think

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:03 am

the venus project is based on this concept

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:23 am

Thats a big question. The first problem is that this is a debt based economy. Which will take 100+ years to get out of if it even ever happens.

I don't think anyone has a good enough grasp on the concept yet to make a case. Maybe I should only speak for myself here, but I imagine the fictional society of Star Trek TNG, and I don't see how that could be possible any time soon.

Bartering has been around for a few decades now and holistic, natural resource enclosed mini societies do show promise. To scale that would take an extreme amount of government and that is the absolute LAST thing we need... more government.

I do believe there are better ways to govern, I don't think people would accept what truly is better though.

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:51 am

Cheapshot wrote:

Thats a big question. The first problem is that this is a debt based economy. Which will take 100+ years to get out of if it even ever happens.

I don't think anyone has a good enough grasp on the concept yet to make a case. Maybe I should only speak for myself here, but I imagine the fictional society of Star Trek TNG, and I don't see how that could be possible any time soon.

Bartering has been around for a few decades now and holistic, natural resource enclosed mini societies do show promise. To scale that would take an extreme amount of government and that is the absolute LAST thing we need... more government.

I do believe there are better ways to govern, I don't think people would accept what truly is better though.

It would take way longer than a 100 years and its definitely not acheivable in the near future but does that mean that the implementation or atleast deeper study of the transformation should be postponed coz it would still take the same amount of time because there will always be strong resistance to such a drastic change globally...it can be started as an experimental city to understand and address the shortcomings and bottlenecks in the system and expand the concept to abolish the monetary institution...just bcoz we're used to it doesnt imply that its the best system
As far as the government's role is concerned, a resource based economy would work on the basis of self governance as it does not neccissitate the need for an external force to help individuals function to the best of their potential
It is wothout a doubt an ideal situation to attain but why should we continue to restrict idealism to imagination

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:00 am

Yes, and thankyou for pointing me in the direction of the Venus Project.

Sorry I'm short on time atm, and my answer would take forever - but after a lot of thought (before I saw the question), I personally think yes we would be better off reverting to a more resource-based economy.
However, a part of me does think that even if this were to be achieved, we would always end up building our way back to a monetary system.

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:27 am

Voltore wrote:

Yes, and thankyou for pointing me in the direction of the Venus Project.

Sorry I'm short on time atm, and my answer would take forever - but after a lot of thought (before I saw the question), I personally think yes we would be better off reverting to a more resource-based economy.
However, a part of me does think that even if this were to be achieved, we would always end up building our way back to a monetary system.

Its valid that in a resource base economy we would tend to use a common unit for valuation, somewhat like money. But the basic purpose of having a resource based economy is acknowledging that everything has value and rather than exchanging we need to concentrate on sharing and developing further so as to eliminate man made scarcity and reduce the scope of natural scarcity gradually.

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:37 pm

How would the system actually work, Ashish Dhameja?

Cheapshot wrote:

The first problem is that this is a debt based economy. Which will take 100+ years to get out of if it even ever happens.

Why?

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:55 pm

Disconnected wrote:

How would the system actually work, Ashish Dhameja?

Cheapshot wrote:

The first problem is that this is a debt based economy. Which will take 100+ years to get out of if it even ever happens.

Why?

here is a great video series someone put together to answer that question.
(5) 10 minute videos explaining our debt dilema and sheds light on most likely timeframe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8&feature=PlayList&p=361E4E90F79D2324&index=0

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:01 pm

it's actually one of the better concepts discussed in the zeitgeist addendum too, you should be able to find it all over the place.

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:03 pm

Cheapshot wrote:

here is a great video series someone put together to answer that question.

You misunderstood, I meant: why do you claim it would take at least a century to reform our economies?

The practical problems of reform are fairly easy to solve. Assuming anyone could agree to do it, I see no reason it would or should take more than a couple of months.

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:59 pm

reform maybe...

But the trillions in debt will still be there. Unless by some miracle the U.S. stops spending massive amounts of money and pays the debt we will only get worse as time goes forward... that is pertinent to me.

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:38 pm

Cheapshot wrote:

reform maybe...

But the trillions in debt will still be there. Unless by some miracle the U.S. stops spending massive amounts of money and pays the debt we will only get worse as time goes forward... that is pertinent to me.

But isn't that contingent on not reforming our economic system?

If, for example, you reform your way out of entitling individuals & corporate entities to the profits accrued from the use of their capital, those trillions would matter very little and it wouldn't be possible to carry on the fucked up lemming-march the US (and the rest of us) is on.

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:27 pm

Hmmm... that sounds like it will be next to impossible to accomplish. I have a very well off family member who already complains about the governments attempts/successes at taking his earned capitol.

New laws written to counteract the mistakes of the past is the frontline of the argument. Taking those earnings under the umbrella of reform is just another form of theft really... only it will be delivered by politicians who smile and tell you its time for change.

What's the best way to get rid of debt? Wipe it out! - Total economic collapse or Nuclear war - Back to zero and whoever has the best plan for governing wins.

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:18 am

Cheapshot wrote:

Hmmm... that sounds like it will be next to impossible to accomplish.

It would be relatively uncomplicated & painless, if the will to do it existed. But obviously that isn't the case.

Quote:

New laws written to counteract the mistakes of the past is the frontline of the argument. Taking those earnings under the umbrella of reform is just another form of theft really... only it will be delivered by politicians who smile and tell you its time for change.

Sure, but the earnings you're talking about is a form of theft to begin with, so that's hardly a good reason not to do it. Banning those types of profits might be preferable, however. Or you could force trade unionisation and eliminate the middle-men altogether. Then whatever gains the reformed system allows ends up back in the hands of the ones who created the wealth to begin with. I'm sure your family member would cry foul either way, of course, but honestly, I've never had any sympathy for freeloaders. No offence intended.

As for the bleakness.. It may be pure superstition, but I'm an optimistic cynic. That is; I believe people won't delude themselves about their own best interests, to the point of self-destruction. I know that the species has repeatedly demonstrated otherwise throughout history, humanity is much better organised and informed than it ever has been.

Then again, I'm just a zebra. What would I know of humanity?

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:35 am

Disconnected wrote:

Or you could force trade unionisation and eliminate the middle-men altogether.

Personally I never believed in Unions... I know they served their purpose in the past... before my time. I can foresee a constant one-up battle by todays standards. Using the Inuit hunter philosophy of trade might show promise.

Disconnected wrote:

Then whatever gains the reformed system allows ends up back in the hands of the ones who created the wealth to begin with. I'm sure your family member would cry foul either way, of course, but honestly, I've never had any sympathy for freeloaders. No offence intended.

Neither does my Brother... and that is in fact what he so republicanly wishes to avoid. He is also one of the few honest men I know and works harder in a week than I do in a month. So handing over that money for "reform" (redistribution) would certainly keep him from supporting it.

Disconnected wrote:

That is; I believe people won't delude themselves about their own best interests, to the point of self-destruction. I know that the species has repeatedly demonstrated otherwise throughout history, humanity is much better organized and informed than it ever has been.

Then again, I'm just a zebra. What would I know of humanity?

Its the organization I am afraid of.

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:05 am

Cheapshot wrote:

Personally I never believed in Unions... I know they served their purpose in the past... before my time. I can foresee a constant one-up battle by todays standards. Using the Inuit hunter philosophy of trade might show promise.

A syndicalised economy doesn't refer to unionisation as you know if from present day America. Rather, it means unionised ownership of businesses. It's basically a way to kill corporatism and increase the number of capital holders.

The kind of unions you're talking about do nothing of the sort, nor are they meant to. In some countries those unions are meant to level the playing field between employers and employees. A necessity since workers generally cannot negotiate a fair wage on their own (because they're not a scarce resource). The US hasn't been one of those countries since the riots May Day is in memory of.

Quote:

Neither does my Brother... and that is in fact what he so republicanly wishes to avoid. He is also one of the few honest men I know and works harder in a week than I do in a month. So handing over that money for "reform" (redistribution) would certainly keep him from supporting it.

So how does he actually earn a living? Does his capital earn it for him or does he work a real job? If it's a case of the former, then his bitching is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. If it's the latter then disregard my comment entirely, though you should probably re-evaluate your notions of what "well off" means. Also, it might be a good idea to leave family members out of our discussion. Hypothetical people will work just fine & they're much harder to insult.

As for republicrats, I think you'd have to look very hard indeed to find a worse collection of freeloaders. Even the House of Saud aren't worse. Not implying they're better either, of course. The idea that you're entitled to money just because you have money is as retarded as it is morally bankrupt. Of course I take advantage of it myself, but unfunnily there's a total absence of alternatives.

Quote:

Its the organization I am afraid of.

That's like saying you're afraid of the Sun. Sure, the thing might kill you with skin cancer, but not having it would kill you just as dead. Organisation isn't a bad thing. Hierarchies tend to be really f**kin terrible, but you don't need hierarchies to be organised (listen to the anarchist rant..). Not implying this is realistic, but consider for example a global organisation of federalised syndicals, using a participatory economic system. A system like that is every bit as decisive as a liberal democracy, it is orders of magnitude more flexible, the economy is fairly democratic (in the sense that all affected parties get to be decision makers), and it is entirely free from a ruling class, career politicians, states, corporations & all those other perpetual f**k-ups we're currently busy killing ourselves with.

You can't maintain society as you know it, without a high degree of organisation. What you can maintain, is the kind of lifestyle depicted on cave walls in France. I assume you don't want that, though if you do please let me know. My wife don't want me talking to crazy people...