The Resource Based Economy:

[Milton]

This is the 18 min video backup for the live March 21st, TEDx [Portugal] Talk by Peter Joseph called:

"An Introduction to a Resource-Based Economy

Edited July 13, 2011 by Dan1

[Injin]

This is the 18 min video backup for the live March 21st, TEDx [Portugal] Talk by Peter Joseph called:

"An Introduction to a Resource-Based Economy

Seen this before.

Digital marxism. We'd all starve to death in months.

[Milton]

Seen this before.

Digital marxism. We'd all starve to death in months.

Opinions on this one invited:

[The Masked Tulip]

Seen this before.

Digital marxism. We'd all starve to death in months.

That long? Give it a week.

[Injin]

Why?

No price signals.

[Milton]

That long? Give it a week.

The talk is given by Peter Joseph who filmed the Documentary Zeitgeist. The second Clip is from the sequel to Zeitgeist.

Do you agree with their analysis? But disagree with their conclusions?

[Injin]

Opinions on this one invited:

Got 4 minutes in.

That's some good crack they are on, I have to say.

[Injin]

The talk is given by Peter Joseph who filmed the Documentary Zeitgeist. The second Clip is from the sequel to Zeitgeist.

Do you agree with their analysis? But disagree with their conclusions?

Check stefan molyneux's debate with them, if you want a coherent and concise set of reasons why it can't possibly happen.

[Milton]

Check stefan molyneux's debate with them, if you want a coherent and concise set of reasons why it can't possibly happen.

You seem familiar with this. I'll have a look at it now:

Stefan Molyneux's criticism, and Peter Joseph's Response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTw

[leicestersq]

The talk is given by Peter Joseph who filmed the Documentary Zeitgeist. The second Clip is from the sequel to Zeitgeist.

Do you agree with their analysis? But disagree with their conclusions?

I will have a look later, it is always good to see the other side of the argument. I cant see how it can work though. Money is a unit of account, an abstraction of the value of the goods and services produced, and perfectly fungible. It allows the relative values of things to change according to people's desires and the supply restrictions, such a less food in a drought.

I once remember someone telling me about how scientists had developed a machine to harvest grass, and with a process to digest it to obtain the energy and nutrients from it in a form usable to humans. What they have invented was pretty much the same as a cow, though not as good.

The best you can do when replacing money, is to come up with something just like money. It serves its purpose brilliantly, and is spontaneously created by any society developed enough to have to deal with more than rudimentary trade. You could say that anything more than rudimentary trade is impossible without it, because there is no way of exchange value without money when products become sufficiently diverse.

Still, it is good to question the unquestionable once in a while.

[Traktion]

Replacing money with a computer which judges individual needs and allocates resources? Riiight... so, basically like an inefficient form of money then?

If you want to allow people to choose what they want, money is the simplest, most efficient way. Indeed, it is why money materialised in the first place. It allows people to vote with their wallet for what they want, with money that others paid you for services they wanted. It's so simple, it's beautiful.

It just seems like re-inventing the wheel as a square to me.

[erranta]

I will have a look later, it is always good to see the other side of the argument. I cant see how it can work though. Money is a unit of account, an abstraction of the value of the goods and services produced, and perfectly fungible. It allows the relative values of things to change according to people's desires and the supply restrictions, such a less food in a drought.

I once remember someone telling me about how scientists had developed a machine to harvest grass, and with a process to digest it to obtain the energy and nutrients from it in a form usable to humans. What they have invented was pretty much the same as a cow, though not as good.

The best you can do when replacing money, is to come up with something just like money. It serves its purpose brilliantly, and is spontaneously created by any society developed enough to have to deal with more than rudimentary trade. You could say that anything more than rudimentary trade is impossible without it, because there is no way of exchange value without money when products become sufficiently diverse.

Still, it is good to question the unquestionable once in a while.

"Money is a unit of account, an abstraction of the value of the goods and services produced, and perfectly fungible. It allows the relative values of things to change according to people's desires and the supply restrictions, such a less food in a drought. "

This no longer applies to the City and super rich - they 'create' artificial shortages in commodities they buy cheap to rip the population off.

Like the artificial spike in food prices 2 yrs ago (supplies were normal), the storage of oil in super tankers in the Channel to create an artificial shortage etc. It's so bloody obvious!

The b'stards have too much power and are really taking the piss!

The rich tossas in Govt collude with them on this.

[leicestersq]

"Money is a unit of account, an abstraction of the value of the goods and services produced, and perfectly fungible. It allows the relative values of things to change according to people's desires and the supply restrictions, such a less food in a drought. "

This no longer applies to the City and super rich - they 'create' artificial shortages in commodities they buy cheap to rip the population off.

Like the artificial spike in food prices 2 yrs ago (supplies were normal), the storage of oil in super tankers in the Channel to create an artificial shortage etc. It's so bloody obvious!

The b'stards have too much power and are really taking the piss!

The rich tossas in Govt collude with them on this.

It is the duty of Goverment to prevent any one or any group having sufficient market power to extract any monopoly profits at the expense of the general population. I think Adam Smith himself pointed out this particular problem.

As you say, Governments often allow a certain amount of monopoly, in exchange for tax of course.

[Injin]

It is the duty of Goverment to prevent any one or any group having sufficient market power to extract any monopoly profits at the expense of the general population. I think Adam Smith himself pointed out this particular problem.

As you say, Governments often allow a certain amount of monopoly, in exchange for tax of course.

Government is a monopoly with too much power.

[tomandlu]

There is a better unit of account, its called time.

Technology is at the point now where its possible to monitor activity and thus could be used as a replacement measure.

Doesn't that rather assume that all activity is equally valuable? Even if you have some sort of scale for different activities, some people will still produce greater value than others. Very few are going to pay me to masturbate on a web-cam, but Karen Gillan could probably pick up a couple of quid...

[Traktion]

Choice, is fine however how do you tackle the problems where people are wrongly sold an idea (ie product or service) which costs money?

The need for money in order to live creates its own problems, people become desperate enough to commit crimes, greed also causes this problem.

Everyone has to do their own research, in order to decide whether they want to spend their money. If they are unhappy with it, I doubt they will buy it again.

You don't need money to live, as long as you have access to land to grow your own food and create your own shelter. If you have access to land, then you can have free association between the employer and employee. I would expect most people would rather work to their strengths, trading their services, but there should always be this fall back of access to land.

Additionally, monopoly, and rent seeking due to it, seems to cause most of the divides in wealth. This stems right from the laws which support the monopolising of land, through intellectual property and other regulations/laws which prevent easy entry into markets.

[Injin]

There is a better unit of account, its called time.

Technology is at the point now where its possible to monitor activity and thus could be used as a replacement measure.

To find out value, you need voluntary trade.

[Traktion]

There is a better unit of account, its called time.

Technology is at the point now where its possible to monitor activity and thus could be used as a replacement measure.

Why would you want to replace something as simple as money, with something as complicated and intrusive as time monitoring? Besides, my boss roughly monitors my time in exchange for money. In this regard, money can be a tally of time spent doing tasks already.

[Traktion]

It is the duty of Goverment to prevent any one or any group having sufficient market power to extract any monopoly profits at the expense of the general population. I think Adam Smith himself pointed out this particular problem.

As you say, Governments often allow a certain amount of monopoly, in exchange for tax of course.

Who watches the watcher? How can a few men in suits know what should or shouldn't happen?

We need only watch what has unfolded with this phone hacking to see the flaws in our government and our policing. Both of the latter were bought. Both of the latter gave favours which only the government monopolies can. Ultimately, the phone companies should have kept the data safe in the first place and people should have judged them harshly for allowing such easy hacks to be done, just as the media company has been judge harshly (and with justification) for exploiting this. Without the government and their police, people would have stopped using their crappy telcos and reading rotten news.

How does that fit with my brother then? He's got a monopoly, noone else has developed the technology to meet the Govts own requirements therefore he has a monopoly.

Is his technology protected by patent and/or copyright law, granting legal monopoly? If not, competing technology will likely come along if there is money to be earned.

[Injin]

If you dont monitor time how can you possibly have openess and transparency in a system?

Rejecting an appraoch due to it not meeting an impossible goal is kinda silly, really.

For example if everyone of us could see where and what we spent our time doing, would it not build greater faith when listening to a sales person?

Nope.

For example, the medical industry relies on peer review (openess and transparency) to show reproducible results for claims.

Only because they aren't willing to man up and let people not pay them for things.

Likewise people can see if they getting fair value for their own efforts when purchasing something by being able to see if the person selling something is profiteering or not.

I think most people would be shocked at how much profit there is on many consumer items for example, as exemplified by the numerous 50% off sales and the fact even with 50% off the retailer is still making money as did the producer is most cases.

Time to open a shop?

[Injin]

Whats impossible to you might not be to others. Besides whats impossible? I can tell you exactly how long I have spent on HPC for instance right down to the second becuase I have that technology. I can link phone call durations to customers into my systems so my customers can include the costs (time) spent dealing with customers to get a better idea on profitabilty for example.

Chaos Theory is just the unmeasured.

You can't measure what isn't knowable.

Such as what I might want for dinner in 3 days time.

[Traktion]

But in the absence of time to do ones own research how do you overcome that hurdle? You need a system in place to avoid false selling like Trading Standards for example.

The point about land ownership is probably best looked at throughGeorgist eyes, but thats still working within the constraints of the existing monetary system.

Should there even need to be a requirement to own things if you had to come up with a new fair system for society?

Your first point is a false dichotomy. If there is demand for information/assessment by a 3rd party, then the market will provide it. We don't need to have Trading Standards forced upon us, if it is a useful service.

We certainly don't need to 'own' land, guarded by trespass laws and such. If someone isn't using it at that time, why shouldn't people have access to it and/or use it? Much of it was stolen by the few from the many long ago anyway. That all said, the price for agricultural land is pretty low - a few grand** can get you an acre of land in the UK*, which is good enough to build a house on and/or grow food. Most people could find that sort of money to feed/shelter themselves. Unfortunately, the government planning monopoly wrecks the dynamics of affordable land for housing though.

* http://www.buildinglanduk.co.uk/agricultural-land-for-sale.htm

** TBH, some land could almost be given away in some places/cases, but unless the owner is taking the piss, I'm sure agreement could be reached.

[Traktion]

If you dont monitor time how can you possibly have openess and transparency in a system?

For example if everyone of us could see where and what we spent our time doing, would it not build greater faith when listening to a sales person?

For example, the medical industry relies on peer review (openess and transparency) to show reproducible results for claims.

Likewise people can see if they are getting fair value for their own efforts when purchasing something by being able to see if the person selling something is profiteering or not.

I think most people would be shocked at how much profit there is on many consumer items for example, as exemplified by the numerous 50% off sales and the fact even with 50% off the retailer is still making money as did the producer in most cases.

Sure, but that's one of the reasons why some restaurants have open kitchens, some factories have visitor access etc. Those with nothing to hide can give additional value to their products.

I have no problem with transparency and I like to see where some things I buy come from too. I don't think people should be forced to be transparent though, as people will judge the value of this regardless.

[Injin]

No you are confusing the issue, I'm not interested in what you want to eat for dinner in 3days time and I'm not trying to measure what is unmeasurable.

People keep diarys that detail events in their life, technology exists today so that your every move can be recorded so your activities can be documented. Then its just a case of saying this activity is work this isnt. Would solve so many issues and problems with todays society imo.

My time has a different value than other peoples.

You can only find out what that value is through voluntary trade.

And that can only be known after the fact.

[Traktion]

Patented with the help of the guy involved with Trevor Bayliss.

However on the point of competing technology, assuming no reverse engineering takes place, how long until someone else has the idea that lead to his innovation. No one has a monopoly on ideas, but money cartels exist which are next the best thing to monopolies.

If you take my situ, where a $billion IT company in the US was awarded a patent in Dec that descibes one of my programs, this demonstrates protectionism. Even if I could, I wouldnt patent this becuase I dont think patents are suitable, I'd rather let the consumer/user vote, beside all my software is a work of Art and art cant be patented.

My view on patent and copyright law is that it should all be binned. Take a look at the document in my sig if you want a good read about why it's not needed and has arguably held back progress.

There isn't a cartel on money either, unless the government forces you to pay taxes in a certain type. There are many things which can be traded as money, if they are worth something to another. This ranges from my time to my possessions.

Additionally, if you have a great idea and no money, there is nothing to stop you approaching another person/company and offering an exclusive deal. If they try to steal your idea, you threaten to tell their competitors, thus removing their advantage. If they like the idea, they can pay you in shares, so that you stand to benefit from the idea. If they agree to the deal and it's a game changer, you can also short their competitors. All this already happens, which proves the concept, but IP monopoly can add bureaucracy (supporting the incumbents) and restrict progress.

EDIT: P.S. I'm in software too and I'm more fearful of someone suing me for using 'their' idea, than wanting patents myself. It's become a game of self defence for many, it seems.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Traktion