> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Zarf

I stopped reading it after this:

>>Alright, Xeno, that's it.  I'm sick of this stupid ass debate, so it's time to poke more holes in your argument than swiss cheese.<<

You set out with the intention of poking holes in the argument, for the sake of poking holes in the argument.  You didn't set out to create an honest, constructive response.  So, I didn't waste my time reading it.

1: Honest and constructive are subjective.  I can call every single word you said here dishonest for whatever reason I want.  And I can call them all unconstructive fairly easily.  That's what debate and discussion are about: the clash of civilizations.
2: I didn't want to butt in earlier because I wanted to see how long until Kemp actually argued against your theorized society, rather than debating about magical robots.  But it's apparent that the debate won't go further than magical robots, so I stepped in.
3: Even if I'm not genuine, and even if I'm a complete ass hole, you still need to address it because the argument can potentially still be true, regardless of if I'm an ass hole.
4: Do you really want to get into the precedent that I can address arguments by attacking the author?  If that is your new standard for debate, then V. Kemp is kicking both our asses, and Decimus is the best debater in the world.  Seriously?

> But, you keep whining about me not reading your stuff, so...

Um... yeah.  If someone makes a thread in which they propose a change to society, it is their job as a responsible debater to acknowledge the opponent's arguments, and either answer them, or at least say "I don't know" or something.

>>The problem is called Dutch Disease<<

> Global Trade within a resource-based economy would still function as it does today, except without the need to purchase respective nations' currencies.  It would be x amount of x kind of resource for y amount of y kind of resource, straight up.

1: This issue is a modern problem.  That doesn't get you out of the problem.  This isn't some theory of how some transhuman society run by nanotech-enhanced cyborgs would look.

That being said, you still don't answer the key issue, which you yourself argued earlier in this thread: That a higher emphasis would be placed on obtaining resources than on non-resource based issues, since resources are now the formal currency.

>>B: You create huge amounts of economic inequality.<<

Actually, if you think about what I say above, I create EQUALITY like the world economy has never seen.  Now, there is a world equivalent value of x resource: 1 tonne of sweet potatoes in New Guinea would = 1 tonne of sweet potatoes in Britain, because, of course, 1 tonne of sweet potatoes would = (just as an example) 20 tonnes of grain EVERYWHERE.  It SOLVES the inequality of the current monetary system.

Alright, at the point where you concede that the resource curse is a real economic issue, I only have to answer this by saying that the negative inequality-related impacts would outweigh your positives.

It's simple: The resource curse causes corruption in society.  That corruption would turn every advantage of your society because the rich upper class that controlled the resources would be able to manipulate the poor, and take their resources.  In addition, there would be no way the poor could advance in your society, unless shit was handed to them.

Also, you didn't answer one of my arguments: That pragmatic issues prevented single currency values.  Let me reiterate:

1: Additional costs are associated with giving resources to particular nations.  You can establish a global market price for, say, steel.  However, it would cost more to ship steel halfway across the planet than to ship it to a nearby neighbor.  So one of two things happens:
Either A: The seller would charge additional cost for the shipping, which means your society is no different than the current system because there is already a global market price for goods.  It's called a commodity market, or:
B: The seller can't charge additional cost for shipping, and global trade would be hindered because it would be more profitable to not ship abroad.  In addition, this leads to all the other negative problems I explained with the resource curse because in order for nations to access resources, they can't rely on trade.  When goods don't cross borders, soldiers do.

>>Without a banking system, there is no credit system.<<

> False.  Banks would not only still exist, but they would also loan resources.

Now you're in another of my world-famous double-binds.  Either:

A: Banks would operate as they do now, but loan resources as well, which means the imaginary money still exists because credit is that imaginary money.  That means there's no change in the society since the same system still exists.  And in fact, it could possibly be worse because banks would have more power to loan and manipulate wealth.  Or:
B: Banks wouldn't be able to operate as they did, and the credit issue still happens.

>>C: Massive poverty.<< (Your point on potential periods of resource scarcity)

> A resource based system would not result in the scarcity of resources.  What do you think people would putting in their savings accounts?  RESOURCES

Um.... that doesn't answer my argument.

I was very specific that the impact to that poverty issue was the destruction of farmland.  Saving resources does not solve that because it only masks the problem.  It's like if I have a bank account with a thousand dollars, I get 7% interest per year, and I take out $200 every year.  Even if I have savings, I'm overdrawing on the savings, causing its eventual collapse.

D: There is no reason to live in your society

Yes there is: a better standard of life.

Nope!  That's my resource curse argument.  The government becomes the only legitimate authority, which justifies the government doing whatever it wants to its people.  And the corruption means you don't access the better standard of living.

> I'm, going to stop wasting my time blowing your points out of the water.  I'd advise you to try and explain what this 'dutch disease' thing is more precisely, because whatever it is, I don't think you understand it well enough.

1: Considering how many contradictions I have found throughout this thread, any inability for me to explain this can be attributed to me now having no clue of what the hell you are talking about.
2: Wow.  I posted a [w00f!] essay about the subject, and you say I didn't explain it well enough?  Notice, by the way, that you are THE ONLY PERSON that doesn't understand it, and in fact two other people complemented my post?

But hell, I like to type, so I'll explain it again (by the way, as I later posted, there was a slight error.  When I said "dutch disease," I am simply referring to the "resource curse."  Dutch disease is a subset condition in the overall resource curse).  I'll try and make it really simple.

Here's the issue: People and nations want to generally take advantage of what they can get the most out of.

Take an example of a person who owns a coal mine.  The land he owns is best for coal mining, obviously.  So a logical person would make the coal mine as profitable as possible.  He may get new equipment, hire some workers, and get some new excavations going.  That person wouldn't need to go learn how to do open heart surgery because he has a coal mine, and he can get surgery from somewhere else.

Now, this is a good thing in general.  But let me expand this to a macroeconomic level.

A nation (for the sake of simplicity, I will call this theoretical nation "Iran") is extremely oil-rich.  The oil is nationally owned.  There are urban cities in other areas of the country, but they are inconsequential to that nation's tax revenues, both because the government does not have a high tax rate and because its tax collecting infrastructure is somewhat lacking (oil has so far allowed this nation to continue without the need for tax revenue).

This nation has two options: expanding its oil production to maximum capacity, or expanding its non-oil production to higher capacity.

By choosing the former, the nation would simply be furthering its expertise.  There is no new frontier that needs to be explored.  It's like a doctor learning about a new drug: relatively simple, because the prerequisite knowledge is already there.

But by expanding its other areas, Iran would be fighting an uphill battle for multiple reasons.  Let's assume Iran decided to set up an auto manufacturing plant.  It would first be competing with multiple nations that already established that industry.  Then it would need to start from literally scratch, because its resources (specifically human resources) do not have the knowledge to become autoworkers right now.  It's an entirely new frontier, like a doctor trying to learn about good stock investment.  Even if he learns the basics, he'll be too far behind in the game to catch up to others in the investment field because, during all the time he was learning medicine, they were learning more about stocks.

And there's one more benefit of getting resources: It requires minimal input.  You only need to invest a little bit in infrastructure.  You don't need many workers, and those workers you do hire don't need much training (this may not be as true with oil, but it is definitely more true with resources like coal, diamonds, and gold).

So logically, Iran would choose to further advance its oil industry.  The next question becomes "How?"  Building more oil fields and upgrading current oil fields would be one way.  But at some point, some maximum limit will be reached, either by supply and demand (if only 400 gallons of oil is demanded in the market, producing 500 gallons as opposed to 400 doesn't help anything), or because the nation itself limits production (not enough oil).

Now, let's talk for a moment about the people of this nation.  No, not the guys on the oil rig.  The people in this nation's cities.

They don't pay taxes.  They don't contribute to the nation's economy.  Aside from those citizens who work in the government, all these people are freeloaders on your country!  In terms of Locke's social contract, these people have given nothing to the nation.  That means that the government has no reason to respect the people because the people do not contribute to the nation.  They are blessed to have a government that casts them aside.

Yet... they have been neglected.  Multiple reasons account for this:
1: The government focus has been on natural resource production.
2: The government, essentially, has given up on the people.  By focusing on natural resources above human resources, the government has decided that there will be no return on investment from developing the people as an economic resource.

This means that if a program in government that we value today is primarily intended to make people better economic resources, it's out the door.

Some examples:
Education: May still exist.  But what are we learning?  Not about advanced economics, medical science, and political theory (unless the government is positive you will be working for them).  Instead, education serves as an indoctrination tool to make people love their society and prevent unrest.  That should be enough.

Medical care: May still exist.  But don't expect the government to put any investment for medical care for the private sector!

Roads, bridges, etc: Same story.  If the government can benefit from it, it's built.  But there's no reason to expand government-benefiting services to the private sector if the government can cut their costs in the process.

But there's more.  The people do not contribute to the government.  However, they still require action to take care of them.  People need food, water, shelter, security from invaders, and imports.  That means that the citizen of the government is a LIABILITY to the government, not an asset.  In the industrial, service-based economy, the individuals pay taxes and are more connected to the government.  There is a symbiotic relationship between government and people.  In the resource-focused economy, there is a symbiotic relationship between the government and it's employees.  But the relationship between private citizens and government is wholly parasitic.  That destroys any care the government has for the people in its society, thus justifty.

At that point, the only way a citizen can be legitimized as a person by the government is to work for the government.  That means  there is no resistance to overbearing government by the people.  If being a citizen is defined as either "be part of the organization who controls the people, or be part of the controlled, and have no value by the government's standards," then there is a clear incentive by the people to become part of the government.  Now, I'm not saying that government employment is bad.  But when the choice is government or bust, the government gains a monopoly on all civil society, meaning there is no check against the government.

And I'm still not done!

Economic success would be defined by how resources were allocated at this point.  Therefore, the only way a have-not could become a have would be to acquire the resources that could be dug out of the ground.  Since the only way to acquire said resources and garner the profits would be to control the land that holds those resources, open revolution is the only way people can excel in this area.  This is evident in my example of Africa and the blood diamond conflicts.

And that's not all!

Power in government is defined by one's control of resources in that society, just as power is controlled by one's control of money in modern society.  However, unlike modern society, the focus on resources means governments can't advance their power by advancing the status of their citizens.  The result?  The only way to gain power is through conquest.  Nations become war engines, engaging in the same imperialism of the 17th century, because they want to control resources.

I gave you two empirical examples of my theory: The Middle East and the blood diamond nations.  Here's one more: Japan.

Japan has little, if any, natural resources.  If you were to wipe out every inch of civilization on Japan, it would be pretty much worthless, other than some fishing land and a little bit of farmland.

Before World War 2, Japan embraced a resource-based mentality.  Power and wealth were defined by the acquisition of natural resources.  At the time, that made the nation vulnerable because, according to said mentality, Japan was vulnerable to nations stopping trade with them.  Thus, it was forced to conquer its neighbors to ensure that it had self-sustaining power.  The result?  The Asian front of World War 2.

Now fast forward to today.  No aggressive military.  In fact, no military at all.  Japan has completely done away with that theory.  Now, Japan has only one resource: its people.  As a result, it has an advanced education system, an advanced health system, etc.  And all this was built in a mere 50 years!  Today, Japan is a superpower unlike any we have known in the past, that would perplex 17th century political philosophers, but makes perfect sense to 20th century economists.  It's a superpower with butter and no guns, and it's a superpower because of that (not that I'm a pacifist by any means.  Hell, I love the US military.  Japan just has a different self-defense strategy that works very well for them).

The difference is vast.  Japan's people today are infinitely better off than during the pre-war times.  Their nation is at peace much more often.  And they're probably more powerful now than they ever were during World War 2.

If there's anything I left out, refer to my previous post.  I don't want to retype everything I did, because that is stupid.

Oh, and do please try and answer:
Every argument I made in this post, and
Every argument you didn't answer from my previous post.

It literally took me a day to write the previous one, and two days to write this one (not straight... I did lots of other things... but my posts are written with great care for accuracy).  I have given you the respect of acknowledging your arguments, so you should do the same.