|
On May 18 2012 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 02:27 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
Investments in a RBE supposedly would be taken care of by the central planning comittee much like in the centrally planned economies of the past. The state controls all the factors of production so profits are not necessary for reinvestment. And to be fair, ignoring Cambodia, there aren't really any examples of a centrally planned economy getting caught in a downward spiral perse, central planning is just characterized by a remarkable lack of economic progress. I think a premise of RBE supporters is that we already have enough wealth, so further progress is unnecessary. "Profits" are not necessary but the same factors that make up profits are. To profit you have to produce more than you consume (revenues > expenses). Same in an RBE - you have to create products that people want without using more resources than they are worth. If you can't do that then there will be nothing left over after production to replace the capital equipment. Planned economies of the past did this by either mimicking what market economies did or try to calculate what prices would be if a market economy had been in place. Mimicking: planned economies typically did well in the early years because they could look at current market economies and then plan how to get there. People in the US drive cars, so let's build steel mills, car factories and gas stations. But as they get closer to the market economy the can't mimic it anymore - it's too volatile and so they stagnate. Determining market prices: the Soviet Union in some cases used "economist engineers" to figure out what prices would have been in a market system in order to determine if an improvement should be made in a factory (if it was worthwhile). Edit: Better example - if a steel factory only required the resource steel to be built an RBE would be easy. A factory that used 1000 units of steel to create would need to produce more than 1000 units to be worthwhile. But a steel factory uses many different resources to produce steel and so absent a price system evaluating if it is worthwhile becomes so difficult that in the past 40 years of talking about it Jacque Fresco & the Venus Project have not said how they can do it.
You are ofcourse correct that benefits must be greater than cost. I think thats the right terminology here. And, yes this is very diffcult for a government to do. Especially in a no money world, where estimating utility curves is even harder (you cant analyze spending behavior and instead have to interview). I think i posted about this before, when the discussion was more sane. I just don't think central planning is theoretically flawed, which I suspected you were arguing. The problem lies in the practicalities. I don't understand your steel factory example but I suspect it isn't a very good one, no offense.
I've watched some of that video Venus Project, and their idea seems to be about small local communities, that one joins voluntarily, and severely limited federal government involvement. The non-agression principle seems central in everything, so revolution is not a possibility for them. Which is good news for the rest of us, I geuss. I still don't understand why money doesn't fit into this but I atleast respect the experiment as worthwhile.
In general the Venus Project seems to be a much better advocate of RBE than the Free World Charter or Zeitgeist. The Free World Charter being an empty bunch of promises of magic, and the Zeitgeist movement being a bit scary. And don't get me started on DeliciousVP. It is still quite a Utopian worlview, but hey, maybe it will work, dopesn't seem like we lose anything at all if the Venus Project fails.
|
On May 18 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the resources it will consume in its construction and use
b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built.
Well first of we will create an abundance compared what we have today, But im sure this situation will emerge at some point for some resource so it is a valid question.
a Triarch similiar to what doctors use today would be applied to prioritise, Based on human need first as mentioned here.
http://zeitnewsblog.blogspot.se/2011/03/meeting-human-needs-how-resource-based.html
Second it would be based upon the importance it holds to all of human kind as a whole, It is hard for individuals like you
to understand such values since you dont have them yet, Full transperancy of where resources are allocated would be available to all.
Thirdly creating synthetic substitues for resource we cannot make abundance is gonna be an important part of society any society. We dont make houses out of diamonds.
I cannot stress enough the abundance of resources we will have compared to today, using the latest technology to conserve,recycle,extract and synthesize. We will have very little waste!
I will stop writting solved so you guys dont get to upset.Instead ill express what i personaly feel about the questions you ask.
VALID QUESTION
|
On May 18 2012 05:04 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2012 02:27 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
Investments in a RBE supposedly would be taken care of by the central planning comittee much like in the centrally planned economies of the past. The state controls all the factors of production so profits are not necessary for reinvestment. And to be fair, ignoring Cambodia, there aren't really any examples of a centrally planned economy getting caught in a downward spiral perse, central planning is just characterized by a remarkable lack of economic progress. I think a premise of RBE supporters is that we already have enough wealth, so further progress is unnecessary. "Profits" are not necessary but the same factors that make up profits are. To profit you have to produce more than you consume (revenues > expenses). Same in an RBE - you have to create products that people want without using more resources than they are worth. If you can't do that then there will be nothing left over after production to replace the capital equipment. Planned economies of the past did this by either mimicking what market economies did or try to calculate what prices would be if a market economy had been in place. Mimicking: planned economies typically did well in the early years because they could look at current market economies and then plan how to get there. People in the US drive cars, so let's build steel mills, car factories and gas stations. But as they get closer to the market economy the can't mimic it anymore - it's too volatile and so they stagnate. Determining market prices: the Soviet Union in some cases used "economist engineers" to figure out what prices would have been in a market system in order to determine if an improvement should be made in a factory (if it was worthwhile). Edit: Better example - if a steel factory only required the resource steel to be built an RBE would be easy. A factory that used 1000 units of steel to create would need to produce more than 1000 units to be worthwhile. But a steel factory uses many different resources to produce steel and so absent a price system evaluating if it is worthwhile becomes so difficult that in the past 40 years of talking about it Jacque Fresco & the Venus Project have not said how they can do it. You are ofcourse correct that benefits must be greater than cost. I think thats the right terminology here. And, yes this is very diffcult for a government to do. Especially in a no money world, where estimating utility curves is even harder (you cant analyze spending behavior and instead have to interview). I think i posted about this before, when the discussion was more sane. I just don't think central planning is theoretically flawed, which I suspected you were arguing. The problem lies in the practicalities. I don't understand your steel factory example but I suspect it isn't a very good one, no offense.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
In a market economy the decision of what to produce is solved through pricing. If something better comes along so be it. As Deng Xiaoping put it while advocating a transition from a planned economy in China to a market economy: "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat."
The problem I have with the RBE / Venus Project, is that they have not stated how they will solve the calculation problem and so it is impossible to evaluate how well it will work or even if it will work at all.
|
"Normally you put stuff on sale instead of throwing it away. It is really, really rare that a retailer chooses to throw away a product at a 100% loss than try to sell it for something."
Producers throw away products at 100% loss quiet often and the current system is far from perfect.
Painfull examples of destruction of wealth you can see in the european agricultural market where at times large amounts of products are beeing destroyed to protect the price.
You right though that retailers wont do this.
|
On May 18 2012 05:15 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the resources it will consume in its construction and use
b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built. Well first of we will create an abundance compared what we have today, But im sure this situation will emerge at some point for some resource so it is a valid question. a Triarch similiar to what doctors use today would be applied to prioritise, Based on human need first as mentioned here. http://zeitnewsblog.blogspot.se/2011/03/meeting-human-needs-how-resource-based.htmlSecond it would be based upon the importance it holds to all of human kind as a whole, It is hard for individuals like you to understand such values since you dont have them yet, Full transperancy of where resources are allocated would be available to all. Thirdly creating synthetic substitues for resource we cannot make abundance is gonna be an important part of society any society. We dont make houses out of diamonds. I cannot stress enough the abundance of resources we will have compared to today, using the latest technology to conserve,recycle,extract and synthesize. We will have very little waste! I will stop writting solved so you guys dont get to upset.Instead ill express what i personaly feel about the questions you ask. VALID QUESTION
Not a valid answer.
How do you "prioritize needs?" Do you stop producing iPads until Africa is fed? What is more important water or food? Shelter or electricity? Roads or cars? Buses or boats? Science or art?
You cannot say that you will create an abundance later. The question pertains to NOW.
|
On May 18 2012 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 05:04 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2012 02:27 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
Investments in a RBE supposedly would be taken care of by the central planning comittee much like in the centrally planned economies of the past. The state controls all the factors of production so profits are not necessary for reinvestment. And to be fair, ignoring Cambodia, there aren't really any examples of a centrally planned economy getting caught in a downward spiral perse, central planning is just characterized by a remarkable lack of economic progress. I think a premise of RBE supporters is that we already have enough wealth, so further progress is unnecessary. "Profits" are not necessary but the same factors that make up profits are. To profit you have to produce more than you consume (revenues > expenses). Same in an RBE - you have to create products that people want without using more resources than they are worth. If you can't do that then there will be nothing left over after production to replace the capital equipment. Planned economies of the past did this by either mimicking what market economies did or try to calculate what prices would be if a market economy had been in place. Mimicking: planned economies typically did well in the early years because they could look at current market economies and then plan how to get there. People in the US drive cars, so let's build steel mills, car factories and gas stations. But as they get closer to the market economy the can't mimic it anymore - it's too volatile and so they stagnate. Determining market prices: the Soviet Union in some cases used "economist engineers" to figure out what prices would have been in a market system in order to determine if an improvement should be made in a factory (if it was worthwhile). Edit: Better example - if a steel factory only required the resource steel to be built an RBE would be easy. A factory that used 1000 units of steel to create would need to produce more than 1000 units to be worthwhile. But a steel factory uses many different resources to produce steel and so absent a price system evaluating if it is worthwhile becomes so difficult that in the past 40 years of talking about it Jacque Fresco & the Venus Project have not said how they can do it. You are ofcourse correct that benefits must be greater than cost. I think thats the right terminology here. And, yes this is very diffcult for a government to do. Especially in a no money world, where estimating utility curves is even harder (you cant analyze spending behavior and instead have to interview). I think i posted about this before, when the discussion was more sane. I just don't think central planning is theoretically flawed, which I suspected you were arguing. The problem lies in the practicalities. I don't understand your steel factory example but I suspect it isn't a very good one, no offense. Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problemIn a market economy the decision of what to produce is solved through pricing. If something better comes along so be it. As Deng Xiaoping put it while advocating a transition from a planned economy in China to a market economy: "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat." The problem I have with the RBE / Venus Project, is that they have not stated how they will solve the calculation problem and so it is impossible to evaluate how well it will work or even if it will work at all.
That problem is a practical problem, though, admittedly the distinction may not be important. It seems extremely unlikely a central government can effectively allocate resources. But, local, autonomous and near-autarkic cells, equipped with new computer models and theory, may be able to interview and analyze their citizens needs and then approach free-market effectiveness. Which seems to be what these RBE are aiming for, not sure about that though.
I am not saying this is realistic though. That should be obvious from the many adjectives I used. There are so many problems to overcome. We have barely even touched on the ethical considerations in this thread.
|
On May 18 2012 05:23 Rassy wrote:
"Normally you put stuff on sale instead of throwing it away. It is really, really rare that a retailer chooses to throw away a product at a 100% loss than try to sell it for something."
Producers throw away products at 100% loss quiet often and the current system is far from perfect.
Painfull examples of destruction of wealth you can see in the european agricultural market where at times large amounts of products are beeing destroyed to protect the price.
You right though that retailers wont do this.
Are the farmers doing that or the government?
In the US we pay farmers to not produce as a subsidy to artificially inflate prices. Subsidies are not part of the market system and are generally considered bad government policy by economists.
|
The internet and computers actually gives us the technology wich could make this happen.
People could spend 30 minutes a day on voting on various decissions wich has to be made.
People could prioritize needs by simply voting on them.
Still think it wont be verry efficient but to say its impossible, no.
|
On May 18 2012 05:23 Rassy wrote:
"Normally you put stuff on sale instead of throwing it away. It is really, really rare that a retailer chooses to throw away a product at a 100% loss than try to sell it for something."
Producers throw away products at 100% loss quiet often and the current system is far from perfect.
Painfull examples of destruction of wealth you can see in the european agricultural market where at times large amounts of products are beeing destroyed to protect the price.
You right though that retailers wont do this.
Prices for some agricultural products are fixed at a minimum in the EU, by law, which makes that a particularly poor example of free-market failure. (actually that was a poor explanation, government is obligated to purchase certain quotas for a price that is above the market price)
|
On May 18 2012 05:28 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2012 05:04 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2012 02:27 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
Investments in a RBE supposedly would be taken care of by the central planning comittee much like in the centrally planned economies of the past. The state controls all the factors of production so profits are not necessary for reinvestment. And to be fair, ignoring Cambodia, there aren't really any examples of a centrally planned economy getting caught in a downward spiral perse, central planning is just characterized by a remarkable lack of economic progress. I think a premise of RBE supporters is that we already have enough wealth, so further progress is unnecessary. "Profits" are not necessary but the same factors that make up profits are. To profit you have to produce more than you consume (revenues > expenses). Same in an RBE - you have to create products that people want without using more resources than they are worth. If you can't do that then there will be nothing left over after production to replace the capital equipment. Planned economies of the past did this by either mimicking what market economies did or try to calculate what prices would be if a market economy had been in place. Mimicking: planned economies typically did well in the early years because they could look at current market economies and then plan how to get there. People in the US drive cars, so let's build steel mills, car factories and gas stations. But as they get closer to the market economy the can't mimic it anymore - it's too volatile and so they stagnate. Determining market prices: the Soviet Union in some cases used "economist engineers" to figure out what prices would have been in a market system in order to determine if an improvement should be made in a factory (if it was worthwhile). Edit: Better example - if a steel factory only required the resource steel to be built an RBE would be easy. A factory that used 1000 units of steel to create would need to produce more than 1000 units to be worthwhile. But a steel factory uses many different resources to produce steel and so absent a price system evaluating if it is worthwhile becomes so difficult that in the past 40 years of talking about it Jacque Fresco & the Venus Project have not said how they can do it. You are ofcourse correct that benefits must be greater than cost. I think thats the right terminology here. And, yes this is very diffcult for a government to do. Especially in a no money world, where estimating utility curves is even harder (you cant analyze spending behavior and instead have to interview). I think i posted about this before, when the discussion was more sane. I just don't think central planning is theoretically flawed, which I suspected you were arguing. The problem lies in the practicalities. I don't understand your steel factory example but I suspect it isn't a very good one, no offense. Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problemIn a market economy the decision of what to produce is solved through pricing. If something better comes along so be it. As Deng Xiaoping put it while advocating a transition from a planned economy in China to a market economy: "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat." The problem I have with the RBE / Venus Project, is that they have not stated how they will solve the calculation problem and so it is impossible to evaluate how well it will work or even if it will work at all. That problem is a practical problem, though, admittedly the distinction may not be important. It seems extremely unlikely a central government can effectively allocate resources. But, local, autonomous and near-autarkic cells, equipped with new computer models and theory, may be able to interview and analyze their citizens needs and then approach free-market effectiveness. Which seems to be what these RBE are aiming for, not sure about that though. I am not saying this is realistic though. That should be obvious from the many adjectives I used. There are so many problems to overcome. We have barely even touched on the ethical considerations in this thread.
Two problems there:
1) Local can still be complex. There are 10 billion distinct goods and services available in NYC - many of which cannot be produced locally (food).
2) Local may be less efficient. You save on transportation resources but you ignore the economies of scale from centralized production. There's a tradeoff not taken into account.
|
Well the law is a result of a free voting market, though you are right
Its not a free market system ,Wich should be telling. Apearently free market would kill european (and also usa) agriculture and maybe that would be a bad idea in the long run)
If you want a prime example of free market failure i would like to point to the sigarette and all the good it has brought us.
Free market makes manny mistakes,people should not close their eyes for them.
|
On May 18 2012 05:31 Rassy wrote:
The internet and computers actually gives us the technology wich could make this happen.
People could spend 30 minutes a day on voting on various decissions wich has to be made.
People could prioritize needs by simply voting on them.
Still think it wont be verry efficient but to say its impossible, no.
10 billion distinct products and services are available in NYC. Multiply that out by the resources that go into them and then vote on them individually. It would take up all day...
|
On May 18 2012 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 05:28 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2012 05:04 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2012 02:27 Crushinator wrote:On May 18 2012 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Absent a price system it is impossible to rationally calculate profits. This is an important flaw even in a RBE. Without profits there is no surplus value created to either reinvest in current production (replace old machines) or invest in new technology.
In other words you run the risk of inputs exceeding outputs, in which case you operate at a loss. Each year that goes by when you operate at a loss you shrink a bit. Multiplied over an entire economy this causes the entire economy to shrink and spiral downward until your entire economy ends up like North Korea.
Investments in a RBE supposedly would be taken care of by the central planning comittee much like in the centrally planned economies of the past. The state controls all the factors of production so profits are not necessary for reinvestment. And to be fair, ignoring Cambodia, there aren't really any examples of a centrally planned economy getting caught in a downward spiral perse, central planning is just characterized by a remarkable lack of economic progress. I think a premise of RBE supporters is that we already have enough wealth, so further progress is unnecessary. "Profits" are not necessary but the same factors that make up profits are. To profit you have to produce more than you consume (revenues > expenses). Same in an RBE - you have to create products that people want without using more resources than they are worth. If you can't do that then there will be nothing left over after production to replace the capital equipment. Planned economies of the past did this by either mimicking what market economies did or try to calculate what prices would be if a market economy had been in place. Mimicking: planned economies typically did well in the early years because they could look at current market economies and then plan how to get there. People in the US drive cars, so let's build steel mills, car factories and gas stations. But as they get closer to the market economy the can't mimic it anymore - it's too volatile and so they stagnate. Determining market prices: the Soviet Union in some cases used "economist engineers" to figure out what prices would have been in a market system in order to determine if an improvement should be made in a factory (if it was worthwhile). Edit: Better example - if a steel factory only required the resource steel to be built an RBE would be easy. A factory that used 1000 units of steel to create would need to produce more than 1000 units to be worthwhile. But a steel factory uses many different resources to produce steel and so absent a price system evaluating if it is worthwhile becomes so difficult that in the past 40 years of talking about it Jacque Fresco & the Venus Project have not said how they can do it. You are ofcourse correct that benefits must be greater than cost. I think thats the right terminology here. And, yes this is very diffcult for a government to do. Especially in a no money world, where estimating utility curves is even harder (you cant analyze spending behavior and instead have to interview). I think i posted about this before, when the discussion was more sane. I just don't think central planning is theoretically flawed, which I suspected you were arguing. The problem lies in the practicalities. I don't understand your steel factory example but I suspect it isn't a very good one, no offense. Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problemIn a market economy the decision of what to produce is solved through pricing. If something better comes along so be it. As Deng Xiaoping put it while advocating a transition from a planned economy in China to a market economy: "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat." The problem I have with the RBE / Venus Project, is that they have not stated how they will solve the calculation problem and so it is impossible to evaluate how well it will work or even if it will work at all. That problem is a practical problem, though, admittedly the distinction may not be important. It seems extremely unlikely a central government can effectively allocate resources. But, local, autonomous and near-autarkic cells, equipped with new computer models and theory, may be able to interview and analyze their citizens needs and then approach free-market effectiveness. Which seems to be what these RBE are aiming for, not sure about that though. I am not saying this is realistic though. That should be obvious from the many adjectives I used. There are so many problems to overcome. We have barely even touched on the ethical considerations in this thread. Two problems there: 1) Local can still be complex. There are 10 billion distinct goods and services available in NYC - many of which cannot be produced locally (food). 2) Local may be less efficient. You save on transportation resources but you ignore the economies of scale from centralized production. There's a tradeoff not taken into account.
I'm pretty sure there are way more problems than that. But those are pretty good ones. T
he Netherlands is a whole country that has no chance in hell of being autarkic. Let alone much smaller communities. So some degree of central coordination is inevitable. But you can minimize it, I suppose.
|
it does sound good, but think of who is gona get what and how much. that + who is going to make it? and who is getting the most?
|
On May 18 2012 04:37 DeliCiousVP wrote:
To many walls of text adressing statements nobody ever made, To many phrases with the word never in it. lets get back on point and keep it to an issue preferable by asking a question or questioning something. And please express yourself so one can actually understand your question!
Translation:
"I can't be bothered to listen to, or even consider an opinion different than my own. Especially if it involoves some type of critical thinking and not watching/posting a video from YouTube that I totally agree with and/or have been brainwashed by."
I bet you haven't bothered to watch the video posted a couple pages ago debating these issues (like you accuse others of with yours).
Sure Fresco has a point, "It'll never work" is a pretty useless way to go about looking at any problems. Critical thinking and debate on the issues that face us are a good thing. He thinks he has all the answers, I disagree.
The main assumption he is making is that at some point we'll be able to fully automate all menial tasks that the labor force performs (because few people will choose to do things like snake toilets or build roads for a living.) Then the crackpots take it a step further that there is some massive conspiricy to keep us from developing that automation. The company/person that finishes the last step to come up with automation that can remove menial tasks from our workforce will be the richest person/company in the history of the world. Every company would take advantage of that.
People are motiviated by money/basic needs to do menial tasks. This is fact, how do you propose to deal with that fact until the magic robots come to civilize us all? The other assumption is that products will either be so abundant that subjective tastes will not come into play or that people (when not indcotrinated by the current system) will not care that some algorithim is telling them what they can and cannot have.
The fundamental flaw of planned economies is that they do not adapt fast enough to remain effecient when dealing with changes in wants. How do you propose to take away all human wants? And in who's lifetime do you propose to do this?
How do you propose to deal with the issue in innovation that throwing resources at a problem does not lead to solutions. Having the governement say, "Here's all the resources you could possibly need create renewable energy resources that are can replace not just supplement our current energy system" does not magically make the technology work.
If you want to have a discussion on the topics others have been putting out in this thread you should, because you've been the poster child for someone that is brainwashed or not willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint. You've been doing the equivelent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalala" to ignore what you don't want to hear for the last two weeks now. I've seen pages of people in this thread having earnest discussion and you're arguing like an 8 year old that doesn't want to go to bed.
|
"10 billion distinct products and services are available in NYC. Multiply that out by the resources that go into them and then vote on them individually. It would take up all day..."
Well you make a good point i have to admit.
This would obviously not work in the current system and some voting could be delegated to "experts" for example wich people can choose themselves. "Experts" would do most of the voting in the end i think.
One could argue though, do we realy need 10m different products?
Is making 10m different products, wich all compete with eachoter,realy the most efficient way to make use of resources?
All resources spend on products wich are beaten by the competition and disapear in the end are basicly wasted.
We now use this competition and the waste that comes with, it to make our preferences clear.
We have been blessed with resources though, wich allowed us to waste so manny of them and wich allowed us to make so manny useless products.
But once resources become scarce in relation to global demand the current system will run into trouble because it wastes to much resources in the process of eliminating inferiour choices.
Internet and its technology make possible a more direct form of democracy, and i think they will in the end (after several 100,s years) also be used to more efficiently manage the production and resources.
People want everything, this is the problem of capitalism.
The inflationary monetery policy also means that its realy easy to get a profit on products in the end, simply because your initial investment will be devaluated by 50% in 10 years.
No matter how bad your product is, people will want it (for the right price) even when its outright bad or wont be used.
The claim, its selling so people want it ,thus its good is so completely wrong.
|
I really don't think this idea is feasible at all for reasons that have been mentioned several times already in this thread. I'd just like to say that the world's already going in the right direction, despite what so many people claim (and if people are using Zeitgeist as their source it's reasonable to dismiss it). I'm not saying we live in a fair and just world society but violence, poverty, starvation, crime and corruption are all lower than they ever have been and people are richer, better educated and have a higher standard of living than ever before as well. We just have to wait longer for society, technology and globalization to progress even further, which should happen at an exponentially faster rate, just look at how far we've come in the last 200 years and imagine were we'll be in another 200.
|
On May 18 2012 06:34 Rassy wrote:
"10 billion distinct products and services are available in NYC. Multiply that out by the resources that go into them and then vote on them individually. It would take up all day..."
Well you make a good point i have to admit.
This would obviously not work in the current system and some voting could be delegated to "experts" for example wich people can choose themselves. "Experts" would do most of the voting in the end i think.
One could argue though, do we realy need 10m different products?
Is making 10m different products, wich all compete with eachoter,realy the most efficient way to make use of resources?
All resources spend on products wich are beaten by the competition and disapear in the end are basicly wasted.
We now use this competition and the waste that comes with, it to make our preferences clear.
We have been blessed with resources though, wich allowed us to waste so manny of them and wich allowed us to make so manny useless products.
But once resources become scarce in relation to global demand the current system will run into trouble because it wastes to much resources in the process of eliminating inferiour choices.
Internet and its technology make possible a more direct form of democracy, and i think they will in the end (after several 100,s years) also be used to more efficiently manage the production and resources.
People want everything, this is the problem of capitalism.
No matter how bad your product is, people will want it (for the right price) even when its outright bad or wont be used.
The claim, its selling so people want it ,thus its good is so completely wrong.
"This would obviously not work in the current system and some voting could be delegated to "experts" for example wich people can choose themselves. "Experts" would do most of the voting in the end i think."
Holy shit, dude. I'm really glad this system contradicts current approaches. I'd rather not have a product being completely sold out, because some retards voted for or against production. Calling them expert doesn't (in marketing terms) make them more knowledgable than anyone else.
i'd rather have the freedom to produce, if i see (not necessarily correct) the community needs certain products.
These 2 approaches compared should make it obvious the latter is more efficient, because at least, the latter provides a chance of x times the expected number of wanted products in the market if omitted by one provider, where x is the number of providers.
|
On May 18 2012 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 05:15 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 18 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the resources it will consume in its construction and use
b) a better use of resources than other options
Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built. Well first of we will create an abundance compared what we have today, But im sure this situation will emerge at some point for some resource so it is a valid question. a Triarch similiar to what doctors use today would be applied to prioritise, Based on human need first as mentioned here. http://zeitnewsblog.blogspot.se/2011/03/meeting-human-needs-how-resource-based.htmlSecond it would be based upon the importance it holds to all of human kind as a whole, It is hard for individuals like you to understand such values since you dont have them yet, Full transperancy of where resources are allocated would be available to all. Thirdly creating synthetic substitues for resource we cannot make abundance is gonna be an important part of society any society. We dont make houses out of diamonds. I cannot stress enough the abundance of resources we will have compared to today, using the latest technology to conserve,recycle,extract and synthesize. We will have very little waste! I will stop writting solved so you guys dont get to upset.Instead ill express what i personaly feel about the questions you ask. VALID QUESTION Not a valid answer. How do you "prioritize needs?" Do you stop producing iPads until Africa is fed? What is more important water or food? Shelter or electricity? Roads or cars? Buses or boats? Science or art? You cannot say that you will create an abundance later. The question pertains to NOW.
http://zeitnewsblog.blogspot.se/2011/03/meeting-human-needs-how-resource-based.html you practicly livei n this thread i suggest you read this all of it.
|
"I'd rather not have a product being completely sold out, because some retards voted for or against production"
Yes that would be annoying, but this is not how it would work off course.
Capitalism doesnt avoid this problem btw, as there are tons of products wich i would like to buy for cost price+some profit, wich are not available while they technological possible.
It could be though that you wanted a product wich only verry few other people would want.
Then to make that product would be highly inefficient, you would have to sacrifice other products wich might be more popular.
People have to be a bit flexible here and a bit more idealistic, this is nothing for short term.
Ask yourself this question:
How should we go to the stars?
Should we be the ferengi or should we be voyager.
Come on people, dare to dream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
