Forum Post: What's the next economic model?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 12:36 p.m. EST by dreamwvr
(6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Our economy is broken. We need a better way. Can we start brainstorming here. Please don't just throw out buzz words. If you think a resource based economy is best, explain what that is and why you think it will work. We currently have a fiat system, there is also gold backed, commodity backed, etc. If we want to change the world we need to plan now. Join the conversation.
Resource based economy...done in one
Although it would be nice ideally, I don't think a totally new economic system is totally necessary. Certainly not a revolution. All that is essential, for the moment is a few common sense rules which will moderate are now out of control capitalism and corruption. I'm thinking some rules like progressive taxation, some government lobbying and anti-corruption laws, national health care system, some stronger environmental regulations, some controls on defense expenditures to major defense contractors, stopping those wars overseas, and maybe a few other small things. That should be enough. I believe that is all most of OWS is asking for? Maybe it should start by getting the majority of people in America to recognize that the economics of Milton Friedman is total bullshit.
How to Improve the State of America
1) We must first accept we are living in a Capitolocracy not a Democracy. This is a land where money has more votes-power than “One person one vote” as in a real democracy. 2) Reconstruct term limits. Senators must have term limits….Five years per term three max. 15 year total. The president’s first term is 5 years, parliamentary rule apply as in the U.K. until the second presidential term of 5 years is up. 3) The election process should be limited to 12 months for national seats incorporate acceptable financial spending limits on all political races. 4) All taxes personal, industry, etc. should be paid locally to their respective county government, thus spreading the tax burden, yet retaining some local control. 5) County commissioners one term for 4 years, this is not a lifetime career. 6) Reduce the size of local governments and their feudal power base and all the duplication of resources this represents throughout the states. 7) All states and the federal government must subscribe, by law, to “generally accepted accounting rules” 8) Tort reform must be enacted. 9) States tax their respective counties, for revenue. 10) The Federal government taxes i.e. the IRS taxes only the states for their piece of the pie. By doing so we have a more just system of checks and balances with less concentration of power within the beltway. Lobbyist influence and the money grab associated with it will be greatly diluted and diminished. 11) There should be created five regional councils, Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northwest, and Southwest. This is not to be another layer of government. Every one of these regions have their individual needs environmentally that can only be addressed with a total effort of all parties within their respective regions. 12) Do not interfere with the internal affairs of sovereign nations. Deliberate with respectful diplomacy. 13) FAIR TRADE, not free trade. 14) Reduce our dependence of fossil fuels 15) Create national identity and work permit cards similar to a U.S. passport. 16) Better system for tracking US visa violators. 17) America first policy for economic development 18) First control the national debt, and then pay down all local, state, and federal debt with a cohesive comprehensive plan including sacrifice by all Americans on entitlement reform. 19) Decriminalize marijuana 20) Americans should rethink what is an acceptable standard of living. This I believe would be a good start, for all………
Sincerely, Concerned U.S. Citizen.
When people have no work they go:
We can create our own renewable energy economy A New Economic Paradigm
The distributed nature of renewable energies necessitates collaborative rather than hierarchical command and control mechanisms. This new lateral energy regime establishes the organizational model for the countless economic activities that multiply from it. A more distributed and collaborative industrial revolution, in turn, invariably leads to a more distributed sharing of the wealth generated.
Three of the four largest companies in the world today are oil companies — Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, and BP. Underneath these giant energy companies are five hundred global companies representing every sector and industry — with a combined revenue of $22.5 trillion, which is the equivalent of one-third of the world’s $62 trillion GDP — that are inseparably connected to and dependent on fossil fuels for their very survival.
The oil business is one of the largest industries in the world. It’s also the most costly enterprise for collecting, processing, and distributing energy ever conceived. Virtually all of the other critical industries that emerged from the oil culture and feed off of the fossil fuel spigot — modern finance, automotive, power and utilities, and telecommunications — were, in one way or another, similarly predisposed to bigness in order to achieve their own economies of scale. And, like the oil industry, they require huge sums of capital to operate and are organized in a centralized fashion.
Sign a State Constitutional Amendment for Renewable Energy Targets!
Put the discredited oil & gas industry out of business. We can create our own energy – right here and now. We can create a new collaborative lateral energy regime owned and created by the people.
Anyone that says "community" asserts a fallacy of centralized information.
The people who opposed the bailouts first, who saw them coming, also predicted the great depression. That's Hayek, Von Mises and the visionaries of austrian economics
the new market system will be community. small new community corporations will detach from dependence on the macro economic system and form self sufficient communities with an industrial surplus.
every worker will be a shareholder, and it will horizontally instead of hierarchy organized. The current system is a fascist corporate oligarchy which makes everyone dependent upon it. The new system will allow each community to be self sufficient and independent, and will thus end the slavery of the old system.
great topic.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/What_Will_the_New_Economic_System_Be%3F
You defined free markets. Was this intentional? It's scary, but Fascism is the partnership of corporations/religion/government. Obviously, that sounds a lot more like America today so I commend you.
right, the current system is a slave market system, for the two reasons that we are all slaves to the single system and can't escape it in order to get our needs met, and that it turns us all into wage slaves, and, that it leverages third world slave labor against the working class to maintain what amounts to slavery on the one end and caste indentured servitude and thus slavery on the other. A genuinely free market system has to be FREE for everyone, not the means by which third world countries and the general population are kept in chains.
Basic trends, well explained in the zeitgeist publications, indicate that the next economic model must deal with the following: increased world population; reduced availability of natural resources; increased scientific knowledge with consequent improvements in technologies, including communications, transportation, and robotics; and reduced demand for labor;
When the world’s population was small, resources were abundant and there was great demand for labor. As a consequence, slavery was common. Science and technology were also quite primitive. For the future, we may be able to control the growth in the world’s population, even reduce it through natural attrition. This could permit the continued use of inefficient business practices given the remaining natural resources and improvements in science and technology.
Socialized Capitalism FOR SURE:
When people have no work they go:
Global Fair market labor System to find work
They look for volunteer / non-profit work
Fair regulated subsidty system.
All of the above economic systems were developed 10 years ago. We expected, at that time, that humanity will not embrace the next sensible way for 30 years. That means we have another 20 years to wait.
Also - everyone should spend 50% of their time on charity or non-profit causes, and the other for-profit. So if there is no work, at least one can raise donations, and get some of that.
And have a lot of individual farms where people can grow WHATEVER they want to sell and eat.
http://guardloan.com/content/Appendix-iii.pdf
And do nonprofit health, nonprofit insurance, digitize law, have a law wherein all legal fees from both plaintiff and defendant are put into one pool, regardless of who pays, and then the pool is split 50/50 between plaintiff's legal team and defendant's legal team.
THEN AND ONLY THEN, will money not be able to thwart justice! HA!
Resource-Based Economy: http://TheVenusProject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy
Resource based economy!
The resource based economy concept is simple. 1.There's a limited amount of resources on this earth. 2.All man made things are made from resources. 3.Therefore we should allocate the resources. 4.By doing this we all work as a team to solve our problems and focus on raising our standard of living instead of stepping on each others toes.
One example of how we would benefit from this for instance would be solving our pollution problem. If we had a resource based economy we could just get the resources to make windmills and replace coal power without having to suffer any economic hardship because of it.
In fact, if we were to switch to resource based economy we could keep our republic intact.
The only difference would be that our national budget would be resource based as opposed to money based.
Social market economy
"The social market economy seeks a middle path between socialism and laissez-faire economic liberalism (i.e. a mixed economy), combining private enterprise with government regulation to establish fair competition, maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare, and public services, by using state intervention. The term "social" was chosen rather than "socialist" to distinguish the social market economy from a system in which the state directed economic activity and/or owned the means of production, which are usually privately-owned in the social market model.
In a social market economy, collective bargaining is often done on a national level not between one corporation and one union, but national employers' organizations and national trade unions.
[Removed]
After graduating from the University - owner of self company.
P.S. - Text in Russian.
Very good article that explains it:
http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2011/06/will-a-resource-based-economy-work/
I'm open for discussion and questions about resource based economy.
intro to a resource based economy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
i am going to try and be nice about this but honestly, i think this is bs. the entire video is him talking around the point, never describing in detail the structure, and only vaguely addressing the problems. big scary problems that get your attention is not the same as detail. the zeitgeist folks are always so clinical that they fail to connect with their audience. this is also why you guys get so little attention. everyone has heard of it, so why doesn't a recognized brand excel?
if you want people to understand your proposed solution, you need to provide material that connects and describes.
The Zeitgeist folks are all but clinical. They don't base their claims on proper scientific clinical research, but on pseudo-science. They do research like conspiracy theorists. If you want stronger arguments for a resource based economy, then you should read Jacque Fresco, and his Venus project. The arguments are far from being full proof, but they are stronger than Zeitgeist's.
Nonsense. Of cause, you can't generalize all zeitgeist folks, but the majority are basing their information on proper scientific research, backing it up by links and references to the research and refuse to accept anything pseudo-scientific.
Zeitgeist is a leaderless social movement that focuses on realization of Resources Based Economy and unlike the Venus Project does not consider circular cities as a necessity, but one of the efficient alternatives to the existent cities.
Can you link to some articles discussing a resource based economy in peer reviewed economy journals and periodicals, or provide a bibliography of such articles so I can find them at the library. Thanks.
Also, can you give us links to the best resource based economy critics. You should know who these are if this type of economy interests you.
Economic journals discussing issues associated with market economy and they won't discuss so completely radical change for the obvious reasons. Validity of The Resource Based Economy supported by multiple studies presented in Zeitgeist Moving Forward Movie and other discussed in multiple radio-shows and on many forums that tried to criticize it, but the only serious flows they could find are in the parts that they assumed RBE had. There are many articles that can confirm validity of Resource Based Economy done by socialist and anarchist philosophers.
The Zeitgeist Movement is encouraging everyone to do their own research in as many fields as possible to better understand the concept of Resource Based Economy and to confirm all the information gathered from RBE supporters.
If you disagree with any of the concepts, try to find a research that can confirm it and if you fail, just ask.
You can find a lot of information, critique and responses to it on youtube, just search "Resource Based Economy" or "Zeitgeist Movement".
The Resource Based Economy has in it's organization the scientific method which is used for it's structuring. So asking peer review for Resource Based Economy is like asking peer review of peer reviewing process.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense and nothing more than conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. There are tons of academic papers released each year that criticize all types of aspects of the government. Yale University published the works of David Graeber the famous anarchist behind Occupy. His works are a major critic of the US government and call for it to be replaced with an anarchist government. There are all kinds of papers published in the States. It seems to me you don't know how peer reviewed journals work. This is just a lame logical fallacy: appeal to motive.
Radio shows and forums don't count. Peer reviewed journals count. If nobody bothered to publish a solid critic of resource based economy in a peer reviewed economic journal, than it means the theory is not strong. Scholars love to challenge strong theories. That's what challenges them and keeps them moving forward. Weak theories are ignored.
I don't disagree. I'm unbiased. However, I work in a different way than you. To be convinced about resource based economy, I have to first find the harshest possible intellectual critic against it. I get convinced when I realize the critic cannot dismantle the theory. I already know the supporters will accept it. That's a given.
"I work in a different way than you" - Well, I didn't just accept it, I disagreed with some of the concepts provided in the movie at first, then I found numerous studies that pointed out at my misunderstanding. I don't rely on somebody else's critique, I do my own thinking based on what I know. If everybody were to look for somebody else's critique, there wouldn't be any critique at all.
"I don't disagree. I'm unbiased." - Glaucon
"There's something very cult like about these movements" - Glaucon
Unbiased hah?
I am unbiased towards the idea of RBE. I'm not unbiased towards Zeitgeist. I think Zeitgeist is mostly about conspiracy theory nonsense. RBE comes from Fresco, not Zeitgeist.
My thinking doesn't magically stop when I read the text of the best critics and the best adepts of a theory. It's the opposite. When you read the works of scholars it helps you think. It sharpens your mind. You don't learn to be a philosopher by going on top of a mountain and meditating hoping that the knowledge of the universe magically seeps into your mind. You become a great philosopher by reading the works of all the great philosophers that came before you.
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have read on these boards. Great critics have read all the other critics before them. That's how they are able to formulate strong arguments. It's a waste of time to come up with everything yourself. Your not going to read Newton because you don't want to get influenced by his work? So, what, you're going to repeat everything that was done before you? Your argument doesn't work.
I should have say: "If everybody were only to look for somebody else's critique, there wouldn't be any critique at all."
I read all work that I consider related to my topics of interest and I have time for it. I agree, the more you read, the more you be able to think for yourself, though, you can't just dismiss a concept, just because nobody criticized it.
I didn't dismiss it. I read Fresco and listened to many of his interviews and talks. But, this only gives me a biased view so I put it in the drawer for now. If and when strong critiques come around and he is obliged to defend himself against the strongest of arguments, then I'll have another look. I'm not an economist, so it's impossible for me to see what loopholes might exist in his theory, or if it is perfectly sound. By principle, I'm always very skeptical of those who claim a theory that can make everything perfect. Usually, such theories don't exist in real life; they are certainly rare in politics and economy. That's one reason I don't like the talk of anarchists much. It's too positive and perfect like.
I am not a proponent of RBE because my view of it is not well rounded enough. I only support theories which I feel have been put to the test.
Fresco mentioned numerous times, it's not perfect, we will still have certain resources shortages, religious disputes maybe even some social disputes could still persist and it will be up to us to improve it. Nothing is perfect in this world, it's just looks perfect, comparing to what we have.
It's like being a slave because it's the only thing you know and freedom has never been experienced.
It doesn't matter how you call it or who invented it or who advocating it, it's just pure logic.
We have limited resources and we need abolition of hierarchy and equality and freedom for all. No matter how you put it, it's the only thing on the table.
There are many options on the table.
It's an untested economic theory, and economy is very complicated. It's very unhealthy to talk about an untested theory as if it was near perfect. In practice, many flaws could be unearthed. Before adopting such a positive regard for RBE, it should be passed through the ringer on a small scale.
This "maybe even" is very naive. It should be replaced with "It's certain".
Here's a link to a critic and some points that address his arguments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKpau1Dx6DQ
Peer reviewed journals, not youtube videos. I'm doing serious research for Occupy, not high-shool project stuff.
http://business.illinois.edu/josephm/BA545_Fall%202011/S10/Mahoney%20and%20Pandian%20%281992%29.pdf
http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:TKkkzIbH5IYJ:scholar.google.com/+thesis+on+%22resource+based+economy%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&as_vis=1
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/580.PDF
What information are you looking for?
The harshest and most intellectually formulated criticism against resource based economy. I am not for or against resource based economy because I don't understand it well enough. The problem is the posters here only point to videos and articles which show the theory in perfect light because it comes from those who espouse it. You can never understand a theory this way. You also have to read the best critics. If the theory survives the assault of the best critics, then maybe there is something to it. Einstein's Special Relativity only became widely accepted after the critics tried to crush it but were unsuccessful. I want the best voices for resource based economy, and the best critics against it. That's what I wished the Zeitgeist boys would give out. If they believe in their theory, they shouldn't be afraid to include links that try to debunk it or even annihilate it completely.
For example, your third link is for resource based economy. I want the best links against it as well. Don't be afraid. Link us to those who try to crush this theory. If you're theory is all powerful and the best one, it will not be possible to crush it, and you'll just look super solid by providing the harshest links against it.
Glaucon, on a very side note, observe as I utterly crush Relativity:
Δd/0
You're welcome; see you in the future.
You are John Titor aren't you? I knew future humans would one day figure out division by zero is possible! The delta of the distance divided by zero. Of course!
Get it: crush? XD
ah alright, you want to falsify the claims made. (By falsify, I mean test them)
Unfortunately, I haven't found scholarly articles debating the Resource Based Economy specifically. There are articles debating central planning of resources, and articles illustrating technological advances which could potentially prop up the monetary economy for a few decades by creating new resources.
But most criticisms focus on ad hominem attacks against supporters and their current organizations through blogs and youtube.
Of course. The most logical thing to do after hearing a claim is trying to falsify it by reading strong critics. Biased opinion doesn't lead towards the truth. You need to look at both sides.
This is a HUGE red flag that the theory is not strong. Strong theories are favorite topics in peer reviewed journals. If it hasn't been criticized with strong well formulated arguments by scholars, then it means scholars don't find it's worth their effort. Strong theories get talked about and everyone tries to falsify them. If you're saying it's mostly known through youtube, then it's safe to say it's not worth a second look.
Ad Hominem attacks are certainly the most entertaining. It is for this reason that Youtube and Internet Forums constitute a superior form of intensive scholarly debate.
See; if I stomped around here calling anything "The Barbarous Relic", I would be labeled a troll immediately.
You have a point.
Perhaps, but every time I bring up the theory there's usually one of three responses:
"huh? What's a resource based economy"
"Oh, it'll never work. It's against human nature and computers/hate filled people would take over the world"
or
"Yes I support the idea"
The first response is the most popular so I don't believe the idea is well known among academic circles yet...
That's because you bring it up to people who are not strong economic scholars. Go to a University that has a reputable department of economy and hang out in the lounge to test responses to RBE. Challenge them to give you the best possible critic they can. It should be your goal to destroy this theory. That's the best way to test it. If it passes the test, then you have a worthwhile theory on your hands. Blogs and youtube are worthless for deep scientific discussion. You'll just attract those who are in awe of the theory without really understanding all its implications.
This doesn't make sense. Scholars are the ones who are the most up to date in their fields. I can guarantee you that economic scholars know about RBE. If they don't talk about it, it's only because they don't feel it is worth their time.
I would enjoy a good scientific critique of a Resource Based Economy as well.
However, this would take someone/group with broad knowledge of culturally influenced behaviors vs human nature, the feasibility of many cutting edge automated technologies vs human labor requirements, politics vs scientific decision making, sustainable practices, and traditional monetary economics vs resource based economics.
thx
Of course, don't forget to read Fresco's many critics. That's crucial to better understanding his theories. Most users here who try to sell the idea of a resource based economy have only read and listened to Zeitgeist and Fresco, they haven't looked at the critique. There's something very cult like about these movements in that the ideas are very rarely debated. Those who believe in them don't discuss their weaknesses, and most scholars dismiss them outright for being utopian and fascist. You'll be hard pressed to find discussions of resource based economy in peer reviewed economic journals. It's a fringe idea without a scholar in sight.
Most new movements are cult like. Obama felt cult like, RonPaul is, Reagan was, religions are also.
yeah, that was my take.
A commodity money (like gold) is not inherently superior to a fiat system. In fact, the evidence is clear the gold is dangerous. We know that countries not on the gold standard avoided the Great Depression, and we have powerful time series evidence that as soon as a country abandoned the straightjacket imposed by gold (What John Maynard Keynes called "The Barbarous Relic"), they began to recover from the Great Depression.
I think that the fiat money system and modern central banking has served us well. The issue is that markets are imperfect and inherently unstable at the macroeconomic level. (And, of course, using the Diamong-Dybvig model, we also know that banks, including the Shadow Banking System are subject to bank runs and must be regulated, among other things!) Rather than prices, wages and interest rates adjusting when the economy is hit with an asymmetric shock, output (real GDP) declines until investment shrinks to equate with a smaller level of saving (which is a positive function of GDP). This was how Keynes crushed the free market "classical school" of his day. It forms the basis of New Keynesian models.
In my mind, I hope that in the future we can have a post-scarcity economy in which everyone's material needs can be satisfied easily. This world, if it is indeed possible, is in the far future, but hopefully 3D printing, nanotechnology and robotics can help get us there. In the meantime, however, we must accept a role for government to play in moderating the inevitable recessions with expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, not embrace liquidationist austerity and shackle ourselves to the sinking ship of the gold standard.
--Pingry
And let me just elaborate that as GDP is the adjustment that shrinks (not wages, prices and interest rates, at least not initially) so does employment because the demand for labor is a derived demand for the demand for output. Keynes's masterstroke was to emphasize how an economy can get stuck in an equilibrium (or near equilibrium) position far from full employment with mass unemployment.
The Classical economists prior to Keynes largely believed that a recession was only a temporary deviation from full employment. Interest rates would decline to equilibrate saving and investment; Firms would lower prices to sell the glut of inventory; Workers would lower their wage demands to stave off unemployment. Keynes, of course, had different ideas, and he has been correct. This economy would look very familiar to Keynes.
Very interesting post. Thanks.
labour is our most valued resource , without it nothing gets accomplished.