Some Thoughts in Support of a Resource Based Economy

Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases: (1) It’s completely impossible. (2) It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing. (3) I said it was a good idea all along.

Resource based economy

Money has lost its intrinsic value and it serves only now to stratify society and create massive inequality. If peoples contribution to society was the measure of prosperity rather than a monetary valuation then the worlds problems would quickly disappear. Those who currently contribute the least to humanity gain the most while those struggling and working hard for social progression are often ostracized and persecuted. A resource based economy would go a long way to redress the problem we face and help to move humanity to a not only sustainable but abundant future.

The crazy people are running the asylum

Yes. I believe it would be beneficial to switch to a resource-based economy...

Thinking about this just in terms of money is also just looking at one facet of a multifaceted problem. The current system facilitates wage slavery, poverty, social health issues, gross inequality, a grossly uneven playing field, a severe diminishment of humanity's fuller potential, letting the inmates run the asylum, further degradation of social institutions, including but certainly not limited to the sham that masquerades as the *justice* institutions certainly in the west and more than likely elsewhere.

Posted by: SStrohm

Technological unemployment, divisive hierarchal structures, scarcity driven economic systems, debt based money systems result in poverty, territorial disputes and ultimately war.

A Resource Based Economic model proposes an end to the Monetary System and of course we don't need money. If we needed money to get things done we'd have become extinct long before the first civilisation. The monetary system corrupts our behaviour and generates a fatal value system disorder. It is out-dated and can only function if there is scarcity, which is the reason we pay farmers not to grow food when children are starving around the world. Abundance is the key, If we can produce in abundance, which we can easily, then money would no longer required. We need to evolve.

Argument:  While a resource-based economy would have its benefits, it would also create many problems that could harm the overall economy. In today's complex economy, it is sometimes necessary for governments to "create money" by printing more of it, especially in times of emergency. A resource economy would remove this ability and, thus, could create enormous difficulties. posted by EminentBennett93

Response: 

 If you look past the conceptual ideas and delve into the mechanics of such a system (i.E. Print on demand production, home 3-d printing, automated production/distribution of products with complete their complete sustainability considered before creation, vertical farms, access centers, strategic design, etc.) you will see that it solves FAR more problems than it creates. Money is not evil, it is simply the training wheels that we used for thousands of years in a long epoch of scarcity. With that very important variable being overcome, the actual need for money, servitude, and trade becomes obsolete. 

Try to remember the fact that money is an intangible invention - a symbolic representation of value in an environment of scarcity, not a resource (you cannot eat it, build with it, and it has no place in an ecosystem). If there were some emergency in a fully realized RBE, we wouldn't be lobbying our congressmen, printing more money from central banks, and raising the debt ceiling -- we would utilize the best tools we have in a scientific manner (using the scientific method) to determine how to solve these problems. Everyone who has something to offer in terms of ideas would have a voice, and a method of contribution. 

This is a holistic systems approach, reflecting a modern understanding of how our actions affect our environment, and vice versa. Taking our cues from nature is the first step in understanding how to maintain balance between humans and the ecology of the planet. In short, to understand the totality of the RBE idea, try to remember that everything you have learned about economics, money, government, and human behavior are all based on an environment of real or perpetuated scarcity. Removing that variable, even over a long period of time, will have immeasurably positive effects on our species. 

I would recommend viewing "Our Technical Reality" on youtube to get an idea of how efficient we can make our energy infrastructure, for a start. There are also numerous videos and lectures about the effect of meeting human needs in a strategic manner, and how that affects our behavior and worldview

Argument: Our country works well with the economy we have.  The economy we have now is consumer based. We can and will make this work once we get out of the pointless wars that we are in. The reason our country is in the mess that it is in right now is because our government got us into wars that we can not afford.

Posted by: 5c0tJung

Responses: 

 The country (assuming you mean America) doesn't work well at all...50 million people don't even have organized health care, and 99% of the population is a wage slave of some kind. Furthermore, you can't just excerpt one nation from the world and base decisions on that - our current approach to society building leaves almost 1 billion humans going hungry, in spite of us having ample food and resources to feed them with. A money-based society is nothing but a pure, unadulterated failure.

3.1 billion without access to clean water when there is plenty enough clean water and resources to give these people access to it. 
- Millions homeless when we can build houses with industrial sized 3D printers for low resource cost.
- Money breeds corruption in politics and business, it cannot be escaped no matter how many laws you institute. 
- There is no reason to continue an impractical means of distributing resources when it causes so much pin and suffering in the world.

Argument: Our country works well with the economy we have. The economy we have now is consumer based. We can and will make this work once we get out of the pointless wars that we are in. The reason our country is in the mess that it is in right now is because our government got us into wars that we can not afford...

Posted by: UncoveredGaylord73

Responses: 

 A resource-based economy is not simply abolishing money. "Without money, people couldn't afford"... "afford" itself is an argument about money, not resources. A resource based economy takes an inventory of all the resources on the Earth (not money) and allocates those resources based on real-world priorities. It's not the abolishment of all technology, rather the opposite, it's embracing technology to the fullest to give all humans what they need and much of what they want. 

 In a resource based society there is no money, so switching to a more effiecent way of doing things would be easier because we were not have to worry about finding the funds to do it. This type of proposes we have technology do all things for us. So every thing will be build by self automated machines and fixed by them too. Things will be build to last and if it happens to malfuntion then all things are replaced for free, because there is no money.

That is of course assuming that people would stop doing the things that they are already doing, like building, innovating, and producing more technology. Money does not create these things, people do. Money is just a piece of paper. It is not a resource.

Argument: Get rid of money and the psychopaths that use it to bully. If we are to rely on a resource based economy it will be ruled by the powerful psychopaths that know how to take more for their selves. It will be no better than if we had money. We need to get rid of money and the people that like to make reckless choices that endanger and deprive others of resources they don't know how to control. Might does not make right.

Posted by: David_Harvey

Responses: 

A RBE is not possible with 'powerful psychopaths' in existence -- meaning we need to change our education (and thus value systems for future generations) so that sustainability and alignment with nature is the prime focus, rather than acquisition of material wealth and advantage over others in a competitive manner. To those who have not thoroughly examined the tenets and systems of a RBE, these claims seem exaggerated and unlikely, however the trends are clear in terms of our failing education system, and our even worse failing economy. As long as a social system rewards disadvantaging others, pitting people against each other for the basic needs of life (either in literal physical confrontation, or competition for jobs), then powerful psychopaths is what we will get. This transition will be a long and arduous process, but the more we embrace sustainability and stop worrying about how this affects a puppet economy (which does not represent or even consider the life ground of humans and other species in its foundational assumptions) , the better off we will be in every measurable sense. 
By viewing human behavior and indoctrination as a spectrum, it becomes quite obvious that we are products of our environment. Thus, the more we improve our physical and psychological environment (removing incentives to disadvantage others, encouraging cooperation) the better off we will all be, and the less 'powerful psychopaths' there will be - because no reward will then come from that behavior.

Argument: Flawed idea is flawed. 

The idea behind resourse based economics is built on flawed logic about the apparent evils of money without stopping to consider why monetary systems are so widespread, and were even in nominally communist countries.

One cannot simply just remove money from the equation - it serves so many useful purposes in our society that even without a central currency existing, people would still operate in a way that we can recognise today as being monetary in nature.

Responses: 

keenondebate:

Actually, the case is the opposite. You need to ask why money is there to begin with, and if it serves its purpose. Monetary systems are wide spread, because they are a function of scarcity. They are necessary in some form in a scarce environment. For instance, why is it, that no one is selling air? Could it be because it is abundant? (The way things are going, the last day of free air may unfortunately be on the horizon, though).

If you create an environment that effectively eliminates scarcity, then you don't need money. Money is a means of exchange. If you eliminate scarcity, there is no need for exchange. I am not saying that it's an easy task. But I am saying, that it is absolutely possible, given our current state of technology and scientific understandings. Every bit of tech needed to achieve just that is available today. I'll be happy to point you to it, if you like.

Life.sent1nel:

Money creates a system of "Haves" and "Have-nots" as there is a controlled amount of the stuff in circulation. It is a flawed and failing system that needs to be revised. RBEs present a very valid option for removing it from our lives.

Argument:   Would just lead to more wars & competition over resources What do you think wars are fought over? Human rights? Good will? Hell no, it's about resources & power. Focuses on resources purely would just support more aggressive actions, not only towards other countries but towards the environment. I don't know how any sane person wants that. I don't think it would lead to peace or true stability as others have mentioned but instead very aggressive and overt competition.

Responses: Rowan_is_warm: 

Quite the opposite you assume the a RBE is about the trading of goods and resources instead of bartering with money. Quite the contrary. In this economy we would reach a state of production that eliminates scarcity, and the resources will be intelligently managed by advanced systems that will continually assess the capacity of the populace to minimize waste and maximize efficient. This means that nothing has value which eliminates the behavioral issues associated and influenced by he existence of money. The need of ALL will be met without the need for money and a job to acquire resources. That way of thinking will be decimated. The new system will bring an incentive and value system that puts the well being of humans FIRST, instead of a system serving the needs of the top 1% you will have EVERYTHING YOU NEED for free (money will never come into this it will be gone). The new incentive will be advancing and seeing the world become better and better. This way there will be virtually no crimes, wars, and the input of a relevant educational systems will bring everyone to their highest possible level of mental and social concessions that will reflect the world and everyone and everything in our society. I could go on for pages and pages...If you have any further questions, you need only ask or simply watch more of the videos about the Venus Project, watch this video for more information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w, or buy the book "The best money can't buy" cheers :)

Argument: A system which goes against human nature. 

For a resource based economy to work we would have to dissolve national boundaries. The world would have to become one nation. This would be an impossible task that could only be achieved through force as their would always be at least one country that would not want to dissolve it's borders. 

In a highly technically advanced world without money people would still need to do some jobs to design new machines, manage repairs, plan farms. However, they would be expected to do this for no personal gain monetary or status reward, this would invariably result in slow or non existent repairs, work boredom/dissatisfaction and so planning leading to a dysfunctional system.