View Single Post

Default 

November 21st, 2012, 19:03
Originally Posted by Zaleukos View Post
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.
No, we have absolutely NO precedent for even distribution of resources based on needs first and luxuries second.

The only kind of thing we have that resembles this, would be something like small communities of the past like Native Americans before they were introduced to the wonders of civilization.

Biggest difference being they had endless resources and few people who needed them. That's a much smaller challenge than what I'm talking about.

That said, I'm pretty sure a lot of people would prefer that to what we have now.

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.
Central planning? You're talking about human beings. I'm talking about computer-controlled distribution based on years of research into actual needs - which are to be satisfied for EVERYONE, before luxuries are even considered. This is assuming we have enough resources for everyone to have their basic needs met - including food, shelter, and so on. As for luxuries, it would be automated based on what's available and a system of requests.

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.
There's no price mechanism involved. Money exits the system. You have basic needs - and you have luxuries. If you need something, you get it. If you want something you don't need - you get it if it's there and it's your turn.

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).
Don't confuse what I'm talking about with something else. You're referring to The Venus Project - not the Zeitgeist movement. That's not what I'm talking about - though I think The Venus Project involves a lot of similarities and interesting ideas. Especially their stuff about utilising the oceans.

My idea is pragmatic before it's anything else - but it's based on some assumptions. The primary assumption being that we can actually satisfy basic needs for everyone given the resources we have available and those we can produce.

It's also heavily reliant on technology which - while feasible - has yet to be developed. That's why I'm saying we need years of planning and research before we even consider starting anything.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#25

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,378