panels from China who currently own the market due to our lack of import tariffs. You can even create your own panels if you import the polysilicon from one of the twelve companies that manufacture it. We can go on and on here... no society in the history of mankind has ever been entirely self-sustaining. And no owner of resources has ever failed to maximize the value of his trade.

I don't get all this nonsense about geothermal either. What of all the earthquakes? You plan to simply ignore the risk of the violent upheaval or collapse of massive sections of our real estate?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

When resources are available to everyone without a price tag and not rationed, human values undergo considerable change.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

You have forgotten one major element - no locale or region is capable of self sustenance. That's the very reason the hunter gathers, as traveling populations, existed for tens of thousands of years. We are limited by both our geography and human desire, that requires we be possessed of a rather distinct identity, entirely focused on survival through self promotion.

Become a scientist, focus on nanotechnology - it is our only hope for the noncompetitive society.

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

I think its clear that a fully functional "RBE" is only possible in a unified world. Also, what you stated about the value of resources (determined through a desire versus availability rationale) is true enough. I think this will be continue to be true and I don't think it undermines the logic of an RBE.

Remember that just because a currency is not used, it does not need that there is no budgets or ways to express preference. Its just that it needs to be done within (socially and environmentally) sustainable parameters.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I watched the video - it's all psycho babble.

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Agenda 21 is all about high density cities and total control of resources. Like it or not there would be no freedom in such a society. http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution/

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

But not all possible versions of a RBE-type economy requires high density cities or "total control" over resources.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

You're right, I don't like it. I guess that ends that doesn't it?

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

Which video?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

The RBE link that was posted. It's a full half hour or so of psycho babble - words without substance.

[-] 2 points by technoviking (484) 2 years ago

the whole existence of economics is from efficient allocation of scarce resources.

prisoner's dilemma is a separate class of problems for different set of scenarios altogether.

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

Our economy is a terribly inefficient system for allocating resources. Massive amounts of resources are wasted along the way in order to maximize profits. Efficiency is in some way the enemy to the economy. There is a certain amount of planned obsolescence becuase it is not profitable to make a product if it doesn't eventually break.

Just one example of the inefficiency of the market can be seen in housing. There are millions of people who need a home and millions of homes just sitting there. The only reason these homes are not being used is because it is more profitable to speculate and wait for prices to go up. What good are these homes just sitting there? This is part of the arguement for a RBE. Economics, specifically money itself, used to be a great tool to reallocate resources in a scarce world, but now it has become a hindrance to our progress. So much is produced and just sits there because people don't have the money to buy it. We obviously have no lack of labor and technology to produce these things, but we have a lack of money to get these goods to people. This thing we call an economy is madness and is the very definition of "anti-economy".

[-] 2 points by technoviking (484) 2 years ago

you don't need planned obsolescence. entrepreneurs who believe they can build a better mousetrap will come and destroy your product.

companies aren't "planning obsolescence". they are actively producing new products that are hopefully better than the previous. upgrades to quality of life. windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, xp, vista, 7. cars that have dramatically improved in safety and speed. if they know they're planning to upgrade their product in 5 years, why bother building a product that last 100 years? would you pay $1m for a abacus made out of diamond? you can buy a scientific calculator for $10.

efficiency arises from government interference. you should know this from econ101. tariffs, taxes, quotas, all shift the output and price away from equilibrium. the clear outcome is that producers who used to be willing to produce now aren't, and the same for consumers. more people became unhappy.

housing has always been interfered with by the government. cheap loans, housing mandates, misguided incentives placed on financial instis, all conspired to make the housing boom even worse than it used to be.

housing is not easy to "consume". you have to convince people to move to different states to live in houses they don't want to live in, and then find jobs that they do not wish to have, take a huge hit to their incomes, make serious changes to their lifestyle. some do, but most aren't willing to accept that.

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

"housing has always been interfered with by the government. cheap loans, housing mandates, misguided incentives placed on financial instis, all conspired to make the housing boom even worse than it used to be"

The housing bust wasn't necessarily due to what the government did, but what they didn't do. They allowed banks to lend at extremely low rates resulting in an over-inflated market.

I do agree with you though that many inefficiencies do arise from government taxation. But even if we were to completely eliminate taxes, a free-market will not magically meet the needs of everyone. There still will exist more debt than money in the system. It is systemically impossible for everyone to prosper. Even if the world was made up of 7 billion of your clones, there would still be billions of you starving. This system is oppressive, manmade and is beginning to outgrow its usefulness.

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 2 years ago

So who makes my snowboard in a resource based economy, and do I buy my lift ticket with "resources" not money? I'm confused on how you propose this to work

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

In a nutshell, a machine will make your snowboard (which may already be the case), and you won't have to buy a lift ticket, you can just get on the lift.

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 2 years ago

not to sound like a jerk but the best snowboards are hand made, and who would deliver the snowboard to me after I order it online? Even then who would maintain the lift, they very dangerous machines and need to be repaired constantly. Also who would run the lift.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

One thing a RBE advocates is a complete system overhaul. Meaning the lift will be made to be more efficient and will be ran by automation (computers, censors, etc). Transportation will eventually be fully automated. There's already cars that can drive themselves. One experiment a truck drove itself over 1,000 miles I think, in traffic, through multiple countries. Also, in a RBE, you would probably pick up a snowboard every time you went to a ski resort and return it when you're done free of charge. Products would be made top quality with less need for competition, meaning instead of having 20+ cell phones to choose from, there would maybe be 1 that is designed to be upgraded when new features become available.

[-] 2 points by CuttheBS (143) 2 years ago

I like eating crabs, I'm sure a lot of people do too. Who's going to go to the Baring Sea and get those crabs?

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

With technology, I'm sure we can farm those particular crabs anywhere.

[-] 2 points by technoviking (484) 2 years ago

make sure it farms some shark fins... 1.3bn in asia love those things.

i personally quite enjoy it too.

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 2 years ago

So the resort is run by robots who do not require pay and nobody is needed to insure safety? Hundreds of people die each year from snow sports are robots expected to provide emergency medicine or are we just trusting people will do a good job for "resources"

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 2 years ago

ski lifts already are run by computers with censors, but people are needed to make sure guests do not end up under a gondola. The censors can not tell resistance because then the lift would stop for wind even more frequently.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I'm sure that the lift can be rebuilt to where there is no need for human labor.

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Since you aren't an electrical/mechanical engineer I'll choose to ignore your foolishness.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Have you ever ridden a train at an airport? The ones that take you from one end of the concourse to the other. Everyone I've ridden has been automated. No reason why a ski lift can't operate using the same principles.

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

It's not the same thing and it cannot be reduce to such a simplistic thought process. By the way the trains are still monitored by people.

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

It's the same concept, moving people from point A to point B. Different variables yes, but all variables that can be controlled via non human labor. And yes, trains are still monitored by people, but that will come to pass as well.

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 2 years ago

They really can't it takes a human to run the computer that runs the very complex system that is a high speed detachable ski lift. Also a human being is needed to ensure safety, like i sad you can't just have a machine running people over and crushing them. It would be impossible for a machine to distinguish between wind resistance and the resistance given by a human body being crushed, so someone has to work the lift incase of emergency. One more point is who makes this impossible machine? Humans.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

1) The lift would have to be made so it would be hard to end up under gondola. 2) There are other people riding with you that could notice that you ended up there. 3) There would be volunteers, the ones who just love to ride there who would perceived as an honor to be able to maintain and improve every aspect of it to it's best condition and make it as safe as possible. They are the ones that knows exactly what needs to be improved. ;)

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

First off, a sensor CAN differentiate between wind pressure and a human body. It was just in the news that there was a test done of a fully automated truck that traveled more than 1,000 miles from Asia to Europe without anyone inside. It didn't wreck because of censors picking up other vehicles and pedestrians. It had no problem differentiating between wind and objects (human/vehicle). Here's an example but not the exact video I was looking for, but I think it's the same German company. http://www.euronews.net/2011/09/22/a-car-with-no-driver/

Also, if a ski lift couldn't be made to be automated (I know it can), then instead of a typical ski lift, it could be an automated tram that leaves every 10 minutes with multiple passengers. They already have those now.

On your comment on who would make the machines..the same that makes them now! Other machines!

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 2 years ago

Assuming that all this can be accomplished, what would make the company building the lift build such a, for lack of a better word, expensive lift that would accomplish this? and give it "freely" to another "company" that is not receiving any compensation for its efforts? Or are they compensated?

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

There won't be any companies per se. Have you seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8

It's a short 15 minute video that explains a lot of the concepts.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

It must be tough admitting that your field is flawed. Especially after you've spent so much time and energy into it.

My hat goes off to you sir.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I agree with much of what you've said here... including the bit about the intelligent apple seeds. Here's the thing:

I have very simple needs: I want an egg sandwich for breakfast, one #3 with a medium coke (hold the cheese) for lunch, and I since I don't ever (ever) do Italian, just throw me a T Bone or a NY Strip for dinner. Also, if you could throw in one small 160 lb pig for the summer pig roast, that'd be cool. Oh, and also, I have this strange predilection for fresh tomatoes (it's a "summer" thing) and Kosher dill pickles.

I need 20,000 rounds a year and a few worms for my hooks... also enough gasoline to get my scoot to CA and back three times... a six pack of Bud for Saturday nights, and PS: all the pussy you can send me.

My wife on the other hand needs a ten thousand square foot mini-mansion (Baroque if you don't mind; she's Italian, definitely) and a summer place in the Hamptons (so she can work on her "all-over" tan)... She wants a Mercedes convertible (silver), a "Beamer" just "because," and just in case she decides to actually walk somewhere - she's going to need at least a thousand pairs of shoes.

Personally I hate diamonds; but my wife (apparently) hates Zirconia... so please send me plenty of those real ones, ok? Also one maid will do, but she's going to need at least 5 Mexican gardeners (because she's trying to learn Spanish).

"Materialistic," it seems, much like "wealth," is more than the sum of its parts.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You Sir, Are A Copy/Pasting Fraud

Real Source

[-] 0 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

Great subject for a "thesis"; However, just like Karl Marx, you leave to most important aspect of human existence out of the equation......."HUMAN NATURE". What humans "want" will always trump what humans "need".

[-] 2 points by ferghingaro (6) 2 years ago

There´s no such thing as 'human nature'. We are a byproduct of our enviornment, culture and propaganda. It´s no human nature, it´s HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Pls, watch this videos (just few minutes each):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHQKJIQIjTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVWMvXx8z2E&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36HquPzdxf4&feature=related

[-] 2 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

Good videos. I admire anyone that is willing to "think". "Thinking" is a scarce resource. As usual, I "may" agree with some of their opinions, and others I "may" not. This forum, nor YouTube, are the best venues to allow for "quality" discussions on these subjects; However, I did not form an opinion "against". Consider that a "win" for the time being.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

http://tromsite.com/#

(over 12 hours worth of video)

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Absolute Garbage! It is America though and you have the right to be wrong.

[-] 0 points by uslynx81 (203) 2 years ago

You should read -How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes - It will teach you more about economics then any college in America.

[-] 0 points by SpaghettiMonster (90) 2 years ago

"The thing is humans are the only species in the universe who use money to live on their planet."

Ok, it's odd to see someone who has studied anything at a post grad level type something like that. How in the bloody heck could you know that?

[-] 2 points by zmtee (11) 2 years ago

That's just an exaggerated expression, but you should get the idea. DUH!

[-] 1 points by SpaghettiMonster (90) 2 years ago

I suppose I should have! :)

[-] -1 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 2 years ago
  1. We don't know about the universe yet. We have not explored it.
  2. We are the only species on earth that utilize money, but we are also the only species that shits in toilets too, so that's not saying much. Is the rationale that we do that like animals too?
  3. You define plants as Computerized, and the most scientifically advanced understanding of environment is beyond human enginuity. Which human? I mean perhaps you, or some of the protesters are on par with a grapefruit tree. I have certainly mastered my environment vastly beyond the capabilities of my plants.

Your thesis is in dire straits dude, and if you really are working on it (which I doubt) you are obviously one of the 99% that overpaid on worthless education. Whatever they taught you was bunk.

[-] -2 points by littleg (452) 2 years ago

While I agree with you, I would be interested in Short term practical realistic solutions for today's problems.

[-] 2 points by TheEconomist (12) 2 years ago

Let's see. Today we have the resources and the technology for a RBE. Whereas the money required in the initial phase to set up such a system is with the banksters...

[-] 2 points by kevinsutavee (209) 2 years ago

if enough people rally around this concept perhaps the richard bransons, bill gates, etc's of the world will contribute toward jump starting.. SPREAD AWARENESS.. this is the first phase

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Wouldn't most Americans see a decrease in their overall quality of life? Would we still have nice houses with AC and flat screen HDTV?

I don't ask this condescendingly, but because this (along with lots of other stuff) is what most Americans are used to and would not want to give up.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

HDTV? Sure, why not? +Without commercials and msm propaganda and indoctrination. ;) Trough with free movie theaters with free movies and free popcorn in them, I don't know why would you want HDTV. ;) ACs can be easily powered by solar panels.

[-] 1 points by MattFryy (3) 2 years ago

Think about it. Everything you own and use has been a technical accomplishment, but every time technology gets better, humans get displaced. There are no other sectors for people to move to now and when the service sector becomes completely automated, unemployment will skyrocket.

Imagine the quality of goods when 99% of production was allowed to be done by machines without displacing human employment, where the best possible materials can be used without having to remain cost effective and where things could be made to last because instead of it shortening the buying cycle when things break (speeding up the economy), it would actually be considered wasteful and anti-economic. This is a true economy, standards of living would improve for everyone to the best they could possibly be at the time.

[-] 1 points by grene (10) from Talent, OR 2 years ago

With energy descent unless we come up with a solution no one but the rich will be able to afford the energy to use AC and other energy requiring electronics.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

We are probably many many years from that though.

[-] 1 points by grene (10) from Talent, OR 2 years ago

Short term solutions are the cause not the solution to our problems.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 2 years ago

When long term solution seems impossible to implement due to various constraints, I guess we should go with a piece meal approach..

[-] 0 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

We have a very long term solution that can be implemented very quickly! http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 2 years ago

I'm ready right now ! Hopefully a majority of people will also support this.

[-] 1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Yes, for the love of life and a life of love. Everyone get behind the family food gardens concept.

[-] -1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Yes I am very concerned that people may be trying to lead us into a panopticon society, or that there may be transhumanists at work. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/rant/panopticon-essay.html

I much prefer the family food gardens idea where the best food is grown with love. http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution/

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

It's neither panopticon, nor transhumanist. We don't want to watch anybody or enhance humans to work for humans, but enhance machines to work for humans. And circular cities proposed by Venus Project are just an enhancement and are optional. If you want food grown with love, the only way to make sure that it's actually grown with love is to growth it yourself ;)

[-] 5 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

No.

[-] 1 points by TheoSocrates (51) 2 years ago

...and why not?

[-] 6 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

That wasn't part of the question. But, since you asked, I have no interest in fantastical utopianism. I want real solutions to real problems. That is how to realize a more just world.

[-] 1 points by TheoSocrates (51) 2 years ago

1.) How is basing an economy on actual resources rather than fiat (not-real) currency "fantastical utopianism"?

It would seem to me that the myth of an ever inflating economy - perpetual economic growth - within an Earth of finite actual resources is much more "fantastical utopianism" - but I'm open to learning.

2.) What are your real solutions?

[-] 7 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

1) Dreams of annihilating the actual world economy and reconstructing it from scratch based on untested ideological principles is, by definition, fanstastical utopianism.

2) We in OWS want to hold Wall Street accountable. Towards that end, we demand: 1) regulation of lobbying and campaign finance to keep moneyed influence out of politics, 2) regulation of markets, to ensure that they function for the benefit of all, 3) prosecution of white-collar crime, to ensure respect for the rule of law, and 4) an expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which has put billions of dollars into the hands of those who already have while piling trillions of dollars of debt onto the next generation.

These demands are so simple even the MSM can understand them. What's more is that they are popular and realistic solutions to the real problems we face today. That's why they will be realized.

[-] 3 points by joerauh (32) 2 years ago

No. If I take a tree and make a canoe out of it, I do not believe that every other human on the planet owns a share of that canoe which is equal to my share. Do you?

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 2 years ago

How about I make a chair out of a tree and offer you to use the chair in exchange for my use of the canoe for the next couple of hours?

[-] 1 points by joerauh (32) 2 years ago

i'd be happy to entertain the offer. but i might prefer to trade the use of my canoe to a fisherman who would let me eat half his catch.

this is fun, let's build more stuff!

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 2 years ago

Now let's entertain the thought that there are actually billions of canoes and they are being maintained by solar-powered canoe-repair robots. Why would we even discuss which canoe is yours and which is mine? Wouldn't it be just as pleasant to just pick any canoe we want and enjoy a couple of hours on the water.

[-] 1 points by joerauh (32) 2 years ago

something tells me that as long as there is heterogeneity there will be perceived scarcity.

however i do have some lovely tulip bulbs which i will give you for free since they aren't particularly sought-after now, despite being lovely ; )

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 2 years ago

I really appreciate the offer. Though I do live in the Netherlands which probably has the highest rate of tulip bulbs per capita, and I don't have a yard.

[-] 3 points by JRoberts (21) from Coogee, NSW 2 years ago

So the man that walked 100s of kilometres across the desert to find a gold depository should be forced to share that with the people who stayed at home?

Is that what you are saying, if it is then I say NO.

[-] 1 points by AerospaceSystemsEngineer (20) 2 years ago

That man isn't very smart doing all that walking given that we have global satellites that can use ground penetrating radar and other systems to scope out resources and measure what the Earth has.

One of the core characteristics of the RBE is a complete inventory of everything the Earth has as far as resources go, and complete global resource budget, if you will. :)

But let's run with your premise...you assume that such a person would "deserve" all the rights to such a find and be able to hold that to their self, counter to the fact that all that gold doesn't mean anything without the help and collaboration of other people who would extract it, refine it and use it for various means.

No man is an island, and no find on this Earth is the sole property of just one person. That narrow minded, hoarding and scarcity based mode of thinking is Neanderthalic, and not befitting a person in the 21st century who understands that all mankind is interconnected & interdependent. :)

[-] 2 points by JRoberts (21) from Coogee, NSW 2 years ago

It was a metaphor. Gold rush? Ringing any bells?

So you honestly believe that someone who never risked anything, lived a comfortable safe life is entitled to the fruits of someone's elses hard work, risk and labour?

[-] 0 points by AerospaceSystemsEngineer (20) 2 years ago

Ah, you're focusing on the old world notion that people are serving other people for their basic needs, so person who "works harder" more deserving than the person who did little. In a case where money dominates who gets what and how much, I would say that that mentality is justified.

However, that is not the case in the RBE. We have the technical capability to automate the vast majority of the labor requirement for all the biological needs (Air, Food, Water, Sleep (comes with less stress when the other needs are met) & Medical Care) and Quality of Life Needs (Shelter, Clothing (textile production in general), Education, Energy, Transportation and Communication) to abundantly cover every human on the planet.

The moment we were able to do this was the moment all those old world ideologies became irrelevant, because a robot or computer doesn't care what you do with your time. It simply does its job, and happens to do it so well that every person on the planet can enjoy a high standard of living, no matter what vocation they aspire too. :)

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Not at all, people should have the voluntary option whether they wish to join or not.

However if that man's quality of life would increase exponentially I think the tradeoff would be worth it.

[-] 2 points by JRoberts (21) from Coogee, NSW 2 years ago

What? People that invest capital and risk their livelihoods to establish mines, forestry etc. should not have to share the rewards of their labour with anyone else. Apart from paying a minimum of taxes.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Again I must stress, voluntary.

In a monetary system your logic would make sense however I am speaking from a resource based economic system where automated technology/machinery replace human physical labor and money is replaced by alternative means of distributing resources.

Please watch the videos below for a better explanation

  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOO_AVwfZ9Q
[-] 3 points by stochastic (6) 2 years ago

YES. Watch 'RSA Animate - Drive' on YouTube to learn the scientific facts on incentive, what we have been told is a lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

RBE is not communism and to say it is, you are just avoiding real thought. Our current system is closer to communism as it was in practice than a RBE by far. Communism is a type of monetary system. RBE is an economic system.

[-] 3 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

Yes RBE should be the goal of humanity. I don't know if we can ever achieve perfect equality, but we need to set up the system so that income between the classes will converge over time. I feel if we are ever going to achieve an economy based solely on resources, we need to steer our focus to equal opportunities to land. Our very existence requires the land that we are standing on and redistributing this land can be done naturally through a land tax. No longer will people hold land for speculation on rising prices, but will instead lower rents to avoid taking a 100% loss through the rental tax. If the landowner couldn't find a renter, they would either have to make productive use of the land, find a buyer or continue paying the tax at a net loss. Even through this taxation, people would be paying less than what they might pay for a mortgage, but would take away the incentive of holding land for unproductive uses. This does not affect the people of the mortgage and through a land tax, borrowing for a mortage would seize to exist. Instead of payingthe mortgage, one would receive full ownership of the land and pay a land tax. Any additional improvements to increase the value of the property would be exempt from taxation, only the land underneath the foundation would be taxed. No more would we see vacant lots or destructive urban sprawl, because the incentive of holding any additional land than what is needed will be eliminated.

The theory of economic rent has been around for some time, but land taxation has seldom been implemented throughout history. It is well known that the factors of production are composed of land, labor and capital. Land, in the economic sense, can be explained as anything with a productive capacity that has not been created by men or women, but has value created by the community. Labor is any human energy spent , whether by the mind or through brute force, that contributes to a means of production. Capital is mainly what is spent from savings for future production. Under the current system, mainly labor and capital are taxed, while the landed elite make out like bandits with the rents that are created by the community! It is no surprise that civilizations have suffered from vast inequalities since the founding of the first governments.

What we need to fight for is a redistribution of these economic rents for the sake of the people, while at the same time reducing the tax rates on labor and capital. These rents from land are the source of all wealth and are presently held by a small number of wealthy people who will speculate and slow there productive capacity in order to increase profits.

This demand goes out to the people of OWS! If there is one thing we need to change in order to promote equality, environmental protection and job creation through increased productive capacity, this is the solution we need. Please read about economic rent and land taxation in order to fully grasp the concept.

This is something proven in theory and not based on anyone's personal opinion or ideology. While we are divided on many things, it's time to come together with some real demands to benefit the majority of unrepresented individuals of the world. Lets show the top 1% that we know where their unearned wealth is coming from and that we know exactly what is needed in order to bring them back to the real world!

[-] 2 points by jamesvapor (221) 2 years ago

it's always seems easier to give someone a dollar for free than it is to get a free dollar. lets just give the 1% the rest of the cash. and see what they do with it.

[-] 3 points by LibertyFirst (325) 2 years ago

When control over food, water and energy are under centralized control and that centralized control system becomes corrupted, how do the 99% rebel?

Please don't say TZM is uncorruptible. All systems are corruptible and in the entirety of human history, not one has managed to avoid it.

[-] 2 points by AerospaceSystemsEngineer (20) 2 years ago

"All systems are corruptible and in the entirety of human history, not one has managed to avoid it."

That almost sounds like this: No one in the course of human history has ever been to the moon, so how do you expect to get there?

Of course, we did go there, so using human history as a benchmark without understanding what the RBE is all about is kind of disingenuous. And please don't confuse TZM with the RBE. The RBE is the system itself. TZM is simply a large group that advocates such a paradigm shift.

Anyway, let's put it this way...at no time in human history has mankind ever been able to produce all the biological needs (Air, Food, Water, Sleep (comes with less stress when the other needs are met) & Medical Care) and Quality of Life Needs (Shelter, Clothing (textile production in general), Education, Energy, Transportation & Communication) for the entire human population without overtly subjugating some people to serve (work) for other people.

However, thanks to computer, automation and robotics, we can provide technical abundance of all those things, and robots don't care how long they work, or how mundane or repetitive the job is.

Also, the RBE is NOT centralized. That is a common misconception. It's actually highly decentralized. Local production & local distribution using the most efficient and ecologically sounds systems possible at the time, but global information sharing that helps everyone else learn the best way to do something, or how to overcome a problem by learning what solutions others came up with to handle unforeseen problems.

Abundant access to everything you need to live, and live well, automatically creates a different mindset, a mindset that moves past the caveman mentality of hoarding, deceit, and controlling others. In short, there's no advantage to being a prick when everyone on the planet has all they need to live well. :)

[-] 2 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

I agree 100%.

So many people have clamoured to say yes to this centralized system and claim that it is a panacea, I figured I would get clobbered for pointing out that the more centralized the system, the more vulnerable to corruption it is.

The very traits that make the system easy to control also make it easy to be co-opted and corrupted by the few: centralization, conformity, interdependence, interconnectedness. One World Government.

My question is: what is the carrying capacity of this model system? Surely it is not the current world population?

Why doesn't an individual have a voice in any decisions made? Is there any autonomy? The proponents talk about computers 'deciding' everything - but this is not artificial intelligence, not on a system level, anyhow. I get how robots can take care of manual labor. I'm talking about who controls the computers. The power would lie in the hands of the computer programmers instead of 'politicians'.

Someone is always running the system. We don't live in a eutopia. Greed and corruption always floats to the top, like an oil slick on top of a pond. What are we going to do about criminals?

Also, are people allowed to freely reproduce? If this isn't an inalienable human right and liberty, I don't know what is.

I read Brave New World, and I have to say - RBE looks a helluva lot like Huxley's chilling techno-eutopian society.

[-] 2 points by kevinsutavee (209) 2 years ago

the point is... when you look further into the concept, in a society of abundance what is the purpose of being corrupt?? as you have access to all you need it eliminates the motivation to hoard or circumvent ... there will likely be a black market as has always existed.. and this too would likely phase out over time naturally

[-] 2 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

What is the purpose of 1% being corrupt?

[-] 2 points by kevinsutavee (209) 2 years ago

depends on who you ask ;-) ... lets not engage in meaningless debate.. for now.. there are more important tasks at hand pertaining to physical barriers..

[-] 2 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

barriers to what?

[-] 2 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 2 years ago

At least they will not be given us printed paper... in a corrupt system nothing will work anyways. If corruption hapen on 1915, the dollar will not be backupetd with gold. Even was says that what ended the Roman imperium, was thay started "printing"money on the false coins that goverment made themselfs.

[-] 2 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

Damn right. Nero fiddled while Rome burned and he was the first to debase the currency of the people.

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

This is very true. If we each have a garden we can ensure that we have no need to buy harmful GM products or pay any taxes to a government engaged in war to steal unneeded resources. If we blindly pass responsiblility to an elite that hides behind a technocracy we are still responsible for the exploitation of resources. Venus Project is quite possibly propaganda for agenda 21 to imprison us in cities and impose a panopticon socitety. http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution/

[-] 3 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

RBE is the end goal. It isn't an overnight shift.

I agree that individuals must begin assuming more responsibility for living self-sustainably before expanding that into a community and into a global society. Self-sustainability comes from self management and personal responsibility and grow from the bottom-up, rather than the top-down.

But don't simply dismiss the RBE concept. If we successfully shift our cultural values to support more sustainable and collaborative values then such a system is feasible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjHTrwCstcM

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

On a sidenote:

(cities and urban environments)

Believe it or not Manhattan is the greenest city based on the average consumption of its resident. Think about it, no gas powered cars, fewer large appliances, public transportation, heat escapes from one apartment into another, less nature is rezoned for homes/garages/asphalt. It provides easier access to almost everything.

Suburbanization on the otherhand destroys ecosystems in order to create new housing developments, roads, and other infrastructure. As access to education, entertainment, food, and other necessities grow further apart non-automated forms of transportation become less feasible. Heat in a home escapes without being reused. Also, most families require multiple vehicles. The notorious traffic congestion of cities of course comes from (you guessed it) neighboring suburbs. Overall, the development of suburbs destroy the environment at a much faster rate than urban cities.

Dense urban environments are greener and more environmentally friendly in it's area per resident.

The drawback: a higher density of people require greater efficiencies to deal with the pollution which will build up from unsustainable practices. (technology) And those living within the cities are dependent on the systems put in place to support them. e.g. The monetary system require residents to possess jobs to obtain money in order to obtain survival needs and pay rent.

We can't simply expect everyone to leave the city and live a suburban life but more importantly if this was to happen much of the land inhabited by nature would be destroyed for suburban development.

A little example of how much land could be returned to nature.. http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

This is completely untrue. High density cities destroy nature by detaching people from who they really are. The people in the dense urban environments are so detached that they take no responsiblity for the environmental destruction to produce uranium, gas, oil, genetically modified foods, the vast unproductive waste of lands to industrial agriculture, soild erosion, poisoning of groundwater, rivers, the exploitation of people in other countries to produce disposable products, clothing etc. The suburbs are also relatively high density with insufficient land to obtain food and water from nature. Heat in homes escapes because of poor insulation and bad design. Education provided by people wasting energy on dead horses such as a belief in money can never be of any value. Middle men only serve to shift the responsiblity we each have for the destruction we contribute to. People are an intrical part of nature and have the ability to create environments that provide for our needs and the needs of other species. Plants breath in the air we breath out. Children benefit from being in a living environment and learning about life rather than not being able to go outside for fear of being knocked over by unconscious beings. http://www.8giftsfromnature.com

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Your romantic notions of man joining with nature are naive unless nature is incorporated into the society man chooses to create. (Technology + nature)

You don't think that more people leaving cities to fill up the countryside won't bring wide swaths of asphalt roads, large appliances, plumbing, and housing with them? If everyone lived attached to nature with all the modern day amenities there would be no nature left.

Even if everyone created new smaller 'sustainable' homes, they would need to be duplicated which would use more resources/nature. Again, most suburbs aren't concentrated enough because cars are necessary to access everything from education to entertainment.

By localizing people into cities access to everything increases, including parks and nature. It's mass migration away from cities that wreaks havoc on nature in the current monetary system.

Unless man utilizes technology to re-connect with nature, unsustainable practices will continue. This is a major purpose behind a RBE. "Create sustainable abundance with human concern"

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

"Your romantic notions of man joining with nature"

Man is nature and can not join with what Man is. The fact that you do not understand this renders your opinions dangerous and false. http://www.greengardenearth.com/media/video/loveforlifeinterview.mp4

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum

Context: We are a technology dependent society and technophobic communes will not appeal to the masses.

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

You are using a straw man argument. I didn't say anything about communes. Why are you using such disinformation tactics and why will you not accept that Man is part of nature?

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

You are ignoring the context from previous posts completely.

You made the assumption. I'm referring to Man's current lifestyle. Why do you pit nature against technology?

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Everything you said in previous posts proves you believe Man is not part of nature so your beliefs are based on a foundation of quick sand.

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Again, context. You keep projecting false assumptions onto me. It's obvious you have little more to offer to the conversation than 'you should love nature unquestionably'.

Your previous posts imply you fear using technology yet are posting on an internet forum. You pit technology against nature for no logical reason and ignore any information that indicates technology can create more abundance than is seen in nature. You assume I disassociate myself from nature because I do not verbally agree to your views. I'm sure I can find more issues with your position but it's not productive.

Good luck on your gardening.

edit: response to the post below this

I repeat, I refer to man's lifestyle. Man's lifestyle is not attached to nature, nor the natural order seen in jungles. It is unsustainable because the monetary system demands infinite growth. Technology must be applied to meet man's needs sustainably in order for our species to survive, hence the RBE.

As for GM monocultures. This is a product of the monetary system. Most GMO's are simply created to obtain patents which grant corporations a portion of all proceeds sold by farmers. Vertical farming and localization of residential areas can reduce our need to consume so much land for a particular type of crop. However, again this requires technology to maintain adequate sunlight, water consumption, spacing, etc. You could apply permaculture methods but the question is how much land does it require and how efficiently does it harvest food in comparison? So this would also require technology to model and test which methods are best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1clRcxZS52s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBrgRsjR-JQ&feature=related

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Not at all we can see you believe Man is seperate from nature. Look at what you have said: "Suburbanization on the otherhand destroys ecosystems" An ecosystem is not something Man is part of. "Dense urban environments are greener and more environmentally friendly" Very useful for enslaving and controlling people but this is just propaganda. "much of the land inhabited by nature would be destroyed" [read inefficient GM monocultures and mass destruction to supply the city dwellers. out of sight is out of mind. Destruction you don't see is not to be mentioned] "romantic notions of man joining with nature" How can you join with what you are? "If everyone lived attached to nature" How can you attach to what you are? "By localizing people into cities access to everything increases, including parks and nature." Ok so you want access to nature but how can you access something you are already part of?

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

You do not "centralize" it. You you use a distributed, networked system. "Coordinated" yes, for efficiency and accounting reasons, but locally controlled.

[-] 2 points by LibertyFirst (325) 2 years ago

In practical terms though, there is indeed a small group of people controlling the 'coordination'. This body is corruptible.

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

Well, if you make the process transparent and mostly "information only" i.e. not a decision making body, you can get around many of the problems. In the cases where it needs to be decision making for the sake of functionality, you can have it totally transparent and possibly have possibilities of over ruling decisions locally. If people "in charge" have a tendency to make a mess of things or abuse their possition, then they can be removed from the such positions of power.

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

A few Questions: why do certain groups become corrupted?

Is it because they want to live a better life than they currently are? Is it because they are bribed by groups that want to live better lives? Is it because they are jealous? Is it because they are addicted to power?

More importantly, how do they enforce their corruption? (rules, laws, military, police, etc)

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Some thoughts. Money is a big part of this. http://discussions.ghanaweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=109693&sid=4c8db048fc637c927b86a8c1c1a4158d

This is related to people not having their own gardens and giving up power to others even and especially corrupt people. The landless poor can be jeulous and direct negative energy at the rich and themselves be corrupted by want. The institutions you mention are very attractive to the corrupted who may be corrupted by the power they have over the landless poor and because they have too much land to manage alone. The mistake could be tilling the soil and a seperation from the feminine or nature and believing a thought, which leads to the false imagination of oneself. http://www.ringingcedarsforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=365

[-] 3 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Absolutely, 'if' we can create abundance through technology so extremely little human labor is required.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

I absolutely agree. The more advanced society becomes, the less need we will have for labor. The problem is that if we don't make some changes soon, only a few people are going to reap the rewards of these labor saving technologies. All wealth is created through land and the only limit to this wealth are the limits we have with technology. If everything comes from the land, we should start by proposing a land tax to spread this abundance to everyone.

The theory of economic rent has been around for some time, but land taxation has seldom been implemented throughout history. It is well known that the factors of production are composed of land, labor and capital. Land, in the economic sense, can be explained as anything with a productive capacity that has not been created by men or women, but has value created by the community. Labor is any human energy spent , whether by the mind or through brute force, that contributes to a means of production. Capital is mainly what is spent from savings for future production. Under the current system, mainly labor and capital are taxed, while the landed elite make out like bandits with the rents that are created by the community! It is no surprise that civilizations have suffered from vast inequalities since the founding of the first governments.

What we need to fight for is a redistribution of these economic rents for the sake of the people, while at the same time reducing the tax rates on labor and capital. These rents from land are the source of all wealth and are presently held by a small number of wealthy people who will speculate and slow there productive capacity in order to increase profits.

This demand goes out to the people of OWS! If there is one thing we need to change in order to promote equality, environmental protection and job creation through increased productive capacity, this is the solution we need. Please read about economic rent and land taxation in order to fully grasp the concept.

This is something proven in theory and not based on anyone's personal opinion or ideology. While we are divided on many things, it's time to come together with some real demands to benefit the majority of unrepresented individuals of the world. Lets show the top 1% that we know where their unearned wealth is coming from and that we know exactly what is needed in order to bring them back to the real world!

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Depending on how it is implemented, this may also have the unintended consequence of concentrating more of the population into urban environments. If so, it would also reduce our residential populations environmental impact.

The suburbs and rural land from which they left can then be utilized for agriculture or returned to nature in order to begin restoring local ecosystems. Concentrated urban environments also grant residents access to necessities without the use of an automobile further reducing their overall carbon emission.

I like the idea. If it promotes localization, it can reduce the environmental impact tremendously while promoting equality. However there are other issues which would need to be addressed with it.

Many current cities aren't self sustaining and rely on aging infrastructure. The cities themselves would need to become self sustaining and in some cases it would be more efficient to design a new city rather than perform patchwork/maintenance constantly on old cities.

In this way it would be advantageous to develop new RBE test cities.

This idea sounds like a win.

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 2 years ago

"Depending on how it is implemented, this may also have the unintended consequence of concentrating more of the population into urban environments. If so, it would also reduce our residential populations environmental impact."

This is actually an intended consequence of this system. With consolidation it is much cheaper and energy efficient to tranport goods amongst the population and, like you pointed out, would reduce our environmental impact.

You mentioned you have concerns with the aging infrastructure and a land tax will promote new development. With a greater concentration of our cities and no incentive to buy up useless land, there will be more incentive and more resources available to develop the current land to it's maximum potential. Since people will not be able to make profits from speculating on future land values, they will need to fully develop their land to make any additional profit. It is hard to imagine the kind of economic and productive growth we can achieve by restructuring our tax system in this way, but there are only positive benefits from moving to this system.

[-] 3 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

what is a resource? before we have the technology to use a resource, it is worthless. take an extreme example like uranium. before the technology existed to use it, it was dangerous, harmful, and a costly problem to have it. Once we developed technology to utilize it, it suddenly had value. Or take a less controversial example, like silica. It only had value once we figured out how to make it into glass and other things. So without technology, resources don't really exist. You can take this concept back to basics, like food. If we don't know how to eat a plant or use it, it isn't food, now is it? what about water, what if it was full of bacteria and made us sick to drink? we only think that water is a resource because we can purify it so that we can use it.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

That fails to realize that using those resources required resources in the first place. Now, I would argue that a stone does not have value until I realize I can use it as a tool. Or how fire can be used to heat food. But I did not create the stone. I did not create fire. Therefore I can not own what I did not create. So, the question becomes who has a right to the stones? The community? Just me?

Also, no one had to teach me the value of food. If I don't eat, I die. It as it's value based directly on this need. Again, I did not create food. But I may have worked to obtain it. Therefore I own my physical and intellectual work. The resources are all of ours.

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

you are confusing resources with raw materials that could potentially be resources with proper technology. technology without materials isn't really anything but a concept. materials are required to put technology to use. the combination of a material and a technology creates a resource. certain resources are required for fundamental survival. but, and this is the interesting part, the next question is how progress fits in. can technology progress infinitely? can progress in general be infinite, like evolutionary development? if we accept that progress can be infinite, then technology can progress infinitely. So while one element of a resource, raw materials, may be finite, the other component can progress infinitely, and so the combination of those 2, and therefore resources themselves, can progress infinitely.

now, ownership is a whole different issue. our system gives a limited period of exclusivity for ownership of technology. this is to encourage people to benefit from it's development and to encourage innovation. and i agree that the raw materials are communal property owned by all of us. but this implies that there is a limited exclusivity of ownership for resources, which are again the combination of technology (temporary ownership) and raw materials (communal ownership). the key to this, though is that the period of ownership is limited. it must be, for the benefit to be realized by all and further progress to be made. we also need to agree on the use of raw materials. and we MUST insist that this be done in an ethical, efficient, and responsible way. someone who we grant exclusivity rights to a technology to for a period of time so they might get benefit must also bear the costs of that technology. the owner of the tyechnology needs to accept FULL responsibility for their use of that technology. Actually, it isn't just the owner of the technology that must accept this responsibility, it is anyone who uses the technology. and when such use hurts others, we all have a right to demand it be stopped or controlled in a reasonable way.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

So, when I apply my intellect to a raw material, it becomes a resource? (hence I am being resourceful?). Technology is just the application of intellect on raw materials?

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

yeah, i'd totally agree with that. technology is applicable use of intellect. intellect without practical application is just philosophical.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

Bet. Thanks for clarifying. :)

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

than you for making me think about that! great discussion. =)

[-] 1 points by grene (10) from Talent, OR 2 years ago

Everything is a resource, if we use our resources wisely, our only limit is our imagination.

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

everything is a raw material. the combination of raw materials and technology makes a resource. and yes, it is limitless. we can progress infinitely in technology. so though raw materials might be finite, infinite progress means that resources are therefore infinite. i agree, the only limit is our imagination and creativity and imagination are precisely the same as innovation in this case.

[-] 0 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

That fails to recognise that the best water comes from natural sources and is not purified by technology. There are 3 documentaries about water: http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution/

Uranuium is harmful, dangerous and a costly problem to have precisely because the technology was developed. http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/radwaste.htm

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

i studied waste water engineering, so i disagree with your first point in some regards. the question really becomes one of efficiency, and our current methods of dealing with water are by far not the most effiient, i will give you that. nature is pretty efficient.

but without technology, resources don't exist. raw materials that could potentially be resources do. if we accept the fact that technology can have infinite progress, then by definition resources are also infinite. this does not mean we shouldn't improve technology, efficiency, and use them responsibly and in a non-wasteful manner. it doesn't mean this at all.

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

cool! ... i'm a believer that we should recycle treated waste water, which is often cleaner than the natural body of water we dump it into, back into the system. it's a simple math problem. imagine the system we have now: we take up water from a source. let's say it's 80% pure for hypothetical purposes. we treat it, to say 99.9% pure. we then use it, and when we are done it's only about 40% pure. we then treat it to say 90% pure, dump it back into the source where it becomes less pure (back to about the 80%), and then start over, treating it again.

well how about this, if we had treated it to 90% pure, why dump it back, let it get less pure, and then treat it again to 99.9%? why not just combine these 2 treatments, the post-dump to 90% one and the bef ore-use one? this is much more efficient, because we are doing these treatments anyway. however, employing a system that does this is illegal in the US.

just something to think about. :)

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Technology depends on natural laws as does nature. They are complimentary when applied correctly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV9CCxdkOng

[-] -1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Look there is a much more efficient winter greenhouse mentioned here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution/

Those fish don't compare with what can be produced natually and are contaminated with carcinogens from the plastic.Vertical growing space is a permaculture idea and not from Zeitgeist movement.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Yes, but you are competing against groups that advocate the same ideas.

They simply wish to utilize technology to maximize sustainable abundance as do most RBE advocates.

[-] 1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Maximising sustainable abundance begins by recognising that nature is the teacher.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

True, no argument there.

The scientific method is simply our way of understanding it.

Technology is our attempt to reproduce it. (However, the monetary/political system corrupts this process)

[-] 1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Isn't money a technology?

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Yes, money had it's place in society 100s of years ago when there was genuine scarcity and our population had plenty of room/resources to grow.

That particular technology is outdated.

Video explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOO_AVwfZ9Q

[-] 1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

That is a pretty quick skim over history. Is the video trying to avoid looking deeper? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUinktJ5u5Q&feature=channel_video_title

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

I can't say, but the time is nearing where many 'truths' will be revealed.

Yes, there are plenty of holes in the traditional explanation of history including the precisely built pyramids in Bosnia, Egypt, China, other megalithic structures, and the large ancient underground cities which all required very advanced technologies.

But I don't believe many are ready to dive into esoteric knowledge without extraordinary evidence. A RBE is much easier to relate to in the current age and that makes it easier to shift cultural values to be more collaborative and sustainable. It provides individuals with a foreseeable post-scarcity society through technologies we know are available to us right now. Nevermind the suppressed military technologies.

The value shift or as some refer to it, consciousness shift, is most important for any post-scarcity society to develop.

[-] 1 points by zmtee (11) 2 years ago

Technology IS an improved manipulation of nature. Every technology that exists, exist only within the realms of physical law.

[-] 1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ZUe54fVHI&feature=player_detailpage#t=1782s

In the experiment in the clip above the natural water from venezuela was 40,000 times more active than ordinary drinking water.

[-] 3 points by bing99 (71) 2 years ago

I vote for exploring the possibility, YES! I posted about it a little while and seemed to get laughed out of the park for it. But, the documentary is very informative and seems to offer a REAL solution. I only wish they would have left the religion aspect out of it.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

The first movie is Peter's personal expression, before he was actually introduces to the Resource Based Economy which is neither for, nor against religion. ;)

[-] 2 points by Freedom2100 (25) 1 year ago

The complete alienation of the 1% from the consuming experience of most Americans is holding the economy back. You go to a store, especially a grocery store and the stocking and shelving arrangements of the items make no logical sense. You call a customer service site and just talk to a robot--a VRU, and if you do get a real person they are minimally trained to give out still more party-line robotic answers that go nowhere. So you get to this point of WTF?.....and then try to go to a competitor who does the same things. This all comes from decision-makers (the 1%) who are completely divorced from the everyday shopping experience of average Americans. These folks have others doing the grocery shopping or making calls to troubleshoot problems. Result: business decisions that treat us as consuming machines rather than real live feeling human beings since there is an absence of empathy. Quality of life notwithstanding, this has got to change for the economy to get better in a real way!

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20549) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

how would such a system actually work?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology.

Today we have highly advanced technologies, but our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities. We could easily create a world of abundance for all, free of servitude and debt if the desire was there.

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

Nothing is considered valuable until a majority of people believe it is.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yes people need to adapt intellectually and emotionally to this new system in order for it to function correctly.

[-] 2 points by Wired (16) 2 years ago

If the devouring of the 99% was natural, the OWS wouldn't be preaching Marxism as the new and improved and refined socialism, packaged in a swell house called Venus.

Remember, scarcity is the mother of creativity.

[-] 1 points by koloneci (72) 2 years ago

"scarcity is the mother of creativity"

I would agree with that. In a post-scarcity world - our desires would have to find different avenues.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Did you Zeitgeist cult members dig up this zombie thread from three weeks ago because your latest thread wasn't going as well as you had hoped? All of that talk about Logan's Run, and The Matrix, and 2001, and I Robot wasn't making the idea of a computer dictator look attractive enough, so you dug up this old thread instead?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

These threads revolve from top to bottom and then up again. I'm answering questions and comments that were posted. By the way this thread has generated huge attention. Does this frighten you?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

"Frighten" is definitely not the word that I would use. I come here for entertainment, and this cult is one of the more entertaining aspects of this site.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

As artificial intelligence develops, machines will provide you with all the entertainment you need.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That could already be happening now. There are a couple of posters on this web site who don't exactly pass the Turing test, who I find extremely entertaining.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Seek not to find out who you are, seek to determine who you want to be

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Does it please you to believe that I am seeking to determine who I am?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Your the captain of your ship do as you please. I have noticed you never post any new ideas for change or offer any sound solutions but insist on the same old outdated ideologies. Why would you be on here opposing the creative thought process of others? You may have to give up Who You Are in order to be Who You Are.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Good stuff, It does seem the political process has left a bad taste in peoples mouths. I myself am also tired of the same old right and left dualism. I think we should start electing ourselves. Continually putting our intentions into someone else to solve problems slows down the creative process. Perhaps a shift will occur for the good of all.

[-] 2 points by Zteacher (30) 2 years ago

Capitalism in its current form will eventually cause more inequality, and will ultimately undermine the middle class in America. What do these executes believe will happen when the Middle class evaporates, and employment reaches 20% and beyond? I have conceived of a new idea that I think some of you may find interesting. It’s called Utilitarian Capitalism. The system is designed so that Corporations would have to weigh profit equally with the human element. If utilized, I believe I could be an effective job creating tool, and could spread prosperity far more extensively. So if your interested in a new idea, you can visit my Forum post called “Utilitarian Capitalism an appeal to Rationalism”, or just check out this link. https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/bdbPRg. In any regard, keep the ideas coming.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yes!

  1. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to our survival. (True)

  2. Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. (True)

  3. A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. (True)

  4. RBE would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. (True)

  5. Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. (True)

[-] 2 points by neverquit (3) 2 years ago

Yes.

"Everybody gets equal access" to goods and services would be more accurate than everybody "gets an equal share". I don't want the same share as my neighbor if I don't need it or if I have different interests. I am my own person and I myself determine what access to goods and services I use and which one I don't use. The same goes for everyone else.

As long as there are people who have everything while others have nothing there will be wars, corruption, greed, poverty, conflict, depression and terrorism. This is merely the result of a system that does not and CANNOT provide for everyone by design.

In a resource-based economy money is no longer used to decide who gets what and who lives and who dies - everybody is taken care of as this is the only way we can achieve lasting peace and prosperity on Earth which is a large interconnected system whether we believe it or not.

The aim of a resource-based economy is to eliminate scarcity through the application of the scientific method for problem solving in society on a global level. Money cannot exist in an environment of abundance as abundance of any given good drives down its price infinitely thereby making the price itself obsolete.

Efficiency and sustainability: If products were efficient, high quality and long lasting, we could not pay for them as their price would be way too high for the 99% to afford. Hence we are forced to buy products that are way behind of what we can actually technically produce today. The problem with this is that endless piles of waste are produced by obsolete goods that have been manufactured poorly to begin with while wasting our precious resources for short lived toys and electronic devices that end up rotting on landfills after short amounts of time. This planned obsolescence is needed for our monetary system to function and is frankly inacceptable.

Efficiency, sustainability and preservation of resources are not possible in a monetary system due to cost efficiency, competition and the need for cyclical consumption regardless of social value or human necessity. Our system demands competition which is provably detrimental for the well being of society. In an RBE mass cooperation is enabled for everyone to take part - much like everyone at Occupy Wall Street has a voice and can take part if he or she so chooses.

"But of course there has to be money in society - duh". Well, no it’s just what we are used to. I would like to remind everyone: Money is no law of nature.

Whatever path we choose as society we have to understand the fundamental mechanisms of the system we live in. It's not the bankers, not the politicians, not the terrorists, not the Illuminati, not corrupt offshore companies and not Wall Street that are the real problem here. They are mere symptoms of a system based on artificial mechanisms of scarcity, inefficiency, waste and archaic competitive values that have decoupled us completely from the Earth and one another.

Let’s make it happen together! Ask questions, get into the discussions. Much love from Germany to all of you!

[-] 2 points by pygmalion (24) 2 years ago

YES, YES, YES At 63 & based on my experience of this merry-go-round i say YES. This movement's been going on since the days of Moses. From being drawn to TVP/RBE ideas via TZM & continuing to come back to listen/watch vids i began to see how it does, in fact, make common sense. We DO have the knowledge, resources & technology (if used wisely) to achieve what Jacque has worked 80 years on!! I mean, the fuckin' ship is sinking kids and there's Jacque in the corner goin' "hey guys, here's the lifeboat" and we still have time to build it. Geez, it's really so very simple. It took me awhile to wrap my head around some of this 'cause of my age & conditioning/programming or whatever u wanna call it. But u guys r younger. So I say "GO FOR IT". I have 2 grandkids & they're counting on you guys. Trust me, your children & grandchildren will thank you. RBE is science/spirituality/environmental concern....all wrapped into one. If your a God person think of it this way. God's an action word and RBE fits that action word. RBE covers all the gripes we have about what's wrong. Let the machines do the work. Don't u get it. You kids have a chance to finally graduate and say "take this job and shove it....I'd rather be (and u fill in the blank). To me, RBE is actually manifesting the lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine". Well, c'mon guys....IMAGINE!!! Mamma D supports all of you "^_^" a boomer from the 60's. You kids got my 'mojo' goin' again!!! http://www.unitinghumans.com/

[-] 2 points by rtbrill (3) 2 years ago

Yes. We need to at least start moving in that direction. I think it is panglossian to think that we could accomplish revamping the world economy into a RBE in a short time frame. Their needs to be major education reform, and a complete change in our core value structure. It starts with kids today. We must indoctrinate them into a system that does not perpetuate greed and profit motive. A society that does not measure success by the size of one's wallet, but by their contribution to society. Most people do not understand this yet, and unfortunately, most are too old to change to that type of mind frame. I used to always say...a person is smart, but people are dumb. Masses are dumb, but there are some very intelligent minds out there. We could have a world filled with intelligent minds if given a right to a proper education. (I believe that and healthcare should be rights to every person on this planet.) We do have the technology and resources to do so. However, the current population would make a RBE look silly. I believe and hope that by the next 2 to 3 generations, we do adapt to a full global RBE. It is not like there isn't anything we can do now. In fact, what we do now is more important than ever. We need to get out there and educate people. Use every form of media at our disposal to try to start educating the masses. Creating independent technology firms that study renewable energy sources and focus on how to maximize the potential for Wave, Tidal, Wind, Solar, and Geothermal power.

Everyone knows the big Banksters are afraid of this type of idea, and that is why are at a roadblock in trying to begin implementation. We cannot get our voice heard at the political level, because the Banksters own them too. Our country was hijacked back in 1913 and we need to take it back! Until we fix that problem, we are stonewalled.

[-] 2 points by RobertoEnamorado (3) 2 years ago

There has been no other time in history where the globe has united to express concerns that relate to one issue...and that issue happens to boil down to problems with our economy and restoring democracy. People will be more open to an alternative then they have ever been before.

[-] 2 points by RCasshern (3) 2 years ago

YES! If we wish to survive in the long run, ether we change or parish. Our planetary resources are finite and people need to realize it. For those that wish to learn about RBE, what kind of system is it watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFSGTuctHMU&feature=channel_video_title

[-] 2 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 2 years ago

The only "infinite" resuorce is the sun, we should made a currency based on how much energy we can capture from sun . The more energy humans are avaible to capture, the more profits and healthys humans will be.

+From sun nowdays we have a few basic, petroleum, carbon...sun capture centureys ago, we have dam hidroeletrics, water that was pullet out of sea from sun heat, we have wind power, made by wind made by atmospehre regualte by sun heat. Nuclear , capture on the forces that sun create uranium and all those...

[-] 2 points by RBE (13) 2 years ago

In order to achieve a RBE we must break the scarcity paradigm we have and start using technology to create abundance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f04fCbFStks

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 2 years ago

if you say NO, they might not yet get the big picture, or are still confortable with a FIAT currency or economy managed by banks and FED. that doesnt make them idiot.

[-] 2 points by lu3enlightment (3) 2 years ago

YES!!!! it doesn't get anymore logical than then that :)

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 2 years ago

No. No incentive to do anything. Communism doesn't work.

The issue is not societal, it's political. Our government has been purchased and we need to take it back.

[-] 2 points by TheoSocrates (51) 2 years ago

Indepat - You are confusing a governmental system with an economic system. Communism is not an economic system.

You also seem to be assuming from a capitalist perspective that only capital motivates people. I would ask you for any evidence at all to back that up, outside of capitalist assumption.

The greatest, most productive motivator of human creations, has always been passion - and that cannot be purchased - nor does it originate from dollars.

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 2 years ago

I think it's worked well for us. It's just my opinion, I don't mind capitalism. I just mind that it's taken over our political system. There needs to be a permanent separation of the two. Just my opinion.

[-] 2 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 2 years ago

?? a economy based on resource can be democratic, comunist or what ever politica flavor you like. Is just a economy model might fix on any political sytem....is like having "CAPITALISM + DEMOCRATIC" like USA, or like having "CAPITALISM + COMUNISM" like CHINA. so in this case you can have the same,

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 2 years ago

China is not a good model. Our model is good, it just needs to be regulated.

[-] 2 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 2 years ago

I didnt say the model must be china???

Im saying a resource system economy on what ever you politic flawor is.

I actullally prefer CAPITALISM + DEMOCRACY, but wiht a monetary system not linked on democracy, and linked to some bakup, like in old times gold, on moderns time with must look to a new bakup money.

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 2 years ago

I'm for Capitalism and the Republic. I believe the founding fathers got it right. The solution is simple, get the corporate money and influence out of Washington. Getting that to actually occur, not so simple.

[-] 2 points by TheoSocrates (51) 2 years ago

Indepat - the founding fathers were NOT capitalists - except for maybe Hamilton. And again capitalism is NOT a governmental system, nor does it define one in any way.

If you do not think China is a good model for an economic system - then it would help you to understand that their "economic system" is also capitalism. Their "governmental system" is communism - but the two are separate and not at all co-dependent in terms of definition.

When I asked you for any evidence to back up your initial statement - rather than providing any, you simply said that you think monetary motivation has "worked well for us".

Has it? Isn't it exactly everything that is wrong, in every single instance of corruption in our political, governmental, medical, business, and others systems? Isn't capital motivation exactly what has corrupted everything our founding fathers actually created for us? Everywhere you find corruption, you will find capital as the motivator. How well has it worked FOR us (rather than against us)?

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 2 years ago

When I made the statement about our founding fathers that was only in reference to our government and the fact that I believe the actual system they designed some 200+ years ago is still a good one.

Yes, I know how China is structured and that the two systems, capitalism and communism are two separate systems. My point is that those two systems don't work well together, which is why everyone else is scared about the rise of China, I am not. China will eventually collapse under it's won weight, because capitalism and communism cannot coexist together. But our current form of government and capitalism can. These two, together does work, and my proof is that we are the only super power and we have by far the largest, most robust economy in the world. Unlike China, our government system and economic system have not held us back. But it will hold them back.

The problem is not the two system, it's that the system has been corrupted. You buy a computer, and it's a good system, but then a virus screws it all up. That doesn't mean the system is bad ans should be thrown out. The system is okay, it just got infected. Clean it up and the system works again.

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

gawdoftruth

After visiting some of the "Zeitgeist" and "Venus sites" I agree that there are some unhealthy outbreaks of zealotry going on here and there. Some of the threads on the topic are a bit disheartening in their fanaticism.

Still, many of the general ideas associated with this line of thought seems sound.

[-] 2 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 2 years ago

You should visit

www.energybackedmoney.com

much near to ground and to a real solution.

Even nowdays a similiar currency is undergoing

http://www.kilowattcards.com/template/index.cfm

Zigest instead to much in a perfect world and doesnt goes on detail of implementation.

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

Mooks If that is your general disposition, why are you involved in OW?

Anyway. I think the general reasoning is sound and that should be investigated, tested and developed further.

I don't think it is very "realistic", but all the "realistic" solution does not seem to be enough if you ask me.

And for those who think that not everything can be totally equal, you are right of course. People that do stuff and act gets the benefit of doing and acting. But we can level much of the playing field and turn it into being more just that, a playing field, instead of it being a Colosseum, a war-zone or a cage.

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

No, there are only certain resources that we need such as fresh food, pure water, a living environment and healthy relationships. Minning metals is not a creative activity but destroys the earth depvriving those who live there and the recepients of the destruction of fresh food, pure water, a living environment and healthy relationships. Support our petition. http://www.petitiononline.com/SoLMag/petition.html Stick to what we actually need. occupy your motherland. 1 hectarte 1 family.

[-] 2 points by TheoSocrates (51) 2 years ago

I don't understand how your purpose is contrary to a Resource-Based Economy. Please explain?

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

I am not sure if it is. By co-creating an abundance of fresh food in family food gardens we can free up time for art, music, education etc. People who already have created abundance can then give freely the important things such as knowledge motivated by love. http://occupywallst.org/forum/family-food-gardens-this-is-the-solution

[-] 2 points by TheoSocrates (51) 2 years ago

Agreed. But why then did you start your statement by saying "No" in regard to a Resource-Based Economy?

[-] 2 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 2 years ago

Individual responsiblity and self sufficiency are not the same thing as a centralised distribtution and faith based reverence for technocracy. The dangers of world government and control by computers are very real and I am totally opposed to a panopticon society and passing responsibility and authority to others based on empty promises that they have the best interests of the people at heart.

[-] 2 points by FuManchu (619) 2 years ago

I will vote after I watch the entire ZM movie.

[-] 1 points by barterpc (1) from Staten Island, NY 11 months ago

I conditionally agree. I think the probem though is we are taking the ideological forms of an RBE way too literally without discussing the finer points.

Even with an RBE there will always be levels at which people will want to trade resources they already posses in order to obtain something else hey would like to have (i.e. Knitted scarf for a silver celtic knot ring). In the example, i.e., I gave these items fall out of a pure ideological RBE economy, and as we see on Star Trek, even though the economics have changed so money isn't needed for the big things such as a home. Credits can still be earned and spent for personal luxuries (if you wouldn't mind the use of this word, I only say Luxury because it is not needed to thrive or exist, but simply for personal pleasure or self enhancement). These events fall outside RBE and should be managed through some form of pure laissez-faire market model on the personal level (like Bitcoins, or Listia Credits).

Another problem is the problem of prioritizing the economics of RBE bought up by people like OccupyConcepts.

For example, If we have 8 cancer patients of equal priority and the time/resources/energy to only give100% focus on 5.

Do we cut out 3 of the patients thus placing them at risk and hopefully be able to use a lesser treatment to deter serious damage ?

-or-

Do we cut down the ratio of treatment efficacy to 60% or 70% thus guaranteeing the equal treatment of all 8, but also increasing the rate of failure/relapse by about 30% to 40% across the board.

Of course other examples include distribution of land to equally important projects (housing vs. hospital vs. school), distribution of resources to equally important functions (education vs. environmental restoration), and so on. It's true scientific rational can solve these problem in a more generalized sense, however, in the smaller microcosms we know as community those scientifically-rational approaches have little impact, since decisions ussually affect such narrow margins (e.g. 0.005% of community resources, as compared to 2% or 15% on the global scale), and also it is important to note that in communities those very small margins have very significant impact.

I also think a discussion should be made of Credit (Gratuity), many opensource movements such as BSD, Linux, and GNU have had to tackle this and I think it's only fair RBE should too. If someone does something with major positive implications (certainly we all do things that have significant though minor implications everyday, but we all accept this as a thankless act for which our return with hopefully someone doing something of equal impact for us or someone we care about), they should expect a form of gratuity or appreciation, in opensource this is accomplished by publishing their name in the actual source code, the accompanying documents, and any similiar materials referencing the project. Similiarly even though this is an all-in model we should seriously think of how we reward those who decide to make a more significant contribution, as this could make the difference between a successful RBE and a model similiar to failed Socialist models (which are often accompanied by crime, desperation, and depression).

These real world difficulties must be delt with and to a good degree resolved before any successful RBE can be had. I also must mention this. The way these things should be resolved should be Libertarian, they should be just and fair rules that apply to all. I think an RBE is wholly and completely compatible with Anarchy (Orthodox Libertarianism), which I think is good. Although some people may frown upon it because of prejudices implied by wrongfully taught notions. I think a world not requiring money, is also a world not requiring government, and if you understand the ills of both you understand why this world is ours and no one else's to mold into a better place. :-)

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i am a proponent of a judicial-technocratic-direct democratic hybrid political system with a high degree of regional autonomy and a green open source anarcho-syndical fair trade economic model.

[-] 1 points by devworker (2) 1 year ago

YES! I agree there should be a sub forum.

We need help to write free and open source software for a Resource Based Economy. Everyone can help join today! www.RBETech.org

[-] 1 points by utoo733 (1) from Oklahoma City, OK 1 year ago

Yes... to believe that a consumption based economy is not a dead end (and yes, I do mean planet, species dead end) is simply insane. I was pondering this today... has anyone done the mathematics of the inevitable outcome of a consumer based global economy? And if so... why isn't it being discussed.

If one thinks about war, conflict, pollution, dwindling fresh water, global warming that we seem incapable of either addressing nor alleviation... if one thinks it through... there is one evil root.

It is the idea that on a finite plate we must ENDLESSLY CONSUME more but that we use this very idea as the MEASURE of our Economic Health. Humanity is insane.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Occupy Auckland is talking about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUS1XBcDHZA

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 2 years ago

If this is a system based off of need(Hollistic socio0economic) then it would fail. People would make themselves look worse than they are and all innovation would stop. There would be no incentive to produce any of the resources that people would want.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

If you are interested to know what it is about, a good place to start is: http://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w

[-] 1 points by Calypsophia (74) 2 years ago

YES.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/yourtopia-your-official-final-beginning-perhaps-no/

This is a system, which will respond in this way.... and more... it will respond in this way, AND do so without ANY leaders... at all... Check it out!

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Looks like an interesting read. Just have to find some time to dig into it :)

[-] 1 points by HelloHelloAll (16) 2 years ago

And there should be also 100% inheritance tax. (Let's start mildly by allowing e.g. 100 000 $ with 20% tax)

That's wrong that some kids inherit a bit more from the planet's resources than others without doing anything to deserve the extra portition.

This would be included in the RBE too, right? We don't need to take the whole RBE, let's just take the good parts.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

There is no money in a RBE, so also no tax.

[-] 1 points by HelloHelloAll (16) 2 years ago

NO - Whole deal seems so CCCP. (But can't be for sure. You should first try RBE in one state)

Answer to problems is: Government should print it's own money and government should also destroy money when it's possible.

And there should be Free Education and Healtcare.

And hey TheEconomist! "The thing is humans are the only species in the universe who use money to live on their planet." Nobody knows. There might be others in the universe using money.

"For example we value diamonds at a conspicuous level and have put a high price tag due to its scarcity. But is a diamond really valuable?" So who are those lucky citizens who get the diamonds in RBE? I want one!

[-] 1 points by BeawareofthePower (4) 2 years ago

YES.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Bravo

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

i believe, now i could be wrong, but if every one needed resources and more resources ment better standard of living, well i'm pritty sure resources would act as money and incentive

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The new incentive would be your own creative potential.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

I started to think on it.. I said, what does a typical day look like in the new RBE? I got as far as my morning cup of coffee before I got stuck.

Where does my coffee come from in the new RBE? How do I get it? Do I have to grow it myself? Do I trade my skills for my morning cup of coffee? Will I need to stockpile my own 'resources' so that I can get my coffee when I want it? If so, what resources do I stockpile? Do I raise chickens? What if everyone decides to raise chickens? Does that make chickens the new money?

I must be missing something. I admittedly have not researched this idea much, but mainly because it is hard for me to fathom. If anyone has gotten past the morning cup of coffee, I would love to hear about it.

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

It kind of depends on the details, does it not? What kind of RBE do we talk about. Its like if a RBE is a desktop computer.What kind of computer? Is it a pc or a mac? What kind of pc and what kind of mac? What software? Etc.Depending on what the answer is, things will work differently, not only more or less effectively, but also with different types of pros and cons.

Your coffee can come from many different places depending on how this new system is configured. It might be grown in a greenhouse or hydroponic garden nearby and delivered to your local distribution centre where you can pick up a certain amount each day or week. It can also be grown ”naturally” in a suitable environment, like Brazil or something. And you will probably have the possibility to grow it yourself in a personal greenhouse. You probably does not trade your skill for coffee, unless you specifically want the coffee your neighbour is growing for herself in her basement hydroponic garden and she do not want to give it to you unless you do something for her. Stockpiling or saving resources would probably only be necessary when resources are scarce in relation to what they are used for. So if you would like to do a sculpture of pure gold, you would probably need to save whatever gold you could get your hands on until you had enough. Money would not be necessary as trading would not be necessary save perhaps for when it comes to symbolic and scarce resources. Everyone is entitled to their fair share of what resources are held in common. So in one version of a RBE, if there is a total amount of 10.000 unites of energy, 100 units of iron and 12 hours of manufacturing capabilities per person and day, everyone can allocate a maximum of 10.000 units of energy, 100 units of iron and 12 hours of manufacturing time and a manufacturing plant per person and day. Transporting coffee from Brazil consumes more energy for you then getting those grown locally (ex 1970 vs 323 ), but if you like the Brazilians better, it might be worth it.

[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

well.. if we could make it somehow not seem like 'rationing', that would be good. If I was just given everything that was essential for my basic needs, I think I would be much more lazy. Also, we don't want to limit trade or creativity. Nor do we want to force people to be involved - we need to give them a choice. I guess we would have to find a way to fund seed projects. Small stepping stones that may or may not lead to something bigger. I really do like the idea of co-ops that communities of people could experiment with. Perhaps a special version of the co-op devoted to RBE experimentation. Can your community (spatial or online) come together to do something that benefits everyone involved (or everyone in general) and is the project somehow related to our natural resources and basic needs, and is it entirely without monetary gain. (I am thinking like the CSA's) Perhaps we can make it a challenge (people like to be challenged).

[-] 2 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

Yes, rationing has a bad reputation as it is associated with getting too little to satisfy. Just one one slice of bread instead of a loaf and all that. But you know, money is a type of rationing too, you cant have more then you can pay for unless someone is giving it to you for free. One might think that its more dynamic, but there is nothing that says that people might receive a bit more (bigger budgets) if they contribute to society in a RBE. So a doctor or a person doing hard dirty work could get a bit more then the guy spending all days surfing, eating and wanking.

Why do you think that you would become more lazy? Lazy how? There are a lot of people who have inherited lots of resources but still are very active. Why? -Because most people find it more fun and gratifying doing stuff then not doing stuff. People who do not want to do stuff should not be forced to do stuff.

No, we do not want to limit trade or creativity. And you are quite right, nor do we want to force people to participate. Experimental communities is an old idea, and while it still is and interesting one, and probably our best hope, people often underestimate the level of energy and stuff is needed to make it work. Reaching the ”critical mass” required to sustain the new system is very hard to achieve in our physical world. (on the net it is simpler, just look at the open source development which could be said to be an expression of the basic RBE idea) but open source ecology http://opensourceecology.org/ is a group that has come further then most. Even so, they are still at an embryonic stage if we are talking about creating a full blown RBE (which requires highly advanced automation, survey of resources and integrated use of both multidisciplinary science and engineering)

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Basically your saying how do we get from here to there? We solve your coffee problem by implementing an interdisciplinary team of qualified personnel, in line with the project's requirements, that will work on an automated systems to produce and supply all the coffee you need.

[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

in bulk, that may work. How does the coffee get divided up, packaged and distributed? Do I still go to a store to pick up my coffee? what if I want to sit in the coffee house and read a book? will there still be a coffee shop? Who's land will they use to grow the coffee bean? Is this just America? or worldwide? are we planning on taking peoples land for the good of all?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Please go here http://thevenusproject.com/ you will have a better idea of how things will function once you read some of the literature. Most of your questions are explained in detail.

[-] 1 points by humanprogress (55) 2 years ago

Yes to resource-based economy!

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

So what happens post-scarcity?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

If we want to predict the future we create it. What would you like to happen?

[-] 1 points by Wired (16) 2 years ago

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. Rev. 13:3

The beast was so perfect, and almost free...

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Feeling is the language of the soul

[-] 1 points by Wired (16) 2 years ago

I do admire Marx for his ideals. He was very spiritual person. His philosophy of the collective is dreamt for the soul. Marx idea would work well for Heaven. Capitalism is meant for the earthbound. No doubt, people have to kick Capitalism in the butt when it gets out of line, but it's the best way to get the full potential out of man while he is living on this planet. The full unregulated explosion of creativity to destruction.

It's a matter of philosophy.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The soul longs to do something about what it is, in order that it might know itself in its own experience. So it will seek to realize its highest idea through action.

[-] 1 points by Wired (16) 2 years ago

To attack logic they speak gibberish and substitute mystical intuition for ratiocination.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

For it is the nature of people to love, then destroy, then love again that which they value most.

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

Sense making idea is allways making sense. ;)

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

There is only 1 earth in this galaxy.

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

We can work on scientifically as adults or we can talk all day bs.

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

Our future depending on what we do now. When we create better future, we get better life. Scientifically proven truth.

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

We can move forward or backwards to stoneage.

[-] 1 points by figero (661) 2 years ago

No - disagree. How did that work out in the USSR?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfillment and creativity, both materially and spiritually.

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

There is lots of projects what i would work on. Technological projects mostly.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Welcome aboard

[-] 1 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

The toughest part about creating or moving towards an RBE, is the resistance in change of values. Those in power LIKE their place where they can wear the fanciest kinds of apparel, drive the nicest cars, hold a social status high above the rest. In an RBE everyone becomes equal. It's a tough pill for those at the top to swallow.

[-] 1 points by radicalhumility (56) 2 years ago

YES!

We are all inherent to the planets resources. It is the only true viable option for the species survival. PERIOD.

[-] 1 points by Wired (16) 2 years ago

As Rush (the musical group) said it so prophetically...

We have assumed control, We have assumed control, We have assumed control.

The RBE will tell you what you want, and what you shan't.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The shameful thing about the free enterprise system is the wasted lives of many people - young girls standing behind counters in department stores waiting for a sale, men and woman working in industrial plants using a small part of their mental capabilities.

In the schools of tomorrow people will learn how to relate to others intelligently, cooperate and share ideas to help make the world a far better place, and not to squander resources in wars and military expenditures.

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

People will use brains in rbe, its good thing. Caring and helping world get more better place is not bad idea, its great idea. ;)

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yes I agree, an RBE completely changes ones incentive system from the inside out.

[-] 1 points by Wired (16) 2 years ago

Ah yes, it's going be a perfect world --- as central control writes the perfect program for the perfect drink. cyanide...

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

What you know is what appears as your reality

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I don't see how this would function. What incentives do people have to work? What about non-resource based jobs? I work in television. I am not quite sure how this system works. Can you further explain, please?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

This system would generate a new incentive. We all would then decide what it is we like to do. What are your hobbies? this could be your incentive. The reward would be your own creative imagination coming to life.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

If that's what it is.... then I have to say that I don't think that would work. I really hope there is more to this because that explanation just sounds like everyone would become cowboys and rock stars.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

So you have no hobbies or creative outlets?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I work in television. Obviously I do. Answer my question on how this system works.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Since are mind set began in a monetary-based reward incentive society it may take some time to entertain these new concepts. All your question are answered here and if they are not please let me know.

http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

would we have grocery stores where everything is free?

or do we get paid in food and computers?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yes all resources would be available to all who need them? The earth is abundant with resources if properly managed. Our current scarcity based society is not function correctly.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Who decides this process? For me there is no outline in the process. It just says SHARE and it will work out. There needs to be a process, regulation, and guidelines.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

We the people decide this process. Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

We the people decide this process. Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yes but you are talking about changing our ENTIRE WORLDLY PROCESS. You can't get people to want to do that based on what you've presented. And in all honesty you're not going to get the world to meet on this with a tiny piece of paper. You'll need hundreds with actual backing on how the process will work. What you're talking about is a New World Order. Meaning the entire way the world works will drastically change. You need a process that works to be able to explain to the world this should be done. I'm asking you for that process. Based on what I've read about a Resource Based economy it just says SHARE. And to me it sounds like the it would just turn into the barter system, so at the point we might as well just keep currency since currency is a simplification of the barter system. It's just been hijacked by the federal reserve and few rich assholes are abusing the system and our government.

Create a workable process, present it, then if people like it, then the world can meet on it and make adjustments as necessary.

[-] 0 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

There is much work going on in the dream world and recommend you join us once you become lucid.

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

Scientifically when we arrive toward problems.

When bigger problems to discuss, more people will come together. Smaller problem to discuss, more less people come together.

If you asking for resources what is not available to construct something, you will be discussing about situation as an "adult" calling enough people together to discuss what to do. More people will be autonomously coming to discuss plans and situation with you because they just come.

If you see need to take responsbility about some issue, you need to call people together and that's it. Now there is team working on issue if it was then really "issue", real problem. (People forming autonomously team after discussing what to do, because you can't do anything without solution. You can stay in conversation or let other people work on it, its your decicion. But as it was your idea to take responsibility of such issue, you most likely would be interested to help and stay in conversation to discuss about best solution if you people then get to that point, because sometimes something can't be found any solution because it is really serious question. In time somebody will come with great thought, if then whole question make any sense)

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

I don't understand exactly what is about non-resource based jobs in scientifical term so could you explain more what this "meaning" exactly?

I have heard people talking about jobs what they could do but never heard anyone in my life talking about jobs in "categorizing way".

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

My job is to produce television. Let's say actors. Acting is a talent that they sell for money. It isn't a resource. So how would that work in a resource based economy? I don't even know what a resource based economy is. That's what I'm asking. What is a resource based economy? Is it the barter system? Because the barter system doesn't work in a society as large as ours. Currency is needed. Not everyone want to trade their cantaloupe for a bunch of parsley. But like I said, I don't really know what a resource based economy is. Can someone explain that?

[-] 1 points by Earthrotationmovement (32) 2 years ago

Its not about bartering. (Now one from the list is off)

[-] 1 points by HagbardCeline2323 (4) 2 years ago

RBE is CLEARLY the only option. Capitalism/Socialism/Communism were all REACTIONS to scarcity. Weather it was mandatory cooperation or mandatory competition the system was coercive, based on mandatory work, and under the influence of scarcity. Now we can get post scarcity and here is how..... Energy: geothermal=4000+ years of energy... unlimited IF we use other energy sources so we can renew it at the right rate. Solar can provide nearly ALL our energy if we could just capture a small amount of the sunlight that hits the planet. Wind also has potential to take care of all our energy when used right... but lets underestimate just because with geothermal alone i already proved my point. lets say 30%. Wave and tidal can be an additional 30%+ of our energy uses. And we can do this with a fraction of the war money... When something is abundant, it loses its value. Oil is non renewable which makes it as expensive as it is. This energy would be free, in the same way air is free. Scarcity=profit. Abundance=free. Now with this energy we can power hydroponics for no cost. Hydroponic skyscrapers throughout the globe can feed everyone for free. Next step is water: grey water restoration, water desalinization, and rain collection/purification systems. With energy abundance, we would have unlimited water. Housing: Hemp+lime=hempcrete(stronger than concrete, lighter than concrete, renewable resources=unlimited). So thats unlimited necessities. Any system that does not have unlimited necessities will be based on mandatory work. Wage slavery. This will allow people to do what they what instead of what they have to do. even in anacho-capitalism systems, people still have to work for money to survive on some level. In regards to government: Government is obsolete. I know i can rule myself. Self rule+post scarcity=freedom. Any statist scarcity based ideology, weather socialist or capitalist has 0 revolutionary potential.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

You said a mouth full. Your analysis is perfect. You may want to post this?

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 2 years ago

“I CAN” are the last four letters in American

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No and hell no!

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

I think the majority on here agree to yes. You adamantly chose No, please explain?

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You say, "All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few."; but do you really mean that? I am asking because if you do, then you're adhering to the same morality which the 1%-ers count on when they made their grab. They take from the many by counting on the widely accepted view that the individual is inconsequential when compared to the group. You're counting on their same morality to effect a RBE.

What means would you employ to go about making all resources common? It doesn't matter whether a small band of thieves take from all occasionally or from all, all the time. Equally, it doesn't matter if the band of thieves is large. It's thievery just the same.

Make sense?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yes I see your point. However we seriously need a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old problems of war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable.

Anything less will result in a continuation of the same catalog of problems found in today's world. We have arrived at a time when new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world's people.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Banning physical force from social relationships is good because it underscores, upholds and promotes the very nature of an individual (of any individual, of all individuals). By the nature of being human, a person has to choose to think and act in order to live regardless of whether he's alone or living in a group. Unlike the nature of animals, a person's basic means of survival is reason. His nature offers him the choice to live rationally or die a suicidal animal. That which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good and that which opposes reason is evil. The nature of a person requires him to think and produce. The standard by which a person decides what is good or evil—is his own life- that which is required of him to survive and prosper as a rational being. By our nature, thinking is man’s only basic virtue.

To think is an act of choice. Reason does not work automatically. Thinking is not a mechanical process. Knowledge is not gained by instinct. The functions of a person's kidneys, lungs and heart are automatic. The function of his mind is not. For a human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think.”

All evil, therefore, stems from a person refusing to accept his basic nature and by acting counter to it by not learning how to think and not practicing it, consistently. Evil is an absence and a negation and as such is impotent. It has no power but that which an individual allows into the vacuum he creates by not discovering and upholding his nature as a rational being.

There is one act of evil no person may commit against others and no person may sanction or forgive. No person may start or initiate physical force against others. To place the threat of physical destruction between a person and his perception of reality is to negate and paralyze his nature- his very means of survival. For whatever goal and to whatever extent, the person who initiates the use of force destroys another person's capacity to live.

If the morality dictated by our very nature is to be upheld in a social context, then physical force must be barred from our relationships. A person needs an institution chartered by him with the role of protecting his rights under an objective code of rules. The fundamental right is the person's right to his life and that manifests in his right to his property. A proper government has one fundamental responsibility to a person and that is to defend his life and property. This is the task of a government, of a proper government and its only moral justification; it's the reason why a person needs a government.

But when some turn morality on its head by subverting the nature of man, they create hell on earth. When some force a person to drop his own mind and accept their will as a substitute, they defy the reality of man. Man's nature demands him to act for his own rational interest and threatens him with death if he does not.

In the history of choices men have made on how to behave, no choice is more evil then the morality of altruism. The fundamental idea of altruism is that no person has the right to exist for his own sake. Instead, service to others is the only justification of his existence. Self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, his strength and his purpose for living. Altruism says that the standard by which to judge is that the self is evil and the selfless is good. Alruism says it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others. It is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others—it is immoral to earn, but moral to freeload.

The irony is that many who value political freedom uphold the morality of altruism in some form or another. To those freedom fighters who believe that any action taken for the benefit of others is good and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil, you have tossed the coin of altruism into the air. When it lands heads, your political opponents win and when it lands tails, they win too. Either way, by upholding any variant of altruism, you lose. The nature of man and altruism are incompatible because reason and self-sacrifice are incompatible.

Challenge the altruist's dogma. Why must a person live for the sake of others? Why must he sacrifice his interests to the interests of others? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it. Since nature does not provide a person with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that says concern for one’s own interests is evil means that the person's desire to live is evil. To restore political freedom, first honestly discover and restore how to think and act as an individual- for your own sake.

[-] 1 points by jedthefish (1) from Calabasas Highlands, CA 2 years ago

yes, no credible argument to the alternative. yes yes yes yes yes

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The majority on here agrees to yes. This is good

[-] 1 points by TheCloser (200) 2 years ago

YES. Money is a synthetic means of value. I think the key problem with this approach is the incentive system. What's the incentive to be productive?

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You asked LP, "What's the incentive to be productive? Putting the perspective on the fundamentals, I'd say that the answer is your own life. Your life is your incentive and from that what's required of you to maintain it and advance it. In other words, living your life is the highest purpose and as such you'll require yourself to be productive. Everything starts there for you and from there is an expression of this purpose.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

My incentive would be to create, live and love. Everyone would have to decide there own incentive. What moves you?

[-] 1 points by JoaoEscorpiao (1) 2 years ago

YES! Science, Wisedom, RBE!! OWS & Venus Project ftw!

A free huge from Portugal, Lisboa. ;)

JoaoEscopiao

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Revolutionary potential.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 2 years ago

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants.

[-] 1 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 2 years ago

Yes, of course! It's the only viable solution. Every other option is a temporary fix. Basing our development on available resources provides the ground work for the only long-term sustainable solution. As I mentioned in my thread, "This is what NEEDS to be adressed", "The world belongs to us, to all of us. Not just a squandered few who through beauraucratic deployment ASSUME ownership over the material goods and resources of this world.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

I totally agree.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I agree. It will never work with Humans, especially Americans.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

We have arrived at a time when new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world's people. It is no longer necessary to perpetuate the conscious withdrawal of efficiency by planned obsolescence, perpetuated by our old and outworn profit system.

[-] 1 points by TimCampion (9) 2 years ago

Yes and worldwide

[-] 1 points by PowerToThePeople (11) 2 years ago

Yes, get rid of the fiat money system the banking cartel uses to enslave others.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

This will only work with a smaller population

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

If we want to predict the future we must invent it - RBE

[-] 1 points by centhena (2) from Santa Clara, CA 2 years ago

YES, PLEASE!!!!!!!! We must stop this consumption=>waste lifestyle we have adopted. We must be responsible with the resources of our planet if we intend to survive as a species. We must stop putting the value of dyed scraps of paper and small chunks of metal over the value of human life. It's disgusting that even one persons life should be lost for the sake of money, yet we have tens of thousands of people dying of starvation every day because they don't have the money to buy the food that would otherwise be available to them. We have people who die every day because they cannot afford medical care even though there are doctors available where they live. We have giant pharmaceutical companies working against medicines that cure illnesses because they cant' turn a profit on them due to patenting. This is completely unacceptable!!!! We have the resources and technology right now to house, feed, and cloth EVERYONE on the planet! But for the love of money and power this would be the way. So, I say fire the worlds governments who have done the best they could with a broken system. Let them return to society and become productive in other endeavors. Recycle all the money except perhaps for a few examples of each currency for historic preservation museum pieces. Let got of current misconceptions of the necessity human toil. We must embrace our technology as the tool that it is and abandon antiquated practices. Lets make the world better for our children and their children. Lets make a world we can be proud of. One that is in balance and where all life is well taken care of.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Great Post

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the current economy is based on jobs

a resource economy would be based on need

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

That's right based on need and a lot less greed.

[-] 1 points by OpenSourceEconomy (2) from Durham, England 2 years ago

Yes, this is one way we could get to and Resource Based Economy: A solution to the current world economic crisis could be called an “Open Source Economy”, which seems to be essentially a RBE. To explain what an open source economy is and could be. Lets compare it to the “Free Market Capitalist Economy”.

Open Source is essentially the opposite of Capitalism. In a the Capitalist system intellectual property, inventions, designs, ideas, engineering methods, schematics, etc are patented, copy righted , trademarked and the information is withheld buy groups and individuals so only they are able to maximise profit from them. This way they gain an advantage over others by not allowing anyone without the legal rights to see any of their now PRIVATE information.

Open Source on the other hand is exactly the opposite. The words Open Source mean the Source of the product, the technology, or whatever we are talking about is Open for everyone so see, to use, to change, to expand on, to improve etc. So it benefits the inventor AND everyone else at the same time. It promotes a equal, sharing, collaborative culture for everyone. And there are very simple open source licences that will keep the work and open source products, open source.

There already exists an open source culture in the world today. Many people use open source software like Ubuntu and we are now starting to see this trend spread into "hardware". Open Source Hardware and Technology is a growing culture and it IS and will CONTINUE to facilitate free access to how to create a lifestyle of your own design. Slowly leading towards less reliance on the Free Market Capitalist system allowing us to unplug and move in a sustainable and resilient direction. Sustainable because it allows us to be self-sufficient in communities, a trend that with time will allow individuals to be self-sufficient when the technology becomes advanced enough. Resilient because buy learning how the technology works and how to repair and improve it, you can change and adapt it to meet your particular needs wherever you may be in the world. Owning the knowledge of how the tech you use works affords you autonomy.

This also opens up a new educational path. In life we get two educations, one is given to us and the other we give to ourselves. The open source direction provides us with open access to information to educate ourselves and others if we wish to.

The possibilities from open sourcing information on how technology works are endless when you start to think about it. Imagine what we could create locally and globally by open sourcing the information behind energy production technology, food production technology and construction technology. We would truly be working towards a freer society.

If you want to get involved and find out more please visit “opensourceeconomy (dot) org” where you will find links to people and communities that already exist and that are forming. Actions speak louder than words, lets collaborate.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Very good post. I believe this web site uses open source. Nothing breeds fairness faster than visibility.

[-] 1 points by Riaan (1) 2 years ago

All these new ideas are very refreshing but I think OpenSource is the closest to a scientific approach for creating a better world.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

Let me start of by saying that all kinds of capitalism or market economy ideologies are not supportive of intellectual property.

That being said, good post. Here is more info about the guys featured on your video: http://opensourceecology.org/index.php

[-] 1 points by occupyouterspace (1) 2 years ago

YES. and if you have any questions, please take a look at: http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/faq

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all - Jacque Fresco

[-] 1 points by jmewstn (1) from Battle Ground, WA 2 years ago

Yes Please!! I have spent many years educating myself on humanities' history of culture, social structure, currency & economics, as well as most of our current global issues. I have also seriously researched any other option I could find, and have spent the last few years supporting the Resource Based Economy. It is currently our best option; multitudes better than what we are doing today. We are technologically capable, it is time to update society. We have been reforming and regulating this system for hundreds of years, and yet every aspect of society is suffering and will continue to decline. We let 34,000 helpless children die a slow and painful death of starvation every day, yet in America alone, we throw away enough food to feed them all. The homeless freeze to death around the holidays while vacant houses sit nearby; the more you look around, the more you realize why the world is so crazy. Once you realize we have the resources and technological capabilities to supply everyone a comfortable life, you really wonder why we keep letting these babies die. I grew up in that world, and now that my 6 year old is aware of children his age suffering many atrocities, I do what I can to fix it. I have dedicated my life to seeing this become a reality, because I believe it will be one of man's greatest accomplishments; hopefully the last push for our long struggle of human rights and true freedom and equality for all. An addition to all the hard work of the many great minds before us who have dedicated and even gave their lives for everything we have today. Seriously, I'd be lucky if I discovered how to make fire in my life time, let alone everything else I enjoy daily, and in my appreciation, I plan to preserve and contribute in any way I can. The world will be such a better place, and the more generations raised in a healthy, positive environment, the more mental illness will decline. At this point, I find it hard to believe any one wouldn't want to jump on it, it's horrifying what we are doing around the world today. I would be ready to try anything but this, but I've actually spent a LOT of time researching this system, and it's going to be amazing when we switch. Wishing everyone the best, Jamey Weston

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yes Sir, If we really wish to put an end to our ongoing international and social problems, we must declare Earth and all of its resources the common heritage of all of the world's people.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction - Jacque Fresco

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and have more meaningful productive lives - Jacque Fresco

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

When one considers the enormity of the challenges facing society today, we can safely conclude that the time is long overdue for us to re-examine our values and to reflect upon and evaluate some of the underlying issues and assumptions we have as a society. - Jacque Fresco

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 2 years ago

I use to be an RBE supporter until I learned about Osixs. This is a much better system. A guy by the name Dan Thomas invented it. It's brilliant. I can almost guarantee this is the future. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

You can thank me later <<<<

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Interesting, I'll check it out.

[-] 1 points by ckyoung (9) 2 years ago

Yes, I totally agree.

[-] 1 points by human11 (2) 2 years ago

Nice idea, but how do we get there?

I encourage EVERYONE to post their TOP 10 Demands and see what comes up from collective consciousness. The General Assembly could then vote to decide the final TOP 10.

1 Nationalise the Federal Reserve 2 Ban fractional reserve banking and compound interest 3 Ban derivatives 4 End all wars and bring the troops back home 5 Re-install the Glass-Steagall Act to separate commercial banking from investment banking [support Bill No. HR1489 in Congress] 6 Go back to a currency backed by gold and silver 7 Establish fixed exchange rates among currencies 8 Give long-term low-interest loans to fund public projects and create jobs 9 End tax-cuts for the rich 10 Stop the home foreclosures and the bank bailouts.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Here is how we get there:

  1. Recognizing the world's resources as the common heritage of all Earth's people.

  2. Transcending the artificial boundaries that separate people.

  3. Evolving from money-based, nationalistic economies to a resource-based world economy.

  4. Assisting in stabilizing the world's population through education and voluntary birth control in order to conform to the carrying capacity of Earth's resources.

  5. Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.

  6. Redesigning our cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy efficient, clean, and able to conveniently serve the needs of all people.

  7. Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations.

  8. Developing and using clean and renewable energy sources.

  9. Manufacturing the highest quality products for the benefit of the world's people.

  10. Requiring environmental impact studies prior to construction of any mega projects.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

All are good ideas and each one needs implemented. The future is our responsibility; if we fail to accept this responsibility, others will do our thinking for us.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 2 years ago

YES. Although I heartily agree with every aspect of a resource based economy I rather substitute the word “economy” by the word “society” not only because it sounds more humanitarian but also because the economy has been and still is a form of ultimate control over the population. We need to think in terms of society rather than economic terms. The tool of economics is currency and in a true RBS there is no need for monetary system. So the proper name, in my opinion, should be resource based society.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The RBS and RBE words are interchangeable.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 2 years ago

Although I heartily agree with every aspect of resource based economy I rather substitute the ward economy by the ward society not only because it sounds more humanitarian but also because the economy has been and still is a form of ultimate control over the population. We need to think in terms of society rather than economic terms. The tool of economics is currency and in a true RBS there is no need for monetary system. So the proper name, in my opinion is, resource based society.

[-] 1 points by StevenRoyal (490) from Dania Beach, FL 2 years ago

Here we go. This post sounds like those muppets I met in Providence who hung out at the artist colony in the old steel mill by the river. A barter economy might work for a while, but civilization cannot prosper without currency. Now, when currency stretches too far, such as with CDOs, Default-swaps and other Super-capitalist "innovations", it can destroy the world. We don't need to go back to the days of barter; we need to go back to the days when a bank was simply a depository.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

i agree with some of the ideas in general principle but understand that the over all problem is still that this is promoted by a cult, and pealing back the cover many of the details are insane, stupid, fascist, and evil.

I'm all for working on this in a meaningful manner and have set up a wiki to allow for exploration in a positive direction, but ultimately RBE as defined by the cult is not going to happen and TZM is not going to co opt this movement.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ

http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw

http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The word Cult is derived from the Latin word Cultus: It means inhabited, cultivated, also from the verb colere, 'care, cultivation. Your simply misinformed.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

no, cult means originally secret knowledge. you are simply mis informed. i have spent thousands of hours studying the cult and trying to help it or fix its fatal errors.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

i don't need to gamble. i know for a fact that it is a cult, and i know for a fact that it is fascist, and i know for a fact that it is a dangerous enemy to the people.

I am willing to support a critical analysis of the good and etc, on the wiki. I am not going to gamble as an idiot when i know better.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ

http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw

http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Agreed upon opinions do not make them facts.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

those are not opinions, they ARE facts. calling a fact an opinion does not make it an opinion

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

All your questions are answered here - http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

i don't have any questions. i read the faq years ago.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Good video about the transition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqtlEsJkXG0

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Great Post. He hits it on the spot every time.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes sir!

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Are you running into many naysayers?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yep! But that's the be expected I think, at least in the beginning. People don't want to go against the grain, but eventually they will have no choice.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yeah, I suppose some of us are lucky enough to recognize a good thing when we see it. The whole project is completely amazing. Its about each of us accessing and releasing our inner creative powers of Creation. We have that ability, maybe dormant through conditional programming and false beliefs but its there waiting to grow. "amour et de paix"

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I agree. The tides will eventually start to turn and then everybody's potential will be realized.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 2 years ago

Yes! Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by ynot (48) 2 years ago

Y E S,

[-] 1 points by mekanic305 (13) from Atlanta, GA 2 years ago

Nature is diverse and it is meant to be. Any attempt to have one all encompassing solution is futile. You as an individual can already live in this way...it does not require permission from anyone.

One thing no one talks about with the RBE is population control...if everything is provided for the population will explode. And if the RBE says we don't have enough resources for more people how are we to decide who does and doesn't have children? It seems to me that any attempts to CONTROL nature will ultimately backfire. Accept that nature is perfect and let it work as it does.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

This is actually addressed in Phase 3 and brought about through proper education. Why don't you have a look.

http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq

[-] 1 points by mekanic305 (13) from Atlanta, GA 2 years ago

I've read through this and I'm still having trouble finding any specifics. Is there a particular number in the faq that addresses the issue?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Population growth, technological change, worldwide environmental conditions, and available resources are the primary criteria for future projections. Children have insatiable curiosity. The aim of the future is to harness this rather than to destroy it. Perhaps we can Assist in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth control?

[-] 1 points by letmein (6) 2 years ago

resourced based economy--

yes.

let's begin working on an online inventory and distribution system. i have begun the codiing work, and will continue to press forward. if anyone--with proper experience-- would like to get involved, please private message me. when completed, the code will be submitted to the proper occupiers.

we are 99%, and we will enact change. grace and peace.

[-] 1 points by mutualminds (129) 2 years ago

Is free choice a part of it? Many ego's like to have a free choice to run others into the ground and suppress them there. Republican and now Tea Party members have been very good at this. They also call it Gods will. Michael,

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

You betcha, Thanks Michael :- )

[-] 1 points by aphrodite837 (145) 2 years ago

I have to vote NO. Even in a resource-based economy, there would still be people hoarding resources to artificially inflate its value. There are, however, some things that I suspect that I agree with you on. I do not think people should profit off of basic human needs (water, food, healthcare). They should be run by representatives of the people, not companies. I also believe that people who work full time should be able to comfortably supply for all of their needs (shelter, food, water, health...). I just don't see a resource-based economy working in our society. How would I get food, shelter, a new TV, a new car? Just walk into a store and take what I want? Then why bother contributing to society if I don't have to in order to obtain the things I need. I don't work because I want to. I work because I need to provide for my household.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power.

We cannot regress to traditional values, which no longer apply. We must entertain new ideas and concept of a future that is prosperous for all.

[-] 1 points by aphrodite837 (145) 2 years ago

But who's individual pursuits would involve treating sewage, or collecting garbage or flipping burgers? There are jobs that need to be done for the good of society that people probably wouldn't do if they didn't need the money.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Many of those professions that you are familiar with will eventually be phased out. Most professions will be replaced by Cybernetic Automation assisted by high-speed digital computers.

[-] 1 points by aphrodite837 (145) 2 years ago

But who would program and design them without incentive?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

You have been brought up to believe people are inspired by rewards or money. The incentive, which will propel people, is the end of war, territorial disputes, economic hardship, debt, and the basis for most crimes as they will all be eliminated.

[-] 1 points by aphrodite837 (145) 2 years ago

There would still be wars over resources, including territories. Crimes would still occur, although eliminating poverty would help.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

There would be no need for war. War is created for profit and is over once that incentive is gone.

[-] 1 points by aphrodite837 (145) 2 years ago

I disagree with that. People engage in war over resources and ideas. I don't see how a resource based economy would eliminate those motives.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Our whole discussion has been about how an RBE would eliminate these motives. There would be no need for such an engagement if the resources are easily accessible for all and the common heritage of the people. Do we fight over air? Do we fight over sunlight? No its freely available for all.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Logan's Run portrays a "resource-based economy", with no need for money, orchestrated by impartial computers without human sentiments and weaknesses.

Impartial machines developed, in that world, a very simple system of managing resources. Whenever the population exceeded the available resources, the computers simply killed some people to maintain equilibrium. The machines couldn't create more resources as quickly and efficiently as they could cull the population of people.

Why would we expect the machines to make compassionate decisions, when the while point is to hand control to the machines in order to remove human emotions from governance?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Valid point, only if machines refuse to make compassionate decisions. We very well know that a computer operates from a program. If the programming is incorrect an issue may arise. Through the proper input of programs and fail safes we could curb any violence from happening. Animatrix - The Second Renaissance?

[-] 1 points by enumal (1) 2 years ago

YES, we could try.

Watch Carl Sagan documentaries, when you understand what we know about the universe, everything else all our small day to day problems and differences became irrelevant.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The only limitations are those which we impose upon ourselves.

[-] 1 points by blasko (3) 2 years ago

This is my pov sounds like an anarchy system. Where every helps In and everyone gains. Where there is no money and crime could be cut down to its core basics violations of free will,murder and theft. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

There is no single philosophy or point of view whether religious, political, scientific, or ideological, that someone would not take issue with. The only limitations to new ideas are those which we impose upon ourselves.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

Even if it were true that the only limitations to new ideas are those which we impose upon ourselves (and it's not), that still wouldn't address the real concern: SHOULD we impose these limitations on ourselves?

Surely you'll agree that we ought to impose certain limitations on our beliefs: we shouldn't believe the false, the wrong, the dishonest, the nonsensical.

If the only reason that I can't believe in the virtue of promoting an RBE economy is that its principles are false and that its implementation is utopian, then I'm quite comfortable with that.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Limitation - When bad analysis happens to good people. If humankind is to achieve mutual prosperity we must pose no limitations.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

On the contrary. If humankind is to achieve mutual prosperity, we must pose the right limitations.

A well-regulated market is essential for achieving mutual economic prosperity.

The marketplace of ideas can only achieve intellectual prosperity if we participants accept limitations as well: truth, right, honesty, and sense. If we imposed no limitations on our thought and accepted the false, the wrong, the dishonest, and the nonsensical as equally valid as their opposites, the market would collapse and intellectual poverty would be a certain result.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

The limitation is natural law.

The monetary system up to this point ignores that because there exists a finite amount of resources. Yet the monetary system continues to demand infinite growth. It is unsustainable and all the ecological destruction is an example of this.

Also if an abundance of anything can be produced then money loses it's function. The same applies if people are willing to collaborate directly in trade rather than rely on money as the middle man.

What we need is abundant access to vital necessities and money is an outdated tool in providing that.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

There are many disadvantages to using this old method of thinking.

  1. Those who control purchasing power have greater influence thus changing the opinions and thoughts of others.

  2. People are not truly equal without equal purchasing power. This is why we are where we are today. The free market does not create freedom.

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

You claim that there are "many disadvantages" to this "old method of thinking", but then you offer none.

Your first point is a non sequitur: it rejects certain limitations on thought, but says nothing about whether we should accept the limitations of truth, right, honesty and sense. That is, you reject bad limitations, but do nothing to advance your view that the problem is limitation itself.

And your second point promotes precisely what you claim to be arguing against: limitations -- in this case, limitations on the free market!

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

What you can and cant do is up for you to decide. I'm not going to tell anyone what their limits are. All I would be doing is imposing my own. We are here sharing our opinions, and they like limitations are subject to change. You have valid points but do we really want impose a proclamation of limitations?

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

Yes, I do. The values of truth, right, honesty, and sense are not subjective; they are universally binding limitations on speech and thought oriented towards mutual understanding and agreement by consensus.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The sole purpose of the Venus Project is to create a society where people are free to choose their life's work, develop hidden potential, and pursue dreams without government intervention or financial constraint.

Does this sounds like truth, right, honesty and sense to you?

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

No, it doesn't. The idea of annihilating the actual world political economy and creating a new one from scratch based on untested ideological principles is, by definition, fanstastical utopianism.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

No, it sounds ridiculous and fails to understand human nature. Don't bother with the "there is no human nature crap" It only shows your ignorance. You guys should buy an island and move there and share your perfect fantasy world together.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

All of these great ideas can be accomplished with a comprehensive redesign of our social system and the replacement of the monetary-based system by a resource-based economy. This new system only contributes to the well being of human nature and the planet.

[-] 1 points by BillB (14) 2 years ago

Just because one mentions a "Resource Based Economy" does not mean it HAS TO BE J Fresco's Interpretation of buildings and living.

Sure some may like the futuristic approach to living. Others may like a Rustic Approach. Others may like a Castle Approach. Others may like the Shore Cottage Approach or Arctic Living.

POINT IS THIS: Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, J Fresco and many others have done some real nice work in getting ones to see the importance to live within the Earth's Means and also have a most enjoyable life.

I see many commenting on the video's and Fresco's ideas and they clearly have not watched them all the way through nor truly understand the ideas and approaches of work.

Why not have an open mind and think out of the box? Some aspects actually darn better be seriously considered. So why not take at least some of the positive aspects from them and see whatever else is out there regarding a Resource Based Economy or come up with a think tank of new ideas.

Remember: The Models Produced are highly costly models of ONE DESIGN and ONE ONLY. You have to look past that and see the genius in many simply made common sense solutions as to distribution, Work Force Traveling, Manufacturing placement and other parts could possibly be tweaked etc. Along with the ability to learn any type of work and live anywhere anyhow you wanted on the Earth fully using your capabilities for self expression as to what your home and life could be. NOT that it HAS TO BE. But it's just an idea.

Thoughts from the peanut Gallery...

Bill

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Nicely put - "Why not have an open mind and think out of the box."

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 2 years ago

NO!!!!,!,,!,!,,!

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The only limitations are those which we impose upon ourselves.

[-] 1 points by WinstonSmith2011 (2) 2 years ago

Yes, I support this idea 100%

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Political_Spectrums

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ

http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw

http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/


Having taken my time and done my duty to prevent co-opting by the cult, I am now going to reverse tack and point out again that while this forum is not a useful place to go into the complexities of the cults good and bad points, That exploration does need to happen and the cult does have relevant and important ideas for the 99 percent to explore. Lets get that done on the wiki.

Thanks!

And lets keep it out of the GA, off the streets, out of the occupies, and off of this forum. Thanks.

:)

[-] 1 points by 1000heroes (13) 2 years ago

Yes, I agree but how do we get there? TRANSITIONAL STRATEGY: a) Reform OR b) Revolution What do people think of some of Peter Joseph’s ideas? http://youtu.be/1SQqjTxI3vc a) Form a World Occupy Global Conference at a set location for the media to digest, issues are established, forum created to solicit established governments b) Parallel Government representative from various regions are brought to the table along with legal and technical teams associated. b-1) Eventually creating a virtual global institution which begins to prepare the new social system as the old system continues its operation and inevitable failure.

Once the public model is defined, a mass public awareness campaign is commenced in which this new governing body is announced and the tipping point will come once the public begins to see the merit of the new social proposal and is recognizing the governing entity itself, eventually giving it priority over the prior political establishment.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Transitional Strategy - "Once the public model is defined, a mass public awareness campaign is commenced in which this new governing body is announced and the tipping point will come once the public begins to see the merit of the new social proposal and is recognizing the governing entity itself, eventually giving it priority over the prior political establishment."

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

NO, on the basis that such a system is impossible from an information system perspective:

1) What central authority determines this equal share? 2) How do we determine how much of each resource we have? 3) How does an individual find the time or brainpower to assess their shares of every single resource. Imagine not only that there are thousands of resources (I'm being generously simplistic here) but also that there are virtually infinite combinations of applications for those resources. 4) How is a "resource" defined? 5) How is all of this continually updated in the face of technological change creating new products, new patterns of use, and new resources?

The answer to the above, barring a Borg-like hive mind (and no, computers don't even begin to cut it), would be a bureaucracy of proxies for this decision making that would remarkably resemble a communist central command economy. Nice in theory, but reality shows what such management lead to environmentally.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago
  1. the people of course. A RBE requires collaboration and will depend upon the next question

  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8 ----------- Planetary surveys on all major sources of energy, arable land, raw material sources, etc. as well as replenishment of resources.

  3. An approximate average can be displayed for the sustainable consumption of each individual. Similar to how nutrition labels display nutrients based on a 2000 calorie diet.

  4. A natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of life

  5. Meeting human necessities abundantly and sustainably would take priority. Once it is established it can be updated the same way a supermarket's inventory is updated or the way network packets work. It's designed to be modular to make it easy to swap in better technologies/methods for less efficient methods. Keep the code transparent (open-source) and require multiple people to access and alter significant portions of code after peer-reviews.

If coding is to become as or more important than medicine then it would be wise to have some form of peer-review.

I hope these answered your questions

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

1) The people? It can be said that the "people" make decisions in our country based upon representative democracy. The "people" made decisions in communist Russia. I need to hear more than just the "people" to accept that. Ultimately in any complex human system (to date at least, maybe RBE is different?) some "people" inevitably wind up having more say than others, therefore more power.

2) yes, raw resources I can see, but to move beyond the hermetic environment how do you handle equally important derived resources (ie plastic, paper, steel)? That's a "virtual" resource in that how much is available is based upon how much of the base resources some entity wishes to use to convert to plastic. Further complications include intermediate goods such as machine parts or circuit boards. Supply chains are extremely complicated and have little to do with planetary surveys. I recognize that future tech such as replicators would obviate these problems, but I'm living today.

3) Yes, I was assuming dashboards upon dashboards of averages and summaries. It would still require at least full time allocation of a very above average intellect to manage. at the very least I would not have time for any of the creative leisure promised to me by the RBE. At the worst I would have to delegate some decision making responsibilty to another entity, thus potentially starting the power cycle up again.

4) A nice definition but as I mentioned above I'm curious where intermediate goods or even services fit in.

5) As a developer of code I am skeptical regarding the current state of the art's capability to deliver here.Software projects fail an deteriorate all the time in both open and closed source environments. Software is awesome but to let all of society hang in the balance on the basis of one master control program or suite of software would make us extremely vulnerable. Nothing wrong with peer review of course.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago
  1. The people informed on the technical problem posed are the ones that have the greatest influence on how to solve the problem. Surgeons for example don't rely on opinions to perform surgery. They refer to previous information, data, evidence on how to perform their procedure. Interdisciplinary teams are being formed for that purpose now. They are meant to solve technical problems in the venus project.

http://thevenusproject.com/en/get-involved/tvpdesign

Surveys will be given address subjective desires and manage production accordingly.

  1. This depends on the subjective desires of individuals. Test cities would be necessary to determine how production would be able to support the subjective desires of people and what people would want in such an environment. Since access to recreation, transport goods, and other large items could be shared this would cut down on waste even if a few extra goods were produced. In comparison, exactly how are current virtual stockpiles determined? Worst case scenario, delays occur, as the raw material needed to produce said virtual resources would be tracked to avoid depletion/overuse.

  2. I don't think you'd need above average intellect. It's not a ration if that's what you are thinking. It's a recommendation and social norms would need to develop around it. Even today individuals understand that eating fruits and vegetables are healthier than eating sweets.

  3. I don't have enough information on exactly how supply lines and services would be tracked. The venus project may have more information.

  4. This is why test cities/communities are necessary. We would need to plan, analyze, and develop many times locally before implementing globally.

Much more information can be found here

http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

"The only limitations to the future of humankind are those that we impose upon ourselves." Jacque Fresco

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Of course if that were true, there would be no need for RBE:)

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The process of arriving at decisions in this economy would not be based upon the opinions of politicians, corporate, or national interests but rather all decisions would be arrived at based upon the introduction of newer technologies and Earth's carrying capacity.

Computers could provide this information with electronic sensors throughout the entire industrial, physical complex to arrive at more appropriate decisions.

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Someone writes and maintains the code the computers use to arrive at their decisions. That person becomes the ultimate arbiter of society, a dictator, if you will. Or one can posit an AI or Space Alien to which we have subordinated all control. Either of those are defeatist choices that assume humanity is fatally flawed and cannot be redeemed. That's fine if it's your position, I have more hope.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

These ideas are alternative proposals to a current system that is corrupted. The current system does not benefit the total of the earths people. Its all comes down to creating a future where ethical standards and a sustainable way of life are available to all.

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

I'll confess to being somewhat nationalistic or at least western-centric. I'm not filled with hate towards the rest of the world, but I do root for "my" team. I'm happy to accept your distaste for that, it's just how I feel. I'm also happy to agree that our current system is corrupted in various ways. However, as a systems educated person, I believe that repair and evolution is often (and in this case) just as effective as a revolutionary approach. If nothing else, reforming the current system so it can act as a viable host for your more revolutionary ideas to unfold with less dislocation can't be a bad thing, can it?

One property of our current overall model (representative democracy / regulated free market capitalism) is that good or bad it has been more adaptive to changing conditions than many other competing and past systems. It may be that we've seen it bend as far as it can without breaking. I personally hope not. I'll definitely dive into your Venus project link though. I appreciate the exchange of ideas.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Perhaps we are all just children of the times and perhaps those times are gone. Its time to get creative. How many times can we drink the same kind of Reformed cool aid? The ones that can promote real change lack the necessary knowledge to deal with current problems. Their focus is to preserve existing systems, not to change them.

[-] 1 points by RaffordStudies (11) 2 years ago

Im trying to get some research done for an academic paper for college. Please fill out my survey its about 5 minutes to do. Send me a message if you have any questions. http://owsresearch.surveyanalytics.com

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

I would like to get involved on this. Do you need any help?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

apples<>oranges

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

How about both?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

ideally

different latitudes north and south on earth have vastly different ecosystems

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Very true - and each of these different ecosystems produce an abundance or natural resources

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

I'm watching it now, Great Video

[-] 1 points by zapschaft (95) 2 years ago

I don't care how much schooling you've had, The first thing you're going to have to explain is the problem of economic calculation. Von Mises was a pompous jackass, but he was right on this.

Explain.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

"Human civilization is not something achieved against nature; it is rather the outcome of the working of the innate qualities of man." Ludwig von Mises

[-] 1 points by zapschaft (95) 2 years ago

How do you plan on implementing a RBE? I'm not saying it can't be done, with the heavy use of technology I think it would a very interesting experiment provided the collective units comprised of humans don't falsify their product yields. I still think humans would figure out a way to fuck it up.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

There is always that possibility but if you have more intelligent people working together they can correct most errors along the way. How its implemented is outlined here - http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/aims-a-proposals

[-] 1 points by zapschaft (95) 2 years ago

I'm more particularly fond of the private enterprise model, only replacing money with something more measurable. Time credits, time credit contracts and joint time credit contracts. Competition and ownership is good for human beings. Competition and ownership without the cannibalism, that is.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Transcendent_Economy_Exploring_other_mod.html?id=LEacVLUyH4AC

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Most people lose in most competitive encounters and even winning doesn't build character; it just lets you gloat temporarily.

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Competition is inherent in us and all living systems. It's not good or bad, it's a fact of life. Building an economic philosophy or anything of practical value off of such a fundamental denial of our nature can never work in any sustainable fashion. To me the goal of any economic and social system should be to try hard to leverage the benefits of competition while mitigating the worst effects of that competition. The most fundamental principle would be to attempt to mandate a system with no permanent losers or winners, and that is the core problem with the degree of inequality today. More and more we have been developing a permanent underclass in parallel with a permanent overclass. America's geographic and demographic exceptionalism largely delayed this from happening but now we have to make tough choices to figure out how to avoid a fairly dark future. But denying competition will in no way resolve this.

[-] 2 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

We have been programmed to compete. It's no longer necessary in a new system that supports our most creative ideals. We are here to create, live and love.

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

yes, we have been programmed, by our DNA, reinforced by culture. Creation and love are not divorced from competition.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Times have changed we no longer have to fight for survival. Without the free water, light and energy mother earth provided we wouldn't have originally stood a chance.

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

We absolutely have to fight for survival, we just don't have to fight the tigers:) And that's the problem, we are adapted to fighting at that level and we have "won". Now we have to figure out how to harness who we are so we can fight the next battle, which means killing each other less, living and innovating within our planet's means, and hopefully reaching beyond that.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Yes that's exactly what the Venus Project is about. Look it over it just makes sense if its something we can all agree on. A smooth transition could take place. http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq

[-] 1 points by zapschaft (95) 2 years ago

Moreso finance should not be tied to winning or losing as it is now. Bernie Madoff thinks he is a winner too. Money cannot or never will be an accurate representation or measurement of what a man does on this planet in his 24 hour days, it usually only caters to what he deluded himself into believing he earned. People in the U.S. are fucking delusional about what they should be payed, that goes for everyone. The nurse wants 100k to walk around and take peoples blood pressure, The dental assistant wants 90k to hand a dentist his tools when he asks for them. The CEO thinks he's worth 5 million a year because he actually has the gull and the heartlessness to conduct lay offs, he doesn't really seem to understand that being a genius is different than being a heartless worm.

Tell me humans are not totally fucking delusional about price. Especially the totally unconscious ones thinking they can earn 100k in one day with their various financial schemes, and then yelling at a welfare recipient for stealing his money.

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

If money can't be an accurate representation then stop worrying about how delusional nurses are about their salary worth. In line with many of the points here, the vast majority of nurses do not want 100K, they want what 100K can currently buy - a house, food, some amenities, and a reasonably secure shot at education for their kids and retirement for them. I don't think that is "fucking delusional" for a registered nurse or any other worker or artist who contributes solidly to society.

[-] 1 points by zapschaft (95) 2 years ago

Apologies If I sometimes use profanity in my wording where It might not be totally appropriate, but I tend to do that to express the extremity of the problem. Human beings are, and have been for a very long time delusional about almost everything, from the pure savagery of the romans, to the silliness of devine right of kings during the middle ages, to the eugenics agenda by the wealthy of this country during the first half of the last century. It seems we tend to grab ahold of an idea that's total bullshit, dupe people into believing it, only later on to have that idea crash and burn and take a huge amount of civilization out with it.

We have 2000 years of historical hindsight to understand ourselves better this time before we do something stupid again, and I think we can do better than what the 1 percent want which is social darwinism, only they make the rules that dictate whether or not we survive. This really isn't survival of the fittest when the 1 percent can invent and almost totally control the conditions the other 99 percent are allowed to compete in.

If I am playing a game with you and also the ref, and I say the first one to 50 points wins, and you score 50 points to beat me, then I say you didn't beat me, you have to get 100 points, I change the rules of the game to make myself look like the winner. This really isn't survival of the fittest, it called man trying to play god.

[-] 1 points by Fibonacci184 (2) 2 years ago

YES. Please realize the problem is not one entity, its the entire global system and its structure. As we all know patchwork is not sustainable, its time for a restructure at the fundamental level.

[-] 1 points by kampfhund (51) 2 years ago

No - I'm not sure if this is a step in the right direction, or just backwards. Labor based economy meant it was driven on effort and innovation - something that has obviously meant many benefits for society and makes gain 'fair' in the sense that it is based on what efforts we want to put into it. It was the advent of credit that seems to have thrown a monkey wrench in the works, and an entire system to exploit that. Eliminating or minimalizing that component may be the first step in figuring out a new direction, in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by TheWallStreetProtest (4) 2 years ago

Please visit our polls section of the site and vote if you haven't. We are sending the results to Congress, but we need you to tell us what the issues are, and to VOTE!!!!!!!! - TheWallStreetProtest.com

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

The reason that you should not write your congressman, or any number of governmental agencies, is that they lack the necessary knowledge to deal with our problems. Their focus is to preserve existing systems, not to change them.

[-] 1 points by homoamnesius (6) 2 years ago

A resource-based economy means that resources are accessible to all - not only to those who can 'afford' them. Money is no longer used as a means of rationing and hoarding resources. Instead, the earth's resources are assessed and intelligently managed according to a scientific process. There is no politics, no nations, no borders, no classes, no banks and no social hierarchy. The fact is, there is an abundance of resources now available thanks to our modern technological capacity, such that no one need be deprived, or limited in access to resources needed to improve our society and world. Motivation for human behavior is no longer driven by profit, but rather for the common good.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

You have said it perfectly

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

You guys are so full of bologna. There are not enough resources available for 7 billion people. You also can't plan for natural disasters that wipe out supplies leaving once again not enough. Human nature as much as you may think it does not exist is a reality and there will always be greed and crimes that result from it.

My god what a boring planet it would be if we were a bunch of cookie cutter people that ascribed to this nonsense.

By way you will NEVER convince 7 billion people to go for it and even if you got 5 billion to do so the other 2 billion would rise up against your unnatural view of the world. Man's desire for freedom of choice and resistance to your one size fits all personalities will trump your fantasy world every time.

[-] 2 points by homoamnesius (6) 2 years ago

Your response is totally unconvincing. First of all, there are enough resources in the world, with only an illusion that there are not because tremendous amounts are wasted, hoarded and squandered by the few who have the power to hold it. Secondly, we already live in a cookie-cutter society, where people work 9-5, pay mortgages, watch television, etc., because they cannot afford to do otherwise. Third, if you think that you can't convince the world population to accept the end of their impoverishment, then you have no idea what human nature is about.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

You think you are convincing? Unrealistic yes, convincing NO! Thanks for the laugh!

[-] 1 points by Melkie (4) 2 years ago

Yes!!! The venus project has been being worked on for 40+ years! We have plans for sustainable citys! We will make farms no more malls,wallmart,fast food, ect... All people will have their needs and will truly be free!!! Please sign this so Mr. Frescos' project can become a reality !!! Yes!!! We do not want history to repeat itself. We don't want trash filling the globe anymore! We don't want humans struggling to live, humans need to grow spiritually and love each other :) http://www.change.org/petitions/our-current-world-leaders-usher-in-a-resource-based-economy-rbe-2 Please spread this throughout world.

[-] 1 points by Johnforeman (5) 2 years ago

Yes

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

NO. Unless you can provide historic proff that it has been successfully used.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

I don't think humanity has had a map to get where we are today. Human spirit and creative imagination is all it takes to go from point A to B.

[-] 1 points by occupyvenicefl (9) from Englewood, FL 2 years ago

As technology allows for the automation of most production and eventually even services jobs, a resource based economy in my opinion becomes inevitable. Can it be hastened, probably not, it will be evolutionary. And yes, I am a big star trek fan.

[-] 1 points by henoktg (66) 2 years ago

How is it right for a privately owned bank to print money and set the value by inflation ???

[-] 1 points by TheIndependentCentrist (26) 2 years ago

It always works on paper, NEVER in practice. Commonwealth economics and government just doesnt work if that is the only goal. Look at the soviet union?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Perhaps its time to give it a go. People can do anything if their mind and hearts are in the right place.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Lets also take into account there are professions Medical Dr or surgeon to name just two that only a small percentage of the population are qualified to perform. These professions require long hours and dedication. There would be no reason to pick a profession that requires this type of dedication when a person could just as easily do something that requires far less dedication. Very few people would be willing to work longer and harder to receive the same as everyone one else. If you choose to give them more then you have created a system where you still have those that possess more. There would be a shortage of medical, fire fighters, and so on and so on and so on just to name a few. Humanity would experience a decrease in medical and other services that require specific training to perform. Don't bother with neighbors will help neighbors in the even of a catastrophe. Some situations simply put require the proper training to perform them. Unless of course you want to belittle many people and the professions they have chosen.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

http://vimeo.com/23322762

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME3FziQk_vs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsyYJTjE2R4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqv0Y1t1bNw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQDArhWznjU

There already is a shortage in medical personnel because money and 'prestige' is higher for specialists. Generalists are in short supply with the baby boomer generation approaching retirement age, so telehealth is becoming more popular.

Emergency personnel such as fire fighters are only needed now because the necessary precautions are not designed into the structures. (e.g. houses are made of flammable material like wood)

Also chronic ailments are not meant to be cured if left up to the pharmaceutical industry. In otherwords, many problems are artificially perpetuated because it is profitable to do so.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

If you solve the root cause of an issue it no longer manifest as a problem. Those profession you mention would be replaced by new ones. Just think of the possibilities of such a system the taps the true human spirit and creative potential. We must step away from the norm and into new ideas of creation. That's our true purpose as human beings to create, live and love. It's time to evolve wouldn't you agree?

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

What in the world are you talking about? There will always be a need for medical and emergency personnel. That's why rbe can never work because those that want it are living on a different planet.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

As long as there is a need for something it serves a purpose. If people are injured and need medical attention they very well deserve it. However to solve any issues of a nation requires uncovering the root cause. There would be no shortage of people willing to step up if the need arises. Your implication of the incentive system will not work with this new design. We don't get paid to save lives we save them because its the right thing to do.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

There aren't enough qualified people to work as doctors. You fantasy world is also out of touch with human nature, not just human nature but nature as a whole. Course I know those in favor of rbe believe there is no such thing but that's fine. It's America and you have the right to be wrong.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

We don't have to be right or wrong. Its all about creating equality for all. If you can agree to that we are making progress. Be it the VP or another system we can work together and solve these issues at hand. We are here to create, live and love. The Venus Project holds these ideals its highest regard.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

But we are not all equal. Some are faster, some are smarter, some are stronger. Everyone should have opportunities but not everyone is guaranteed success. Whether you choose to believe it or not some people are just flat out lazy. Other people are workaholics. There is not a chance those that work and contribute to society are going to be willing to give a free pass to those that choose not to.

Your concepts are nothing to be bothered with for those of us that understand the reality of the world. Absolutely no way your fantasy land will ever become a reality. If it did it would spell the end of the human race.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Its about creating equality with the necessities of life. Food, Shelter, Water, Clothing, these things should be equally available for all free of charge. In a RBE it becomes the common heritage of all the earths people not just a select few. We must work together as a whole to continue life as the human race. Your not bothered with others because your having a great time enjoying what your doing.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

It will never be! There will always be natural disasters that create shortages of food, shelter, and the basic necessities of life. We are also incapable of creating enough of these essentials to meet the needs of the 7 billion people that currently live on this planet. We couldn't do that even without the natural disasters. Regardless of what you may think people will always commit crimes against one another. It has nothing to do with having enough. It has everything to do with the fact that our world and the people that inhabit it do have flaws and always will.

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Is it easier to imagine a hell or a heaven? only this is for you to decide.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

There is neither. Only the day and what you choose to do with it. 7 billion people will never be on the same page and quite frankly it would be a boring world if they were.

[-] 1 points by jfbp (6) 2 years ago

please take 40 minutes of your life to check this lecture out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQIShEVNRE there ar emany more but think this is a good one for someone not familiar with the RBE/venus project to get familiar with... but then you can find a lot media coverage etc on youtube or here: http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/archives cheers guys

[-] 1 points by krwinger (5) 2 years ago

YES Private banks, fiat currencies, fractional reserve practices, debt, interest and greed are enslaving the human race, destroying our environment and centralizing power.

[-] 1 points by oakden (2) 2 years ago

Definitely yes. A resource-based economy, underpinned by science and technology, would focus on the well-being of humankind, the very antithesis of the current system in which we are forced to live. At the moment products are manufactured with obsolescence built in as standard to ensure that the wheels of business are regularly oiled. This is a dreadful waste of natural resources and materials. In a resource-based economy products will be built to last.

There can be no democracy, equality or justice in a monetary system.

[-] 1 points by Seventy4 (2) 2 years ago

YES, most definetly one of the alternatives which present a working solution!

[-] 1 points by pygmalion (24) 2 years ago

YES, YES, YES, YES at 63 it is the only idea with common sense and by common i mean for the common good of the earth and all it's inhabitants. We can dissolve boundaries and finally have a pledge that makes sense.
We pledge allegiance to the earth, it's resources and it's inhabitants. And to the emergence of all living things, as: one life, one family and one world. How simple is that. We can make manifest the lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine" Your kids/grandkids will thank you - Mamma D

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

To further clarify the concept of a resource based economy consider this example:

A group of people is stranded on an island with enormous purchasing power including gold, silver and diamonds. All this wealth would be irrelevant to their survival if the island had few resources such as food, clean air, and water. Only when population exceeds the productive capacity of the land do problems such as greed, crime, and violence emerge.

On the other hand, if people were stranded on an island that was abundant with natural resources producing more than the necessities for survival, then a monetary system would be irrelevant. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution.

One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe, the sand on the beach, or the salt water in the ocean to someone else on the island who has equal access to all these things.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources would be held as the common heritage of all of the earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people – this is the unifying imperative.

[-] 1 points by PortugalAnon (1) 2 years ago

YES

[-] 1 points by naturesmeds (25) 2 years ago

No, but thats better than what we have now. Start by giving the wealthiest 1%, no more than 1% of resources. If they really deserved it, they would soon be back on top. They know better, so they lie, kick and scream, like Gadhafi.

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 2 years ago

YES!

[-] 1 points by Purtek (2) 2 years ago

YES. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbeQZm12ox8

Aims and goals of the project

Realizing the declaration of the world's resources as being the common heritage of all people.

Transcending the artificial boundaries that currently and arbitrarily separate people.

Replacing money-based nationalistic economies with a resource-based world economy.

Assisting in stabilizing the world's population through education and voluntary birth control.

Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.

Redesigning cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy-efficient, clean, and able conveniently to serve the needs of all people.

Gradually outgrowing corporate entities and governments (local, national, or supra-national) as means of social management.

Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations. Developing and using clean, renewable energy sources.

Manufacturing the highest-quality products for the benefit of the world's people.

Requiring environmental-impact studies prior to construction of any mega-projects.

Encouraging the widest range of creativity and incentive toward constructive endeavour.

Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.

Eliminating elitism—technical or otherwise.

Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.

Enhancing communication in schools so that our language is relevant to the physical conditions of the world.

Providing not only the necessities of life, but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind while emphasizing individuality rather than uniformity.

Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the changes and challenges that lie ahead

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 2 years ago

NO.

[-] 1 points by Sid861 (10) 2 years ago

How do you want to get the oil, coal, and ore out of the ground? Who is going to plant the fields? Who is going to work in the factories?

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 2 years ago

YES! We are all for change but let's try to keep things in order....First thing is first get from A to B right now TODAY! Today we have to deal with Crapitalism oops I meant Capitalism... Sooo how do we do that? We need to become self sufficient with each other. We need to form alliances with ourselves and barter our services. Going back to what we were before capitalism is the only way we can bring about change. Look if we all took our money out of the banks tomorrow what do you think would happen? Serioulsy think on that one? Think wall street might crash? Think banks might close? Then what happens? Oh right government pleads to restore...Then we Demand. We must take away to make one listen.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 2 years ago

it is likely an inevitability but we have to go through several transition phases before we get there and I don't think anyone alive today will live to see a RBE. On another note about these RBE's. They should be democratic, consolidated power leads to corruption 9 times out of ten.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

NO!!!

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

OH MY GOD my opposing post was erased on this post who the hell are these yes men!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

NO it does not work!!! People do not be swayed by these utiopian model societies believe me someone is going to either mess it up or try to control the situation, maybe not in the best interest of the population. Don't do it, look at all the wars and mini-wars that we are currently in 99% of the time it is over resources when you get passed the propaganda BS. We are in a resource war with other countries, we are going into smaller countries to either protect or tap into there resources and leave them with nothing. Do you want these same people facilitating this resource based society of yours. Human nature dictates that this utopian society will be a disaster, sorry to burst your bubble you wrong.

[-] 1 points by mimthefree (192) from Biggar, Scotland 2 years ago

yes, obviously.

ownership is such a ridiculous concept. How can you own the earth?

You ARE the earth!

[-] 1 points by kazoo55 (195) from Rijs, FR 2 years ago

YES. It's the next step.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Yes.

[-] 1 points by Zteacher (30) 2 years ago

I know the following doesn’t have to do with resource base economy, but I’m looking for some feedback on the following ideas regarding a new economic system. Any feedback will be helpful. The plan is a government backed multilayered incentive directed at corporate leaders that will force them to weigh profits equally with job retention, job creation, and other social initiatives. The first segment of this new plan would be an employment bonus for all small, medium and large businesses that will be allocated depending on how many domestic jobs are created and maintained by that business. The system will be based upon point values. Each job title will have a point value allocated to it depending on the jobs value to the company and its pay scale. An example, though certainly not set in stone, is as follows. Unskilled and skilled workers will be worth one to four points within the system, based on seniority and their skill set. Pilots and information technology specialist will be worth four to six points. Financial analysts and bankers will be worth 5 to 7 points. Doctors, scientists, and engineers will be worth seven to ten points. Of course, not all job titles are represented within this example. Examples regarding how employment bonuses can be distributed are as follows. A small business having a total employee point value of 20 will result in a small business earning an extra $14,000 per month. A total point value of 1,200 will earn a small medium sized business $378,000 per month, 28,000 points will earn a company $778,000 thousand per month, 358,000 points will earn a company about $50 million per month. A key factor for such a plan is how to pay for and sustain these financial incentives. Government regulations would be required to address the remaining elements of the plan.
The second part of the plan would be to incorporate federal regulations that would determine how much profit a business must achieve in order to qualify for the employment bonus. This profit target will vary from 50% of the employment bonus to 100% of the bonus value. For example, if a small business has an employee value of 20 points, they would qualify for a $14,000 per month employment bonus. A small business of that scale would have to at least make 50% of the bonus’s total worth in order to attain it. Therefore that business would have to make at least $7,000 per month to qualify for the whole bonus, or there would be a deduction to the bonus. Small businesses would have target goals from 50% to 60% of the bonus. Medium sized businesses to relatively large businesses will have goals from 70% to 90%. Of course, the major banks and corporations will have to make 100% of the bonus’s value. This type of system will be very helpful for start up businesses, since these kinds of bonuses could dramatically increase their profits and growth potential.
The final segment of the plan is designed to force leaders of major banks and corporations to weigh profit equally with social initiatives. Small and medium sized businesses would be exempt from this profit regulation, the concern being growth rather then social initiative. In this plan, a major corporation cannot keep earned profit that goes beyond the employment bonus by a multiple of three or six, depending on size of the business. Keep in mind that this taxed profit will only be implemented after the corporation’s expenses have been calculated. As an example, if a major corporation has an employment point value of 358,000, their bonus would equal approximately $50.6 million per month (see table). A business of this size could keep a profit equal to three times its employee bonus which would equate to over a $150 million. When added to the employee bonus, they make over $200 million in total monthly profit. So if a business is now making a billion per month, it would essentially be taxed $800 million of its profit. If this plan was adopted globally, corporate executives could still increase profits through this system, keeping investors interested in supporting such companies. In the last example, the company had a point value of 358,000. The only way that the company could raise profits would be to find a way to employ more people. The more people they employ, the more profits they can keep. A corporate executive will look at their monthly profits and determine how much profit they will loose through the tax regulations. They will have two options. They can either use the excess profit to create jobs which will result in more profit or they can allow the government to take the entire amount. If you want to read more into this, click the following link. https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/bdbPRg

[-] 1 points by jesus2012 (3) 2 years ago

As long as ya'll don't try to take my TV away from me.

Jesus is coming to save us, again... http://wesower.org

[-] 1 points by hakuin (12) 2 years ago

I exposed the whole Resource Economy thing and TZM CULT on my youtube chanel : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjJ_4r7R_S0

[-] 1 points by bluenightfox (1) from München, BY 2 years ago

YES !!! To every person (especially children) I´ve described the RBE they got it immediately. It´s logical, fair and well SANE to apply it. Critisism is welcomed, as long as its civil. It is actually part of the RBE in order to become better and better. Peace.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 2 years ago

Utopian theories rarely work outside the theoretical realm.

[-] 1 points by J789 (18) 2 years ago

No. at least not right now.

In order for RBE to work, the world will need to be fully automated. Currently not everything can be replaced by machinery, building a house for example.

Anyway, I still think that without competition, the world prospect will be slowed down. (How are we going to compete with the aliens?)

[-] 1 points by hakuin (12) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by Kulafarmer2 (118) 2 years ago

Define resources better, a resource could be anything including manpower, so to get a better understanding can you please clarify a bit?

[-] 1 points by CrystallBrown (5) 2 years ago

An idea for the protesters in the south might be large buckets with soil... plants i.e. vegitables and fruit. Eat off that :)

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 2 years ago

Interesting idea, and with increased productivity we eventually end up with a potential end of scarcity anyway.

As with all ideas, I wonder how it works in combination with human nature, for all systems if ran as they are idealized are essentially utopian. If capitalism worked the way it promises, it would make us all happy. If communism worked the way it promises, it would make us all happy.

Somehow all these ideals seem to forget human nature.

When we would introduce RBE, how can we prevent people from destroying resources? It seems there is an advantage for some ( the people we now include in the 1% ) to destroy resources in order to create scarcity.

[-] 1 points by jfbp (6) 2 years ago

for the people who are not familiar with the resource based economy I just ask them to inform themselves good about it. Look for info and videos, interviews. check thevenusproject a lot of info in the FAQ section and all over the site. most of the people I know I'm sure would support it and would like to live in such system. the ones that don't agree with it are always the ones who are well installed and liek things the way they are or the ones who had a quick look at the project and decided to reject without being well informed about it. well agree or not just ask you to inform yourself good about it at: thevenusproject cheers everyone

[-] 1 points by ArdibleMZ (1) 2 years ago

YES. It's not the final solution, it's the best option. Will there be problems in a RBE society? Defenetily YES. But they will be of different nature. Just more logical and with the right environment to solve them thru critical thinking and collaboration. Now we are still in pre-civilization. With a RBE we will jump on step 1 of civilization. It's not so complex and still have not seen an ARGUMENT against the RBE.

[-] 1 points by jfbp (6) 2 years ago

YES. and for the people who are not familiar with the resource based economy concept I just ask them to inform themselves well about it. Look for info and videos, interviews. check www.thevenusproject.com a lot of info in the FAQ section and all over the site. until now from my social group of friends etc the ones that don't agree with it are always the ones who are well installed and like things the way they are or the ones who had a quick look at the project and decided to reject it without being well informed about it. a better world has a practical part too and everyone shooting disperse ideas of how it should be based on their opinions will never work in my opinion. what the venus project works for is simple actually. it's a system based on the management of resources using the best of human knowledge, science and technology for the benefit of the social system and all mankind trying to create the best quality of life possible for all people in terms of what we have in common and not what divide us. clean air, clean water, housing solutions, etc.well, agree or not just ask you to inform yourself good about it at: www.thevenusproject.com cheers everyone

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

yes,. it sounds good in broad strokes,. the devil however is in the details, so much will depend on the setup.

[-] 1 points by JaxSinclair (3) 2 years ago

Undoutably YES! This system of waste, war and human suffering must end! A new era of human, cultural and technological prosperity is upon us as soon as humanity wakes up to realise the monetary system won't last and a better and ultimately more efficient system has been devised to serve the entire earth as a single organism.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Is there any way that this thread can be stickied to the top of the forum? Or can we get a resource based economy sub forum?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

A Sub forum sounds good. I believe these forms follow according to how many comments have been made in a certain amount of time. Like in nature things seem to take the necessary time to reach a life of its own.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes, I think so too. I made a separate post about a sub forum here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/resource-based-economy-sub-forum/

[-] 1 points by Mamoudinijad (1) 2 years ago

We have made it through a lot of human history of experiences, we need to look at our past and learn from our mistakes and evolve together. Resources based economy seems to be the next upgrade of human civilization

[-] 1 points by gardenguy (27) 2 years ago

Great question. Why not ask such questions with a purple finger vote within Occupy, and re-establish Democracy, not corporatocracy as a means of establshing a much needed consensus within this movement of ours?

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 2 years ago

It's an interesting system and an interesting concept -- but I don't believe you can completely disavow money.

In order for this notion to exist, you are almost asking humans to fight their very nature. We aren't at a point wherein we can accept this paradigm.

I think it relies too much on "best case scenarios" rather than real experiential data.

[-] 1 points by CapvsCom (1) 2 years ago

Socialism and Communism have NEVER worked for any country, any time in history, and no amount of "evolution" (to try to give your insane beliefs scientific credibility) will change that.

[-] 1 points by zachammond32 (5) 2 years ago

http://www.unitinghumans.com/ YESSSS although you should actually educate the people about this before having a vote because most people dont know what it is

[-] 1 points by SaveOurSouls (5) from Bekasi, West Java 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by Matthew86Dnb (2) 2 years ago

A big part of people here discussing , have not looked properly into what a Resource Based Economy really is and how it works. From what I know the "founder" of the RBE system is Mr. Jacque Fresco ,a self-educated structural designer, philosopher of science, concept artist, educator, and futurist. He is also the creator of "The Venus Project". I strongly recommend visiting the official site of "The Venus Project" for a better understanding of what a RBE is and how this would work and look like : videos / pdf / lectures etc. --> (http://www.thevenusproject.com/)

I also see comments about the incentive / our human nature , again things that will work as we know from the facts that have been given to us all by our top scientists , doctors , psychologists around the world and throughout the years. Also for a better understanding of this I strongly recommend watching "Zeitgeist - Moving Forward" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w)

At the end of all the question is here "RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY - YES or NO?" ---> The Venus Project & Zeitgeist are the single organizations that have (as well as created) promoted this concept (RBE) and gave us detailed info. about it. So I say , give the respect and get educated about it. I promise it`s worth the time looking more detailed into it as it will answer most of your questions.

Peace & Love

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20421) 2 years ago

Yes.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

I joined the VenusProject group as a volunteer Systems Analyst & Software Developer. I've also read similar sites such as VictoryCities.com. I have been working on the above Business Analysis needed to create RBE City of 65,000, for the last 27 years as a Marine, Certified Public Accountant, Computer Programmer, and Socioeconomic Analyst. RBE is a perfectly viable solution, the problem is getting people to FINANCE it's "new" cities, and by people I mean a Home Town Bank of 65,000 Members as Bank Owner-Voters, and therein, as Business Owner-Voters, of an existing Town of 65,000 (which Members can be national, but their Town location can't). Why? Because in order to destroy the existing system (and replace it with an RBE City of 65,000), you must first control that system as Bank & Business Owner-Voters. Why? Because today's Top 1% Management System of Business & Government will NEVER finance an RBE city, for such a city would completely undermine their Wealth & Income, which is 2/3 of all Wealth & Income. What you MUST have to build a "new" RBE City of 65,000 is a "new" Home Town Bank of 65,000 as described at (revised): http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategically_weighted_policies_organizational_operating_structures_tactical_investment_procedures-448eo I have 18 people in our group at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems ready to form that Home Town Bank of 65,000, and thus ready to FINANCE an RBE city of 65,000. An RBE city can be built, but you need 65,000 people in a Home Town Bank of 65,000 Members to make it a financial and tangible reality, agreed?

[-] 1 points by cocreator (36) 2 years ago

Rothschild controls 500 Trillion dollars in assets,they set the price of gold daily.. Rothschilds mother said if my boys didnt want war there would be none..Respectably Despicable.We charge these and the other top 12 Families,with treason,extortion bribery corruption..seize their assets distribute to all people in the world,the ones these trnsnationals stole it from..

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

A Call for Humanity - To Sign the Petition

Watch the video, do some research, ask some questions and then if it’s something you feel comfortable with - Sign the Petition.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/The-future-that-Humanity-Deserves/

[-] 1 points by AK47 (1) 2 years ago

Yes.

[-] 1 points by SustainYOU (3) 2 years ago

Yes, unquestionably yes. It wont be easy, but it needs to happen. It is the only option. It is more about living sustainably on this planet. Even if we develop the technology to inhabit other worlds, people will still be pawns in this monetary/corrupt system. People shouldn't go hungry because they can't afford to pay, when we have enough food to support the entire planet. This system is wrong, and 100 years from now we will look back in shame that we ever lived this way.

[-] 1 points by SustainYOU (3) 2 years ago

Yes, unquestionably yes. It wont be easy, but it needs to happen. It is the only option. It is more about living sustainably on this planet. Even if we develop the technology to inhabit other worlds, people will still be pawns in this monetary/corrupt system. People shouldn't go hungry because they can't afford to pay, when we have enough food to support the entire planet. This system is wrong, and 100 years from now we will look back in shame that we ever lived this way.

[-] 1 points by espensommer (8) from Oslo, Oslo 2 years ago

YES! It's commons sense that nobody can own the air that we breath. But we need more than oxygen to survive! When we have the science and technology to fulfill every human need then it would make no sense not to! And the fact of the matter, is that we do have that ability. And we can do it in a sustainable, ecological and environmental manner with RBE!

[-] 1 points by THETRUTH (10) 2 years ago

Where do "human" resources fit in that paradigm? How do we resource humans? At what point might one have a choice as to whether they want to be resourced? If we assign value to human resources, then would we not want to care for them? Where might problems arise in potentiating human resources and exploiting them for the greater good?

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Human resources would be utilized as any other renewable resources, when they become available, that is volunteer.

[-] 1 points by xinsanex (2) 2 years ago

Yes ,"The thing is humans are the only species in the universe who use money to live on their planet. " How is that money may be worth more than a human life?

[-] 1 points by Alukat (2) 2 years ago

Yes!!

[-] 1 points by MattFryy (3) 2 years ago

Yes, absolutely. The only truly sustainable economic model I have ever seen. The majority of other proposals still have the inbuilt efficiency vs humans, technology vs employment, profit vs abundance traits.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

socialists are everywhere, and the worst part is most of em don't even know they are advocating socialism, who do you think will administer the resources? Who is going to decide who gets what kind of resources? Sheeple............ only generations of dumbing down could make people so dumb. Google up an 8th grade graduation exam from the 1890's and you'll see what I mean by dumbing down.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Define your version of socialism. Everybody can stick label on to something just to ignore it. It's a red herring argument.

[-] 2 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

Collective control over resources and land, in a system where some " so called" leaders dictate who gets what. Its pretty simple, I'm sure a Dictionary could have cleared it up for you...

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Here you go, RBE does not fit in your definition of socialism ;) There is no leaders and no one dictates anything. And no one "control" the resources, volunteers just collectively supervise the process of resource extraction and distribution. It's important to use proper definitions and avoid loaded words for concepts that you do not completely comprehend. ;)

[-] 2 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

Dude you are pipe dreaming, Your RBE Fails to consider human nature. Also what happens if "volunteers" want to extract resources that are on my land? or I suppose land ownership is forbidden in RBE. What about the so called volunteers? Who will oversee the fairness of their distribution scheme? if there are no leadership positions who will coordinate who wants/gets what resources? Again I suggest a good dictionary to define collectivism/socialism.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Dude I understand what you're coming from, you live in the reality where everything can be exploited and everyone can be corrupted. That's exactly why I myself don't want government to control the means of production. You probably think that you are the first to as the questions, but believe me, there where hundreds before you. Before sticking label onto something that you do not understand based on you lifetime conditioning, first try to imaging if it can actually work. Everyone who hear about it have numerous questions, give yourself a favor and try to find the answers yourself. "human nature" - argument is discussed in the first part of "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", I would also recommend to watch jacques fresco's videos and "RSA what motivates us". Human behavior depends on two factors, current environment and environments the person has been exposed to. Crime, violence, corruption are part of our survival mechanisms which only present themselves in the hostile environment which btw capitalism produces with constant competition. Free market is like sport, a few winning, but the majority looses no matter how trained they are or how much they try. They have to lose, otherwise there wouldn't be a competition that drive the wages down. "forbidden" - you had to insert that loaded word? Nothing is forbidden in a system that does not have enforcement enforcement structures. "land ownership" - There's no such thing, it's capitalistic constraint and does not apply to any other system that does not derive from capitalism. "Who will oversee" - It's like following an idea, like anonymous. Who oversees anonymous? It's like you enter a basketball court and instead of joining them, you take the ball and start catting it into peaces for some unknown reason. "coordinate who wants/gets" - everyone who want, gets, but how much, depends on availability. It would be automated, based on supply(how much is available) and demand(how much is requested). Of cause your next argument would be "What if I want more?", well, if more is not available than that's what it is. There is no perfect system on our finite planet with finite resources and that's exactly why we need a system that can account for it.

[-] 2 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

what if survival of the fittest did not exist? what if the laws of nature could be broken, what if we lobotomized everyone on the planet to make them passive slaves to some RBE. If we did that we would be in worse shape than we are now, at least now we can educate ourselves.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Why would we lobotomized everyone? You have some pretty screwed-up imagination... now you can educate yourself if you have enough money not only to pay for it, but also to pay for your food, shelter, transportation, insurance and all the other crap that the indoctrinated culture force onto you. For all of it you would also need time, which you don't have, because you are slave in the system doing your meaningless job. And after all of this, what you will get in the school is not education, it's indoctrination + preparation for the next enslavement. "Education is what’s left after everything learned at school has been forgotten." - Albert Einstein

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

Your talking about my 10th grade public school education, right. proof you just dont know what you're talking about...

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

I'm talking about most school education. Maybe except a few private schools that only ~5% of population ca afford. it's "proof you just dont know what you're talking about..."

[-] 1 points by AlexanderLight (3) 2 years ago

YES!

The RBE is the only path we can achieve freedom and happiness at this point. You may call it however you want, as long as the monetary system is replaced with a resource-based system.

Humans Are Free!

[-] 1 points by Blankass (24) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

No. Renewable Based Economy, decentral production, diversity, cohesion.

A Resource based Economy corrupts. Big Oil is more powerful than democracy. When it gets controlled by the people, then it is Big Government. Private or public oligarchy, that is not the governance issue.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

"Resource based Economy corrupts" How could it corrupt if the resources are unconditionally shared with everybody without money or any other medium of exchange?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 2 years ago

Even with the election of men and women of impeccable character into government, without available resources and advanced technology, war, poverty, and corruption will prevail no matter how many new laws are passed or treaties signed.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

renewable resource based ecosystem

[-] 1 points by dourado (2) 2 years ago

YES! RBE is a centralized system? Yes centralized by humanity. RBE make this possible: A world where everybody have access to all information and to all resources. A world with a resource based philosophy. Where science is available for everyone. A world where no one controls nobody. Where humanity and technology don't MAKE decisions but ARRIVE at them. A world with no borders, no divisions, no social classes, no patriotism, no money! A world where the people have the mind wide wide open through education, transparency and love.

[-] 1 points by zkildare (2) 2 years ago

Yes, it makes perfect sense, anything else will just result in the ways of old. RBE, all the way. The Venus Project slogan says it all, Beyond Politics, Poverty and War. If someone doesn't agree with that short slogan, jog on...

[-] 1 points by Time2change (2) from Wien, Wien 2 years ago

Yes. We need to at least start moving in that direction.

[-] 1 points by losmi (2) 2 years ago

Yes, absolutely! RBE is the only valid way. But it is very important to get RBE seriously, ie. not only wave the RBE flags but get into original details through Venus Project.

[-] 1 points by nice (2) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, additionally it will eventually not matter when we have replicator technology capability, and free powers abundant, it would be great if benevolent conscious ancestor aliens came helped us get there real quick, 1st contacts inevitable in the 3d dimensionmaybe, may it be sooner then we think one of the quickest wonderful solutions to most all of the fundamental problems on earth real catalytic-ally quick Wow (btw amazingly actually, if your unaware, many many contacts to 4th dimensions and everything beyond have been made through the psychedelics (dmt ) thats a proven experience-ual fact) so who knows n who knows

[-] 1 points by GoneN60secs (2) 2 years ago

YES- The Monetary System has served it's Purpose. We've brought ourselves to the Brink of a Technological Golden Age and in Order to Experience this Golden Age we Must Abandon the Security Blanket that a System that we're Accustomed Provides and We Must take a Leap in to the Unknown.

[-] 1 points by Jeremiahhepner (2) 2 years ago

yes!!!! I will keep it short and simple. We cannot continue with our current economic model hat requires infinite growth (consumption) when we live on a planet of finite resources. It is not possible to sustain. Instead, we must inteligently manage the planetary resources by utilizing our emergent scientic and technological understandings to best provide for the the needs of the human civilization in a sustainable way.

[-] 1 points by csbeck (1) from Mill Hall, PA 2 years ago

http://www.truththeory.org/collapse/ check it out and I say 100% yes to an RBE

[-] 1 points by bluezues (1) from Robina, QLD 2 years ago

YES!. The Venus Project advocates an alternative vision for a sustainable new world civilization unlike any socio-economic system that has gone before. It calls for a straightforward redesign of a culture, in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but totally unacceptable.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[-] 1 points by ZenBowman (59) 2 years ago

No. The problem is centralization of power in the hands of a few. RBE will make the problem considerably worse.

The real solution is to decentralize and move toward food co-ops, stronger local communities and localized decision making. Not this technological tyranny.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

"to decentralize and move toward food co-ops, stronger local communities" That's exactly what it is+the communities unconditionally share the resources between their people and other communities.

[-] 1 points by ZenBowman (59) 2 years ago

Yeah, that unconditional sharing is the fucked up part. No thanks, let communities decide whether they want to share or not, you cannot force them to.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Forcing? Who is forcing anybody? I'm just here to help people understand what's fucked up with capitalism and what the solution is.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

YES!

More on this here: http://metapolitik.org/content/demands

Also, if anyone is getting cold out there protesting, here's an idea to get you through the winter:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/winter-is-coming-lets-occupy-the-caribbean/

[-] 1 points by slmrcs (3) 2 years ago

Yes. We need to look deeper at the systemic problems in the current socio-economic system. Through all of history, from hunter/gathering tribes, to city states to feudalism and capitalism, that has been dependent on the state of technology. Current we are doing things within the context of 19th/20t century technology. In terms of real resources, we could all live well, and there would be no poverty.

If you are unfamiliar with the idea of a Resource Based Economy - please go watch the zeitgeist films (esp. Moving Forward). As it's a different way of understanding our problems - than how we are used to thinking - so hard to fully convey in a HTML box on a website.

[-] 1 points by eidos (285) 2 years ago

What's a "share?"

[-] 1 points by jwhirsch84 (6) 2 years ago

Yes, I think this is clearly the ideal system in many regards. However, the transition will not be pretty. I think maybe a good way to ease the transition would be to promote the use of local currencies, such as are already in use throughout the US and world, which are based on value exchanges. One example is a healthcare specific currency created in Japan by the Sawayaka Healthcare Foundation. A young person can care for an elderly person in their home town, and use the earned credits to have someone care for their relative in a distant town. This currency is accepted at nearly 400 health centers throughout Japan. Now, is this form of exchange more efficient than money? Probably not. But, what it does do is affect behavior in ways that money cannot. I will care for that elderly person as if they were my relative, and I know that my relative is being cared for someone who will care for them as their own as well.

Sacrifices will have to be made in a RBE, which is something many Americans have a hard time with. We all would need to consume less. We consume 150% of the Earth's total production capabilities at this point, which is why we see widespread environmental degradation running rampant. In addition, it is caused by the need for the Capitalist monetary system to place a monetary value on all things. This means things that should be invaluable, suddenly gain a price tag, and are liquidated and sold to pay for the fantasy that is our money. Maybe without money to blind us, we would see that a price cannot be put on the biosphere that sustains our very existence.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

Not meaning to sound glyp.

Isn't that what Nationalization means? Don't we see evidence of it's success in Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.? I means, opinions aside on their political model, from an economic perspective haven't their populations seen a rise OVERALL in their standards of living?

[-] 1 points by Juanitho182 (30) 2 years ago

I think this is a good solution to all of our problems, and if you like it, please support it too and spread the message.

The Venus Project:

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwcd01i-S1o part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnad4AtGDAc&feature=related part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3IFXazsM8&feature=related part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhrQIlh1xuo&feature=related

Zeitgeist Movies:

Zeitgeist: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8883910961351786332

Zeitgeist Addendum: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

Zeitgeist Moving Forward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLGFZDiwRs

I think is a very good plan, and if we accomplish, everything is gonna be better. hope you can watch all the videos and do some research.

P.S. If you like or agree with this, please spread the message.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

NO.

So many people have clamoured to say yes to this centralized system and claim that it is a panacea, I figured I will get clobbered for pointing out that the more centralized the system, the more vulnerable to corruption it is.

The very traits that make the system easy to control also make it easy to be co-opted and corrupted by the few: centralization, conformity, interdependence, interconnectedness. One World Government.

My question is: what is the carrying capacity of this model system? Surely it is not the current world population?

Why doesn't an individual have a voice in any decisions made? Is there any autonomy? The proponents talk about computers 'deciding' everything - but this is not artificial intelligence, not on a system level, anyhow. I get how robots can take care of manual labor. I'm talking about who controls the computers. The power would lie in the hands of the computer programmers instead of 'politicians'.

Someone is always running the system. We don't live in a eutopia. Greed and corruption always floats to the top, like an oil slick on top of a pond. What are we going to do about criminals?

Also, are people allowed to freely reproduce? If this isn't an inalienable human right and liberty, I don't know what is.

I read Brave New World, and I have to say - RBE looks a helluva lot like Huxley's chilling techno-eutopian society.

[-] 2 points by espensommer (8) from Oslo, Oslo 2 years ago

It all depends on the decisions that has to be made. In a RBE society, there would be no decisions to be made about war, foreign affairs and no arguing about the management of money, which is pretty much all governments do today. The decisions that would have to be made would be all about the managment of resources which is totally independent of human opinion. It's a straight forward mathematical problem. And secondly, if anyone wants to have more of anything for themselves, then by all means, take it. Everything would be available for everyone, so if you wanna drag a set of golf clubs back and forth from the golf course everyday than you do that, the rest of us are just gonna borrow a set when we get there. And the dilemma is not the capacity of whatever model, it's the capacity of the earth. Sustainability. It doesn't matter what system is in place when our way of living is not sustainible, in the end we'll perish anyhow. That's all in the hands of mother earth! Criminals: if you manage to commit a crime in such a society, where it can't be driven by greed, then you're not a criminal, you're sick, and should be treated as such. And we should be wise and try to understand why people do what they do and not lock them in a dark hole for the rest of their lives. Greed and corruption: the reason why this is such a big problem in our modern day society is because the system demands it, it's what the system is based upon and it breeds greed. RBE will reverse that tendency! And finally, RBE is not eutopia, noone ever claimed it to be, and noone probably ever will. Because there'll allways be problems in the world, especially among us humans. But it's all about how we handle those problems, and as far as I know, RBE seems to provide a wiser and more constructive way of dealing with them, thus deminishing the problems themselves, not removing them though! :)

[-] 2 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

Dreams of annihilating the actual world economy and reconstructing it from scratch based on untested ideological principles is, by definition, fanstastical utopianism.

[-] 2 points by espensommer (8) from Oslo, Oslo 2 years ago

Annihilating the current economic system is no dream, and we don't need a revolution to do that. Our economic system is doing a damn fine job destroying itself allready! Do you think our current system just sprung into life all by itself? No-one ever envisioned the system we have today when we laid the first foundational stones on which it is based. It developed over time. And that must happen to RBE as well if it were to work. Or else it would be like taking a native person from the amazon and placing him in NY! It's actually more of a revolution of our ideals and values than of the physical world. At one point our current system will fail and when that happens it is very important that we have a backup plan. And it is not utopianism; RBE never claimed to solve all the worlds problems, just reduce them. And no-one ever said anything about implementing the system tomorrow. And I really can't understand what you mean by "untested ideological principles". RBE is based on the most fundamental, simple and noted ideologies in human nature; cooperation, kindness, sharing, freedom, understanding, peace, love, etc. Not hatred and greed! Just because our current way of doing things is the only way we've ever known, doesn't actually make it the only way. We must dare to think outside the box!

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

But this is just silly. If you're a gradualist, then why promote RBE instead of the popular, moderate reforms to the current system that will make it more sustainable, like the locavore movement, cap&trade, and the efforts to get a successor to the Kyoto Protocol passed? The gradualist doesn't have time for distractions like RBE-utopianism; we want real solutions to the real problems we are facing within the current system.

Utopianism isn't imagining away all the world's problems; it's imagining away the systems in which the world runs into its problems and develops its solutions.

As for you're failure to understand why grounding an economic system on certain values (cooperation, kindness, sharing, etc.) in exclusion from others (selfishness, coldness, acquisitiveness, etc.) is ideological? Only a true ideologue could think that a system founded on a selective interpretation of human nature grasps this nature as it is in itself. But even the greatest RBE ideologue has to admit that there has never been a large-scale economic order founded on these principles alone, i.e. that these ideological principles are untested.

Capitalism is not the only way we've ever known how to do things. Hundreds of different economic systems have been catalogued by social scientists: various kinds of market economies, planned economies, mixed economies, traditional economies, gift economies, barter economies -- really, the idea that we're trapped inside a box when it comes to imagining alternatives to capitalism is quite preposterous. It's just that these alternatives are not very attractive.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

A RBE provides a unified goal which groups can aim towards.

The point of spreading the RBE idea is to allow individuals to make choices as to how they wish to live and to gain a better understanding of how the current world functions. Informed individuals are able to make better decisions because they are aware of new choices.

A post-scarcity society depends on a value shift of the population to begin living consciously and sustainably. It is true that competition, greed, and callous behavior will continue to exist through the transition. However, allowing these behaviors to determine how society will function and which unfortunate individuals must die 'for the benefit of a few' is irresponsible.

"Hundreds of different economic systems have been catalogued by social scientists. It's just that these alternatives are not very attractive."

To who and for what reasons?

Even if the ideal humanitarian society never develops it is our responsibility to at least try our best to arrive at one.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

Competition, greed, and callous behavior would not only continue to exist through the transition period; they will exist in any human society. To deny this is utter utopianism.

These alternatives are not very attractive to the majority of people who have had a taste of liberal capitalist political economic orders and for various reasons, including lower productivity and curtailed freedom. In a recent poll, even in the midst of this economic crisis, 59% of Americans agree with the following statement: "A free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world." That number is higher in developing countries like Brazil (68%) and China (67%). All in all, the poll, which interviewed 12,884 people in 25 countries found that 54% agreed that a free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world. And that's in the middle of a worldwide economic crisis -- one can only speculate about the popularity of mixed economies that are based on free market principles combined with governmental regulation and a social safety net, as is predominant in Europe. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/us-china-brazil-free-market-support_n_846169.html

I, for one, am aware of the choices and am happy to make an informed decision to live consciously and sustainably within a capitalist system. My hope is that, by holding Wall Street accountable and bringing about real solutions to the real problems we face today, movements like OWS will strengthen capitalism, as a regulated capitalism is the best system on which to base the future of the world.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

A little clarification. Competition, greed, and callous behavior will not be the primary source of decision making in a RBE.

As for the poll. How many interviewed in the poll displayed were aware of a RBE? How many have had experience living outside a capitalist environment? How many were living in poverty? Statistics are nice but a statistician can easily distort/ignore a few variables to display favorable results.

No matter how many regulations are imposed, corruption will creep its way back up to the top because the monetary system promotes it. The monetary system promotes competition and differential advantage.

Without scarcity money is no longer necessary. If people collaborated directly in their forms of exchange money is no longer necessary. Disputes, greed, and scarcity (whether real or contrived) must exist for money to have use.

Not to mention money must circulate for the economy to hold up which means job markets must exist simply to push money around. People must consume continuously for competing businesses to continue making profits. Competing businesses must also duplicate products leading to tremendous waste/ecological destruction. In addition automation/mechanization is shrinking the labor and service sectors in what's known as technological unemployment.

So technological unemployment, irreversible ecological destruction, and collaboration threaten the monetary system.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 2 years ago

Great. This is all completely uninteresting to me. I'm in favor of reforming the world by means of real solutions to real problems so as to realize a better world. That's what OWS is all about.

You seem to be focused on dreams of annihilating the actual world economy and reconstructing it from scratch based on untested ideological principles. That is, by definition, fanstastical utopianism, and I have no time for such nonsense.

[-] 0 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

The world economy will implode without any help.

Also, test cities would come before any global implementation.

http://thevenusproject.com/

[-] 1 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Here's the crux of my skepticism. In what way is it possible for management of resources to be totally independent of human opinion? Notwithstanding the incredibly disempowering implications of such a concept, I don't see how this happens unless we are ruled by space aliens. Unless one imagines an AI that can replicate the space alien, an automated computer system is nothing more than an algorithmic representation of human opinion. Manipulation and control of that opinion then becomes the currency or at least the power lever, bringing you back to the same old problems we have today. Who maintains the code? Who modifies it as resource levels, types and relative importance change?

I'm completely open to someone explaining where my logic goes wrong, I just haven't yet read it in any of these posts. It's entirely possible for 100, 1000, even 10,000 comparatively like-minded people to arrive at an RBE that works for a time, but as perspectives and circumstances diverge with millions and billions of people all of this becomes impractical. Of course one reply to that is to say that most people will become like-minded so there won't be a problem, but that would involve applying a monkey wrench to people's natures that I find disturbing. RBE is a brilliant thought experiment but I don't see it applying in the real world as a whole. Surely we can learn from the idea and apply aspects of it to our economic toolkit, however.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago