Resource Based Economy vs. Others

[Mamiamato24]

Hi!

Soooooo after viewing a documentary explaining a lot about a Resource Based Economy and how it would be beneficial for the survival and prosperity of the human kind, I was very curious if people agree with the aim and ultimate goal of a Resource Based Economy, which is, by the way, survival and prosperity in the most efficient way possible, utilizing current technologies for assistance, versus any other economic structures (Capitalism, etc.)

I'm not sure if a discussion like this is allowed, and if it isn't, then feel free to lock this thread. Only recently have I heard of this phenomenon, and while I thought it was a perfect system, I then thought why we aren't using it today. Surely there must be some sort of flaws that are embedded in this type of system (or the system we are currently using is not showing any sign of submission) and I wanted to start a discussion.

If you've never heard of what this is, then I strongly suggest taking a moment to read this page:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/about/resource-based-economy

Maybe it's slightly bias and only reflects upon the positives and not the negatives of this sort of society, it definitely does a good job at explaining exactly what it is. And I know it's not anything totally new, but it's definitely something worth knowing about.

So what do you think?

-Mamiamato4

 

[Sarchikani]

Well considering that we live in a world where everything has an owner, or will have an owner once a person gets their hands on it, this is a very idealistic goal. Not saying that it is bad, just based on human nature this will not work. Humans want to own stuff, and make a profit from it. Now I didn't read the whole article, but what would happen to things like oil. Oil is expensive to obtain and it is rare. Now if it was given out for free, how would we make the money to pay for the extraction of the oil. And since it is rare, how do we distribute it evenly so that every one can have it. Eventually with non renewable resources like oil, we would need to pick and choose who gets it and how much of it, who would have the power to distribute the resources. A simple answer would be first come, first serve. On paper this seems like a good idea, but the people with power will most likely get out in front and take the resources. And who is to stop me from selling any resources I may obtain, would there be laws saying I can't sell the extra resources I have and have no use for?

I understand that this is a concept, but the thing is, it simply cannot work. At least that's what I think. This is like one of those ideas that sounds appealing on paper, with people in favor of it saying that "People will be less focused on money and more focused on education and activities or whatever else makes them happy." It may sound perfect when laid out, but so does communism. Many of these systems sound good, but when implemented, they eventually fall apart unless a strong leader holds it together. Now I am also not saying that economic methods such as capitalism are perfect, I mean it is just as flawed as this one, but for some reason it just works or at least kind of works.

Short answer: Looks good on paper, implementation and effectiveness seems unreasonable.

 

[Mamiamato24]

Well considering that we live in a world where everything has an owner, or will have an owner once a person gets their hands on it, this is a very idealistic goal. Not saying that it is bad, just based on human nature this will not work. Humans want to own stuff, and make a profit from it. Now I didn't read the whole article, but what would happen to things like oil. Oil is expensive to obtain and it is rare. Now if it was given out for free, how would we make the money to pay for the extraction of the oil. And since it is rare, how do we distribute it evenly so that every one can have it. Eventually with non renewable resources like oil, we would need to pick and choose who gets it and how much of it, who would have the power to distribute the resources. A simple answer would be first come, first serve. On paper this seems like a good idea, but the people with power will most likely get out in front and take the resources. And who is to stop me from selling any resources I may obtain, would there be laws saying I can't sell the extra resources I have and have no use for?

I understand that this is a concept, but the thing is, it simply cannot work. At least that's what I think. This is like one of those ideas that sounds appealing on paper, with people in favor of it saying that "People will be less focused on money and more focused on education and activities or whatever else makes them happy." It may sound perfect when laid out, but so does communism. Many of these systems sound good, but when implemented, they eventually fall apart unless a strong leader holds it together. Now I am also not saying that economic methods such as capitalism are perfect, I mean it is just as flawed as this one, but for some reason it just works or at least kind of works.

Short answer: Looks good on paper, implementation and effectiveness seems unreasonable.

The whole point, or a major point, of this economic structure is the there is no money. We would also use other natural resources such as hydroelectricity, wind, geothermy, solar, etc, and fossil fuels will only be utilized if there is an emergency since they harm the atmosphere and stuff like that. They would also have large reserves so that no energy is wasted, and if there is a deficiency somewhere then other cities with a surplus of energy can give some to them. People wouldn't purchase goods (since there wouldn't be any currency), but rather, the food would be grown and distributed (it's not clear if everyone would get the same amount or if it would be based off of demand), and extra things not necessary for survival but for simply enjoyment could be borrowed and returned when they no longer serve their use, so that no resources are wasted compared to if they would mass-produce that same item and everyone would get one (of course, it would need to be something people would only use on a sporadic basis, such as a camera).
As for a form of government, I don't think that there would be any. Since much of the production, distribution, transportation, etc would be automated, few people would be required to monitor them, and I believe people would volunteer some of their time to help society since they aren't bombarded with the work load that comes with having a job to earn money to purchase the necessities of life that should be available to everyone.
I'm not entirely sure about the whole government thing. I know there wouldn't be one, but I am not sure if there would be anything to replace it or it would just not exist.

 

[Twee]

I'm kinda lost tbh... But it seems interesting! I might need to read more on it to fully understand it though

 

[Mamiamato24]

I'm kinda lost tbh... But it seems interesting! I might need to read more on it to fully understand it though

Yeah, when it comes to stuff like this, it can be very difficult to understand a society completely different to the one we live in today. But it's definitely interesting to learn about how we may be living in a different scenario.

 

[Sarchikani]

I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, it's just that it asks for an awful lot from people. It just isn't in human nature to allow people to have things for free. The part about lending resources is the one that gets to me, because it just isn't in our nature to lend large amounts of resources.

As for the whole government thing, I firmly believe that government is needed to stabilize a society, especially one that would be as free and open as this one. But the government cannot be controlling, it simply needs to be there as a way to keep everyone in line and not as an enforcer of any major laws and regulations.

I really like this concept and I am glad you brought it up because now I have something to research. This reminds of a restaurant, I believe it is Panera that recently opened up a store where you pay what you feel like for the food. And I was very surprised to hear that the store is making a decent profit despite having no set prices.

 

[Mamiamato24]

I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, it's just that it asks for an awful lot from people. It just isn't in human nature to allow people to have things for free. The part about lending resources is the one that gets to me, because it just isn't in our nature to lend large amounts of resources.

As for the whole government thing, I firmly believe that government is needed to stabilize a society, especially one that would be as free and open as this one. But the government cannot be controlling, it simply needs to be there as a way to keep everyone in line and not as an enforcer of any major laws and regulations.

I really like this concept and I am glad you brought it up because now I have something to research. This reminds of a restaurant, I believe it is Panera that recently opened up a store where you pay what you feel like for the food. And I was very surprised to hear that the store is making a decent profit despite having no set prices.

I agree with you, it definitely isn't something we can simply transition to tomorrow and everyone would be completely fine with it, but it is a cool thing to think about. And maybe if we found a planet similar to Earth, we could restart the human race and maybe implement a system like this. It would require a lot of time to train ourselves not to constantly want possessions and wealth and be better than everyone else, as I don't believe it's something natural as humans but it's something we're exposed to all around us and we get influenced by big houses and expensive cars and a fancy way of life.

 

[Sarchikani]

It all starts with the future generations. If we teach them to be open to trade rather than war, if we teach them to interact with others and learn from them rather than being fearful of their own neighbors. Maybe if the future generations work at it, we can have a variation of this system in which people help each other not because they will get rewarded or paid, but because it is genuinely the right thing to do.

 

[Mamiamato24]

It all starts with the future generations. If we teach them to be open to trade rather than war, if we teach them to interact with others and learn from them rather than being fearful of their own neighbors. Maybe if the future generations work at it, we can have a variation of this system in which people help each other not because they will get rewarded or paid, but because it is genuinely the right thing to do.

I like how you think

 

[Sarchikani]

I like how you think

Why thank you, I like the way you think also. I will do some more research on this and hopefully get back to you on this.

 

[Mamiamato24]

Why thank you, I like the way you think also. I will do some more research on this and hopefully get back to you on this.

Whoops forgot to respond....derp xD
And according to Wikipedia, all it says is that countries represent their GDP in resources, which there is a lot more to it then that lol

 

[Blazerboy | Noah]

not going to lie, our economy should be based on the number of cucumbers one owns