View Single Post

Default 

November 21st, 2012, 18:50
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
There would be no need for bartering. Simply a distribution of available resources, based on need first and luxuries second. No one would need to barter anything, but they could if they wanted to.

A monetary system would be ok in that case, because accumulation by the few would not harm the many. But it's still a needlessly intangible system - and it wouldn't make any sense in the world I'm talking about.
Hardly simple. We do have a historical precedent for that simple "distribution of resources", and it certainly didnt do better than the mixed economy system of the west.

Central planning doesnt work for a host of reasons. Feck, it doesnt even work for the control systems of a car, and it certainly doesnt work for something as complex an economy. It's simply not possible to define need and luxury in a useful and general enough way. It also stifles innovation.

If you otoh decide to decentralise the distribution then you would need a common credit interface and a price mechanism that would end up acting just like money, or you'd be restricted by the resources available locally. Incidentally that is the whole point of having a monetary system.

The "resource based economics" of the zeitgeist movement that you've referred to in the past is just crackpot hogwash and would probably do worse than the historical planned economies (who only really excelled as war economies).
Zaleukos is offline

Zaleukos

Zaleukos's Avatar
Bum

#24

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,864