i want your opinion

[sickles]

First off, i would have liked to have posted this in "getting our heads together" area, but that is for mods only for some reason (counterintuitive if you ask me).

I really want to find the flaws and strengths of this idea.

The idea is a model for a society. It is a model in the same way that capitalism is a model.

The idea is called a "resource based economy" and it was brought to my attention in zeitgeist addendum. It breaks down like this:

[qoute/] A major theme of Fresco's is the concept of a resource-based economy that replaces the need for monetary economy we have now, which is "scarcity-oriented" or "scarcity-based". Fresco argues that the world is rich in natural resources and energy and that — with modern technology and judicious efficiency — the needs of the global population can be met with abundance, while at the same time removing the current limitations of what is deemed possible due to notions of economic viability.

He gives this example to help explain the idea:
"At the beginning of World War II the U.S. had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war." [16]

Fresco states that for this to work, all of the Earth's resources must be held as the common heritage of all people and not just a select few; and the practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to the survival of human civilization.[17]


One of the key points in Fresco’s solution is that without the conditions created in a monetary system, vast amounts of resources would not be wasted unproductively. Instead Fresco’s contention is that without the waste of resources on ends that would become irrelevant there would be no scarcity of necessary products such as food and education. [qoute/]

essentially, the idea is to declare all natural resources common heritage to humankind through law. Because the natural resources are inherited by every human at birth, a company or individual could not sell a natural resource. It would not be theirs to sell.

what are the ramifications of this idea? well, to make a model like this work, and to ensure that every person gets what they need, you would need extreme effeciency. luckily, the author is a proponent of automation. automate mines, manufacturing, resources, and other things. Using technology to its purpose instead of using it to some other purpose (profit). Technology's original purpose was to give humans an advantage. What advantage? time.

stone tools and controlling fire are technology. think of what our ancestors did with the time those tools gave them? stone tools allowed faster processing and access to resources we didnt have before. Fire gave us time to socialize in the dark, less food prep time, eased manufacturing of tools, and allowed clearing of land in a fast and efficient way.

Our ancestors used this extra time to make culture , religion, and recreation. Humans just had more free time on our hands?


Another side effect is the lack of everyone having to have a job or wage to fullfill thier survival needs. This might be thought to be akin to socialism or communism , however, both of those systems use money and make use of artificial scarcity to control the market and population. For example, diamonds are burned in the kimberly diamond mine, if there is an excess to the qouta. This is to keep diamonds expensive and profitable. If they sold every diamond they found, diamonds wouldnt be worth much.

side effect 3: a reduction in crime, murder, rape, insanity, depression and a host of other societal problems are expected under this model. This is because everyones creature needs are taken care of, and alot of damage done to a person (mentally and economically speaking) is done during childhood. IF the needs are met, and food and housing, utilities and clothing are provided without anything expected in return, that relief would reduce the stresses and tragedies that happen to young people because of economic strain both directly and indirectly.
(i feel that having a money based system makes children pay for the mistakes and sins of the parents. For , the child springs from the board the parents build. This is not equal oppurtinity.)

I would really like some input on this.

[spblat]

It seems to me that you have hit upon something that resembles communism as you have noted. But an equally important similarity to communism is that it's a great idea on paper but difficult to achieve in practice without unfortunate side effects arising from human nature.

[otseng]

First off, i would have liked to have posted this in "getting our heads together" area, but that is for mods only for some reason (counterintuitive if you ask me).

I've changed the permissions now so that anyone can start a thread there. Go ahead and create one, but use a descriptive subject line, rather than simply "I want your opinion".

[sickles]

It seems to me that you have hit upon something that resembles communism as you have noted. But an equally important similarity to communism is that it's a great idea on paper but difficult to achieve in practice without unfortunate side effects arising from human nature.

It does, doesnt it. Communism is a money based system. A resource based economy does not. Not having currency to hoard makes corruption more difficult. Perhaps you could be more constructive about the "side effects arising from human nature"?

[spblat]

Perhaps you could be more constructive about the "side effects arising from human nature"?

I can try to be more specific, if not constructive. It seems to me that most of the world's natural resources are presently under the control of either capitalists or sovereign governments who believe it is their right to exploit those resources for profit. Would you not agree that in order to implement your system you would need to wrest control over those resources from those who believe they "own" them?