"Therein lies the problem.  Since not all resources are created equal, you have to know the details of the particular resource you are buying.  My argument is that, for some resources, the amount of grades is so diverse that you can't make credits for each one because if, for example, there were a trillion diamonds in the world, there would need to be a trillion different credit grades."

Actually, if you knew something about diamonds, you'd know that there are only a few different 'grades' of diamonds, based on the 5 c's:color, clarity, cut, carat, and certificate, making them fairly easy value and thus trade.  Besides, values of diamonds (as well as the 'grades' of diamonds) go up and down like everything else, according to supply and demand, and so, again, one doesn't need to understand all the 'grades' of the particular diamond credits they own, only that that he or she traded such and such number of and grades of such and such resources for a certain number of such and such grades of diamond credits at one time ago in the past, and that he or she can now trade such and such number of such and such grades of diamond credits now for what is, relatively, such and such amount of 'profit'.  But, granted, some 'resources' probably couldn't be associated with credits (I can't think of which ones at this point, yet) but there are bound to be some.

"1: What?  You are now arguing that you cause deflation?  Please, please, PLEASE tell me you are advocating this, because then this will be the easiest open and shut debate ever."

Am I advocating deflation?  YES, of coursE!  Deflation is absolutely necessary for there to develop a SURPLUS of resources, upon which the resource economy (as well as common sense and the survival of the human race) would depend.

"resource-based currency is nothing more than fiat currency anyway, because since I can't redeem it, there's nothing backing it up."

It would NOT be a fiat currency.  Banks would STORE and DELIVER resources to CUSTOMERS (when resource credits are redeemed) instead of digital 1's and 0's (the lazy bastards), and then they might have some legitimate reason to have to have the trillions of dollars of real-estate capital they have today.

Did I get 'pwned' over grades of oil?  No.

To quote your quote, Zarf, "The geographic location is important because it affects transportation costs to the refinery."

@ you FOOOOOOOOOOOL!

"different currencies to work together which happen to have the name of a different resource as its title, but in no way actually realtes to said resource,"

RESOURCE Banks - is this notion impossible to fathom????

I'm sorry I can't bring myself to repeat the most basic knowledge that xeno won't understand no matter how many times it's posted. He'll just post the same debunked nonsense over and over 20 pages later. This is an ungodly length for a retarded thread. My masses of biting humor are lost on xeno and half the others around here anyway.

the fact is, and i have said this before you thief...... generally on the market it is better in the long run to have resources to sell to make money, in the long run the way things "were" going "then" that was a sound decision... but now with the resources RC bonus.... it changes the market a lot.... so the truth is....., at this moment it is better to use better defended CF bankers than to invest in to building resources.
that means that attackers are lower NW so less needed upkeep.
and the bankers have the cash to provide for everything with a smaller amount of cash needed.
also a resourcer only needs to keep his resource research at 75%, and con at 25% and he is doing all the family needs.
where as if the attacker builds all research, and totally reliant on the family for funds then this is what keeps a family balanced... the only thing is you get these egos all wanting to be right when you elected a leader to do the job,... and the majority matters.

"Let's assume that there are only two possible values that can occur with each of those 5 Cs.  So there are only two colors, two clarities, two cuts, two carats, and two certificates.  2x2x2x2x2=32 different diamond credits you need.  And remember, this is only assuming there are two of each category, which is far from the truth."

yes, so you'd have to have a thing called a "S.U.P.E.R.C.O.M.P.U.T.E.R." to keep track of things.  Have you heard of this technology, Zarf?  Nowadays, banks already have them, but instead of using them to provide better services, the banks used them so as to record how much they have profited off the public's nativity and ignorance, didn't you know?

Look,  I'm not interested in talking to people who are so adamant and foolish in their apathetic, nihilistic, entropic, self-delusional, absurd, mediocre adherence to the status quo being the best possible option available to humanity.  That is not only BORING, but also irrational.

If you aren't interested in discussing solutions to the problems we are facing as a human species, and instead only want to discuss why such and such isn't possible, I'm far less interested in responding to you than someone who has at least some sort of insight into possible IMPROVEMENTS or SOLUTIONS that we can make.

So far, I am the only one who has proposed anything OPTIMISTIC, and for that I ridicule ALL of you, twits.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "Let's assume that there are only two possible values that can occur with each of those 5 Cs.  So there are only two colors, two clarities, two cuts, two carats, and two certificates.  2x2x2x2x2=32 different diamond credits you need.  And remember, this is only assuming there are two of each category, which is far from the truth."

> yes, so you'd have to have a thing called a "S.U.P.E.R.C.O.M.P.U.T.E.R." to keep track of things.  Have you heard of this technology, Zarf?  Nowadays, banks already have them, but instead of using them to provide better services, the banks used them so as to record how much they have profited off the public's nativity and ignorance, didn't you know?

Yes.  Banks have supercomputers.  However, I'm not arguing that it's hard to keep track of for the banking industry.  I'm arguing that it's hard for people to understand the individual differences between each nuance of a resource.  You proved yourself that I was right by not knowing the difference between the different forms of oil... and there are much less forms of oil than there are of diamonds.

> Look,  I'm not interested in talking to people who are so adamant and foolish in their apathetic, nihilistic, entropic, self-delusional, absurd, mediocre adherence to the status quo being the best possible option available to humanity.  That is not only BORING, but also irrational.

Oh, so if other people decide not to answer you, they're agreeing that your idea is good, but if you decide not to answer other people, it's because they're idiots?

> If you aren't interested in discussing solutions to the problems we are facing as a human species, and instead only want to discuss why such and such isn't possible, I'm far less interested in responding to you than someone who has at least some sort of insight into possible IMPROVEMENTS or SOLUTIONS that we can make.

So far, I am the only one who has proposed anything OPTIMISTIC, and for that I ridicule ALL of you, twits.

Wrong!

1: I'm arguing that your world is worse than the status quo.  The resource curse argument did this.  And my new line of questioning does this.  That means your world is blind optimism at best.
2: I offered an alternative solution which you have not answered yet: Backing the dollar to gold and silver.  This does everything you want it to do, yet it avoids the problems I discussed above.

"I'm arguing that it's hard for people to understand the individual differences between each nuance of a resource."

And I'm pointing out the fact that they don't have to.  I mean, do you think stockbrokers understand the nuances between pacific cod and Atlantic cod?  They don't.  And they don't care.  All they have to know is that one is sometimes cheaper than the other and vice-versa.  It's up to the supercomputers to figure out and post the prices according to market activity.

"You proved yourself that I was right"

No, I didn't.  I proved that you are a twit by stating, once again, the obvious fact that the price of oil is such because of the COST to refine it, the compositions of particular grades of oil is relevant only insofar as its composition makes it more or less expensive to refine! Some oil has more junk in it than other oil.  Some oil is less accessible than other oil.  BUT OIL IS STILL OIL!  Above all, it doesn't matter, how many grades of oil or diamonds there are (which is somehting you just can't seem to get your head around, Zarf). ALL resources are valid currencies in a resource-based economic system, and consumers use a client on their mobile that is connected to networks of supercomputers which keep track of and update the relative prices of whatever grades of whatever kinds of resources you own FOR YOU.  Some clients are so easy to use it's ridiculous.  Dark to light green highlights on your list of resource holdings means you'll make a little to a lot of relative savings / relative profit if you use that resource to purchase something.  If you are simply trading resources, your client can even match your purchases for you, matching other dark to light green highlighted resources to other dark to light green highlighted resources.  Conversely, differing shades of red could indicate purchases you'd make at varying degrees of loss.

Can you imagine what effect this system would have for humanity now?  It would liberate us from economics of scarcity, and create surplus, because people would hold actual, usable RESOURCES rather than digital 1's and 0's in banks, and artificial scarcity (especially of resources that support human beings' basic needs) would be a thing of the past.  Recycling and re-using resources would suddenly become profitable. 

Moreover, due to increased supply and decreased price of resources that support basic needs, more people would find not having to work those mundane, tireless jobs that are better suited to mindless drones.  And, therefore, by sharing in the profits derived by smart resource exchanging (thanks to the client one of you hackers out there I know is already working on), the leisure-lifestyle afforded only to the top 2 or 3 percent of the population would suddenly become available to the vast majority, thereby increasing demand (and thus innovations) for, you guessed it, robotic labor.

And demonstrated massive ignorance of the most basic economics! Good day to you!

Re. deflation:

"It's simple: When prices are falling, people stop buying stuff because they realize that the price will be cheaper in the future.  Thus, any form of discretionary spending stops, preventing further economic growth.  I know that society has completely hammered in the idea that inflation hurts the economy, but some level of inflation, frankly, is a prerequisite to economic growth."

Deflation is necessary for there to be further economic PROGRESS (not blind, unsustainable economic growth) and thus even the survival of our civilization.  We don't need more paved farmland.  We don't need more metropolises with centralized energy and agriculture infrastructure as energy and food supplies stop keeping pace with exponential population growth.  As the supply of energy and food starts to decrease exponentially as population growth continues to increase exponentially, the centralized system upon which so many people living in urban areas will collapse, suddenly.  One day, you wake up and there's no more running water, no more food, no more electricity in your apartment.  You call your hydro company, and no one answers.  You don't know how to survive without your centralized system, and so you die.

Deflation will PREVENT this, because less consumption of increasingly scarce resources will leave those resources for future use, when we figure out how to deal with our rising population.   It buys us time to think about how to have economic PROGRESS.

Our standards of living are diminishing, not rising.  A generation ago, the majority of middle-class people having graduated from university would start living in nice suburban bungalow homes a 30 min commute from their workplace.  They'd own their own plot of land with a garden and maybe a pool.  Nowadays, people are lucky to get themselves into anything bigger than a 1 room studio apartment after graduating, and have to commute an hour by public transport.  They're lucky if they even get a job at all.    Yet, economic output or 'growth' has never been greater, and never faster.  The sheer number of apartments build, the number of cars produced, the number of mobile phones, etc., has been increasing exponentially (with population) for years.  But this hasn't been economic progress.  Economic progress would have entailed a better standard of living for people as well, more disposable income, and LESS debt.

Such has not been the case.  The result is deflation, and good, because without it, we'd probably run out civilizations into collapse.  There simply isn't enough resources available or for us to extract fast enough any more.

So now, if we stop buying for just a moment, if we stop wasting, start saving, start recycling, and stop and think a second about 'sustainability', we might have a few decades here of breathing room for us to figure out how to handle our population explosion and how to stop our ONE economy from overheating and collapsing.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "The resource curse argument did this"

Your resource curse argument is unsound.  We covered this with regards to inter-dependence does not = 100% inter reliance for survival.  We also covered that even if every stoppage of trade in history resulted in war, (which is not the case historically) that would NOT mean that every stoppage of trade in the future will result in war.  Past occurrences of an event do not predict future occurrence of that event.

Why do you make false claims of having pwned me, when the opposite is true?  Did you forget how I pwned you  already?  Alright, if you want me to rub it in your face again and again, it's alright by me.

I love restating my excellent arguments of total PWNAGE.

Okay, fine, let's rehash your last post on the resource argument.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "I'm arguing that the status quo, or better yet, a society of expanded global free trade, would be uniquely better at providing a - f than what you propose.  I don't think the resource-based economy actually provides its citizens with items a-f, for the reasons above"

You actually think that the status quo, with America and its TRILLION dollar military budget is the best possible way towards establishing a - f?  Are you insane?

Yes.

2: Bam!  You fell into another trap.

No. you just think I did.

Unsubstantiated.

3.  With today's technology, Luxembourg could produce enough food, they just don't bother.  It's much easier to import food from starving African countries.

"Not all small regions CAN live in a decentralized society. "  Prove they can't.  PROVE that with today's level of technology they can't.  Don't just make unsubstantiated claims.

1: I presented multiple examples of this one for you in the last post, which you blatantly ignored.  Let's list them again.

Japan (If they had the technology to make food at a more profitable and efficient rate than if they were to produce electronics, they would... it's Japan)
The Arab world producing food (desert landscape.  There has never been an instance in history, modern or in the past, in which a desert was turned into a lush farmland that produced as efficiently as a region that was naturally able to produce those resources.
Luxembourg producing any agricultural or natural resource goods.  It's one giant city.  There is no possible land you can use for farmland in Luxembourg by the simple fact that it's a city.  This goes for ANY modern city.
California imports its water from the Colorado River.  You have not highlighted any technology that produces water as efficiently as simply pulling water out of a river and shipping it across a state.

2: I don't need to win that there aren't alternatives.  Even if you win we have some obscure technology to produce resources that can't be gained naturally in particular regions, they aren't as efficient as extracting from nature because humanity now has to build and maintain tools to recreate what nature already has placed on this planet, at the same time fighting the forces of nature that contradict the new environment humans will have created.

Now let me reiterate this issue: If I win that small communities produce the resources domestically that are readily available abroad, they will be forced to go overseas and get those resources by force.

"I actually thought of a new argument against you.  You know those invisible dollars, fiat currencies, and all those flimsy bullshit investments that rise and fall constantly?  Guess what they serve to prevent against?  That's right.  War."

Nonsense.  Your argument rests on the assumption that war is the natural inclination.  It is not.  War is not the natural inclination of human nature.  If you want to start arguing human nature, be my guest.  Start with Plato, and I'll show you how he was wrong.  Plato was an elitist twit, pessimist extraordinaire.  Aristotle, however, wasn't all that off-kilter as Plato, but still pretty #%#$ up in the head.  To jump ahead a few thousand years for the sake of convenience, let's look at Rouseau and Locke: both made what were almost flagrant omissions in their analysis, but were more or less on the right track (neither moreso than the other, I should add).  Ghandi, although tending to be a bit of a hypocrite early in his life, ended up doing the right thing in the end.  Which brings us to Malcom X and Martin Luther King, thought that culminates all prior thinkers on the cutting edge of our precipitous age.  Sadly, so many people are still racist that too few are considering what they said seriously enough.

Your head is filled with too many pre-conceptions, unimaginative, dated theories., Zarf.  Give your head a shake, will you?

1: Unsubstantiated, the whole way around.
2: It doesn't apply to my argument.  My argument is that, if there is a risk of war, since we have a completely flimsy financial system, the risk would create instability internationally, threatening the stability of the currency itself, and thus the economy of the aggressor.  That economic instability is enough to prevent the aggressor from going to war.
I don't need to win that it is a natural inclination of people to go to war.  I just need to win that some powerful people care more about themselves and their own ambitions than they care about the people working under them.  I am proven right by the empirical examples of the utterly evil people in the world, such as Adolf Hitler and the KKK, who did not regard the care of their neighbor as a worthy goal.

This is the post you made right before I gave up on you.  You had multiple unsubstantiated arguments.  I could have eaten a bowl of alphabet soup and crapped a better forum post.  Don't even think of saying you pwned me just yet, because that debate was far from over.  In fact, I'm bringing it back up, just to show you. 

Oh, and you still haven't answered the gold argument.  Does that mean you agree? 

As for deflation, I provided two empirical examples of how deflation caused economic collapse in the nation experiencing deflation.  History is on my side on this argument.  You have not answered the two empirical examples.  Game over.

"This puts you in a double-bind: Either pegging the currency, which removes those 1's and 0's, solves your harms, or it does not, in which case removing the 1's and 0's does not solve the problems you highlight, which proves your plan does not work."  -  proves nothing

"Yes, I will agree that the supercomputers can keep track of a near-infinite amount of resources.  That being said, I never argued that the problem was the market keeping track of prices.  The issue is individuals knowing what they want, which you have yet to understand."

Actually, it is about individuals knowing what they need more than want.  But in any case, information on the web would be available for people to educate themselves about the resources in their portfolio.

"Why can't pegging the currency to gold do this?"

Why limit your portfolio to merely gold?  Not smart; not as stable as diversifying.

"How does the resource-based economy increase supply again?"

It creates a surplus of saved resources.  Imagine if people the billions of people on the planet were to save resources - that is stored in warehouses controlled by various secure and legitimate 'resource banks', who get the right to lend x percentage of the bank's total resource holdings (maybe only 5%).  You would have a tremendous world-wide surplus of every kind of resource.  This supply would cause deflationary trend at first (which is good), but would stabilize after a while.

"As for deflation, I provided two empirical examples of how deflation caused economic collapse in the nation experiencing deflation.  History is on my side on this argument.  You have not answered the two empirical examples.  Game over."

Actually, in your historical examples, it was the INFLATION prior to the deflation that cause the collapse.  Deflation is a result of collapse, not its cause.

Regarding all the other stuff you 're-posted':

"Even if you win we have some obscure technology to produce resources that can't be gained naturally in particular regions, they aren't as efficient as extracting from nature"

First, people can move.

It is pretty silly to build cities where there are not enough resources in the vicinity to support them. Transporting ever-increasingly scarce resources from ever more distant sources is part of what causes the waste in energy and 'money' and thus in exacerbates inflation.

But, if governments in control of a particular city or region with a large population but scarce region wished, they could use technology to increase the local production of resources that support basic needs: roof-top agriculture; solar, wind and other alternative forms of energy production; water recyling, desalinization, atmospheric condensers, etc.  But, they don't develop these technologies, because, it is cheaper to import resources that support basic needs.  But as it is getting more expensive to do so, such cities or regions will have little choice but to either start using such tehcnologies, or experience emigration from the cities to communities where resources that support basic needs are more readily available.

What I dread is happening is that authorities in control of cities whose vicinity has too little resources to support their growing population, might resort to oppression / corruption in controlling resource production in outlying communities, whereby local populations are charged the same price or even higher prices than what is charged for the very same resource once transported to cities - an inordinately high, artificially inflated local price of resources and lower salary or wages in those outlying communities causes further migration to cities - a chain reaction, vicious circle, that culminates in eventual collapse.  Again, let me reiterate: inflation causes eventual colapse, and deflation is the natural result of that collapse.

However, people in outlying communities are beginning to operate more within a resource-based economy in response to the above oppression / corruption.  They are simply ceasing to use money in transactions, and are, instead, exchanging resources.  They have mobile phones: and are thus becoming ever more efficient in their activity.  With better mobile phone client software aimed and further fostering this economic activity, there is hope that the superior efficiency of resource-based economic system will soon be discovered by you indoctrinated city folk.  Maybe eventually, you city-dwellers will wake up and realize what's happening. 

Please quality of life of the following two scenarios:

Person A has a studio apartment next to a subway.  He's 25, single.  He travels 1 hour each way to his 2 part-time jobs (no benefits).  He eats some fruit and cereal for breakfast, lunch at McDonalds 3 times a week and Taco Bell 2 days a week, and microwavable dinners at night when he gets home at around 9pm.  On weekends, he sleeps in, does laundry, and goes to a local bar to pick up chicks, and hopefully get laid.

Person B has a little free-ranged chicken farm.  He has a 3-bedroom home on 3.5 acres.  His wife is a great cook.  His 3 kids are home-schooled and, he believes, better off for it (there's a retired teacher half a mile down the road) who teaches them math (which he and his wife are bad at) 2 days a week.  Once a week or so, somebody who runs a deli in the city comes by to pick up some eggs.  Other than that, he trades his eggs with people who run the local farmer's market for everything he needs.  He's got a new big-screen TV;  a new truck.  They wife's got an Austin Mini to run around town with.  He's invested a bit in the stock-market and lost like everyone else, but it doesn't matter.  he only invested small money - $300,000, and is confident it'll bounce back, ooo, maybe in 10 years or so, when he turns 35.  he doesn't have much work do to.  Just feed the chickens, and do some gardening, reading, watching films.  He's got a plan to install solar panels and wind turbines on the roof this year, because the electric and #!$ing gas company p---es him off and he's going to do everything he can to stop being their customer - forever.  It's a simple life, AND he loves it.  He used to live in the city.  Hated it.  Now, he can't understand why nobody lives there.

He's talking about the magical robot workforce to eradicate labor on this planet. He's open to the possibility that we don't have it yet, though he's dependant on having it. The point is, he's clinging to his fantasy regardless of whether the magical means it depends on exist or not.