Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Resource-based economy
Lies. Our conspiracy theories and MMORPG playing is very important to society and the economy X(.
Personally, I very much doubt most people would spend their lives playing mmorpgs and reading conspiracy theories. Looking around, on this forum, I guess that it wouldn't be a sample representative of the general population.
Lies. You can all stop lying to me now 
.
"Personally, I very much doubt most people would spend their lives playing mmorpgs and reading conspiracy theories. Looking around, on this forum, I guess that it wouldn't be a sample representative of the general population."
what would you expect most people to do that would be so much better then an honest day's work?
dumbest thread ever
>>what would you expect most people to do that would be so much better then an honest day's work?<<
Why are you still posing such a question?
Are you suggesting that the only reason people do an honest days' work is because they are driven by fear of being without basic needs? Are you saying that the only way for our economy to function is for people to be driven by fear of starvation and losing their home?
What kind of idiotic notion is that?
I thought we were past that issue.
I've already proven people would still do an honest day's work even if their basic needs were met (i.e. billionaires). Or are you also suggesting that billionaires are a drag on the system?
Please answer any of the above questions before expecting me to answer any more of yours.
"Are you suggesting that the only reason people do an honest days' work is because they are driven by fear of being without basic needs? Are you saying that the only way for our economy to function is for people to be driven by fear of starvation and losing their home?"
no, im saying that what good does eliminating labor do? whats better then a honest day's work, how is giving farmers nothing to do, like you said in a previous post, an improvement for the world?
"What has happened to all the farmers? Well, they are still there, in the farm houses. Nothing has changed except the need to expend their labor to harvesting the product. "
"I've already proven people would still do an honest day's work even if their basic needs were met (i.e. billionaires). Or are you also suggesting that billionaires are a drag on the system? "
lol. billionaires work because of greed for more money. without the monetary system, them and people like them would have no drive, and wouldnt work.
"
What kind of idiotic notion is that?"
it is an idiotic notion that you completely fabricated.
You have to repeat yourself a lot when you respond to him, avogadro. And he just repeats himself back; he doesn't respond. 
"it is an idiotic notion that you completely fabricated"
Are you then denying that for there to be a monetary economic system, there necessarily must be poverty and a scarcity of basic needs?
Would you say, therefore, that it is possible for there to be a monetary economic system in which there is no scarcity of basic needs and no poverty? How exactly would a monetary-based economic system accomplish that?
I find it very implausible that the monetary-based economic system would suddenly turn away from its inherent principles based on scarcity of basic needs and enslavement of human labor since its very conception, without which the monetary economic system could not possibly be sustained.
Convince me how a monetary-based economic system could provide for the above items a - f, perhaps?
Water is the most abundant resource on the planet, and yet, in this monetary-based, almost thoroughly controlled and manipulated economy, people have to exchange stuff called 'money' to get any of it. The monetary-based system has thus far been able to make scarce the most abundant and most essential basic need.
Regarding OGLUS:
Among other technologies, the off-grid-living-units (OGLUS) would a have rain-catchment system, a waste-water recycling system, a water desalination and purification system, and even a system to extract ground and atmospheric moisture, all built-in to the unit. You could basically off-load it from a truck in the middle of death-valley and live in it forever, always having enough water for a family of four. We have the technology for this today, patented under a 'intellectual property rights' lock and key, not being produced yet because their faulty feasibility studies say it wouldn't be 'profitable'.
Why not just release these patents to NGOs to produce them at no profit?
i was nice and responded to all your points, please do the same.
"im saying that what good does eliminating labor do? whats better then a honest day's work, how is giving farmers nothing to do, like you said in a previous post, an improvement for the world?"
I'll answer my own question, because nobody else here will:
With an NGO producing enough OGLUs for every person who'd want one (OGLUs which would provide for not only water, but also every other basic human need), suddenly, the manipulators of the monetary-economic system would lose their leverage on humanity.
yep, because theres no service that people want other then their most basic needs met. moron
Avo,
Even those like you, who are so clearly filled with hate, should not be hated. Even those like you, who are so clearly filled with greed, should not be robbed. Even those like you, who are so filled with arrogance, should not be ignored.
Therefore, I will say this: Of course there are more 'needs' besides basic ones. The highest is, of course, self-actualization. This I discussed at the beginning of the thread.
You are correct that people would want more than the most basic needs. We have found agreement: you are suggesting, therefore, that, in fact, people would still be motivated to do more than play MMORPGs and watch conspiracy theory videos regardless of whether or not it was within the context of a resource-based-oriented economy or monetary-based economy.
I'm glad you've come around to agree with me, finally. Welcome to the human race, avo.
Do you ever read a person's post, and try to visualize that person's face as they were typing that message? It's fun! 
What are you talking about hate, xeno? He's not hateful. He's just disgusted at your outrageously retarded posts. You're more ignorant than a 12 year old but you have the arrogance of a head of state. You really think you have a CLUE what you're talking about, yet you have MOST of your "facts" completely backward.
Your bullshit about people being as productive as in a capitalist society when only doing it for the hell of it was blown out of the water pages ago. Keep up with the mental masturbation.
v.kemp, dont even bother with him. he's not capable of responding to a simple point that i repeated half a dozen times for him. instead he takes words out of context and pretends to make viable points. he's incapable of intelligent debate, and me in my optimistic attitude has granted him far more respect then he has ever deserved.
its an economy where people dont use money, they trade goods. he thinks somehow it will magically be better. while theres a reason why money exists, its much more efficient to use money. its alot easier to give someone $50 then to give them something worth $50.
he explains it in an earlier post, unfortunately he feels the need to make long posts with much bullshit inorder to make him delude himself into thinking of himself as intelligent:
"What does capitalism have to do with this? Capitalism includes the resource-based economy. The resource economy already exists. It is running parallel with the monetary based economy. More emphasis, however, is being placed on it.
Look at it this way: when goods become unaffordable monetarily, when monetary prices become uncompetitive with the resource-based value of those goods, or when tax laws make monetary exchanges more inconvenient than resource-based exchanges, there is a natural tenancy for the merchant and purchaser to then conduct transactions with resources rather than money. This happens all the time. It is estimated that the resource-based economy is about 1/3 of the real economy.
Take the following scenario: A mechanic named John has trouble with his home computer. It's been running slow ever since his last automatic upgrade. he only bought the computer 2 years ago. He doesn't figure he should have to go out and buy a brand new one. He hates Microsoft for what he sees is a marketing ploy: intentionally 'updating' his computer so as to make it run more slowly so he has to go and get a new one with windows vista.
Then, out of the blue, an old friend of John's, Bill the IT guy, phones him and says that his car needs a tune-up and asks John if he could take a look?
What happens next? Well, I'm sure you can guess. They make a resource-based exchange: John the mechanic fixes up Bill's car, and Bill the IT guy fixes up John's computer.
No money is exchanged; No taxes are collected.
Want another example of the resource-based economy at work in our day and age?
www.couchsurfing.com - the site is being SWAMPED by users participating in resource-based exchanges through this website: you have a resource in your home - a couch. You let people of good reputation and good standing sleep on your couch for a night, and in exchange your own reputation or standing is raised, to the extent, that next time you want to go to, let's say, New York for a holiday, you won't have to pay a dime for accomodation there. Again, no money exchanged, no taxes. Only thing exchanged are resources: your couch / spare bedroom this night for somebody-elses couch / spare bedroom in the future.
This sort of resource-based exchange, if it really takes-off as I expect it will, could throw a wrench in the cogs of the wheels of the multimnational hotel industry, and, personally, GOOD: in some cities you can't get a decent room for less than 200 dollars a night nowadays.
We have to understand what the resource-based economy is: it is a protest movement against the unjust inflationary trend upon which the monetary-based economy depends. As inflation increases, and higher prices continue to make the resource-based economic system more appealing to consumers, the monetary system will simply fade away.
It is simply a matter of time. The resource-based economy is coming, and fast."
"but you have the arrogance of a head of state."
Have you heard the phrase, "...a government for the people, by the people..."?
The people, therefore, are, of course, to have this so called 'arrogance of a head of state' as you put it, and, conversely, the head of state (and all civil SERVANTS) is to have the humility of a servant of the people. As I am NOT a head of state and NOT a civil servant, it is my duty as a CITIZEN, as it is the duty of all CITIZENS, to have such an 'arrogance of a head of state'. Moreover, it is not only their right and duty to have such arrogance, but it is also their RIGHT and DUTY to ENFORCE their will upon their servants-of-state. The judicial branch is to be the mechanism for the ENFORCEMENT of the servants-of-state by the people. However, it is clearly becoming the case in most nations that the servants-of-state somehow gain control over the judicial branch, and tend to use it to enforce their will on the people, give themselves immunity form prosecution, and place themselves above the law. If you come from such a country, Kemp, I really do pity you.
You see, Kemp, this is how your government should work:
Citizens - as a collective voice - are supposed to have the arrogance, power and authority of a sovereign, and the head of state is now supposed to have the humility, meekness and complacency of a servant.
So which country do you come from, Kemp, the USA? Oh. Ok. I truly, then, do pity you.
see kemp, he proved my point.
he ignored any point you made, took some random words out of context and responded to those words, pretending to actually make a viable point.
just dont bother with him
@Avo
>>im saying that what good does eliminating labor do? whats better then a honest day's work, how is giving farmers nothing to do, like you said in a previous post, an improvement for the world?<<
Why have I not answered your question? I have already answered it.
Not, of course, the question as you have phrased it, for the way you phrase your question makes any reasonable response to require me to repeat myself.
First, you ask, "[...]what good does eliminating labor do?" As I have already shown you, labor could never be eliminated. It is not the aim of the system about which I speak for labor to be eliminated. As we've already discussed, people would continue to strive for something better, even if their basic needs were met.
Second, you ask, "whats better then a honest day's work[?]". Again, as I have already shown, people would conduct 'economic activity'. Are you asking for an example? There would be countless of things people would do to increase their available resources. As we have already agreed, people would always want more. Do you see, now, how the way you phrased your question forces me to repeat myself again and again and again?
Third, you basically ask the same question, "how is giving farmers nothing to do [...] an improvement for the world?"
You don't seem to see, do you? Perhaps this whole notion is simply too different from notions you have been exposed to before. Perhaps you are honest in your questioning. Perhaps you are not intentionally trying to skew your questions in such a way so as to produce an answer that suits your mindset. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time, and simply share with you the obvious:
Freeing the world's farmers from their on-going, seemingly unending cycle of subsistence-living IS an improvement for the world in and of itself. Moreover, having farmers able to devote their time to furthering their education beyond their field of agricultural-science, will allow them the opportunity to pursue other avenues of interest or other forms of 'economic activity'. This goes for all fields of study. As another example, having A.I., automate a computer programmer's job, will allow the computer programmer time to further his education beyond his field, or, even, further his field of expertise and learn to produce even better A.I. Whatever a single person's process is towards attaining 'more' - whatever more might be for that person - IS GOOD FOR THE WORLD.
"Freeing the world's farmers from their on-going, seemingly unending cycle of subsistence-living IS an improvement for the world in and of itself. Moreover, having farmers able to devote their time to furthering their education beyond their field of agricultural-science, will allow them the opportunity to pursue other avenues of interest or other forms of 'economic activity'. This goes for all fields of study. As another example, having A.I., automate a computer programmer's job, will allow the computer programmer time to further his education beyond his field, or, even, further his field of expertise and learn to produce even better A.I. Whatever a single person's process is towards attaining 'more' - whatever more might be for that person - IS GOOD FOR THE WORLD."
finally. what good does that do? how is it any better then the farmer working on a farm? eliminating labor just to be replaced by more labor. some people dont work at all, happy living off of society; as more and more things become free because labor has been eliminated, larger and larger percentages of the population will feel no need to work, and what good does that accomplish?
some people will feel the need to work no matter how much stuff is free, others will not work no matter how little they'll have. the more stuff you give out, the more people switch from honest day's work to reading conspiracy theories and playing mmo's. how is that anything to strive for?
what is interesting here is the different view points on the world, but that has always been the case... left wing dreamers wanting a better, but impossible, world for all of us, and right wing realists seeing only the bad in the world...
> You_Fool wrote:
> what is interesting here is the different view points on the world, but that has always been the case... left wing dreamers wanting a better, but impossible, world for all of us, and right wing realists seeing only the bad in the world...
Then explain me.
> You_Fool wrote:
> what is interesting here is the different view points on the world, but that has always been the case... left wing dreamers wanting a better, but impossible, world for all of us, and right wing realists seeing only the bad in the world...
i havent even started debating. just trying to get a basic understanding of his idea before i decide if its worth debating or if his idea is so flawed any sane person would dismiss it
Imperial Forum → Politics → Resource-based economy
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.