Resource-based Economy (The Venus Project)

RoMiLe

Recently, I saw a film called Zeitgeist Addendum on Google Video. In it, plans for a resource-based economy are outlined in the form of 'The Venus Project'. A resource based economy goes on the fact that we currently have the technology to supply every human being on the planet with everything they need(food, water, shelter etc.) for free. It would be an economy based on abundance rather than scarcity and therefore money and the monetary-system would no longer be needed.

At first this sounded crazy to me but after putting in a bit of research I found that a rsource-based economy could actually work. But not only that; it would put a monetary-based economy to shame.

If you're interested you can check out the film(just google 'zeitgeist addendum') There is also more info on thevenusproject.com. Finally, you can search 'The Venus Project' on Youtube if you want to see a few short vids on the subject.

Tell me what you think of this idea.:)

Time Magazine

RoMiLe wrote: »

Recently, I saw a film called Zeitgeist Addendum on Google Video. In it, plans for a resource-based economy are outlined in the form of 'The Venus Project'. A resource based economy goes on the fact that we currently have the technology to supply every human being on the planet with everything they need(food, water, shelter etc.) for free. It would be an economy based on abundance rather than scarcity and therefore money and the monetary-system would no longer be needed.

At first this sounded crazy to me but after putting in a bit of research I found that a rsource-based economy could actually work. But not only that; it would put a monetary-based economy to shame.

If you're interested you can check out the film(just google 'zeitgeist addendum') There is also more info on thevenusproject.com. Finally, you can search 'The Venus Project' on Youtube if you want to see a few short vids on the subject.

Tell me what you think of this idea.:)

I'm going to let this thread live, but only if people reply to questions asked.

1. The world economy is already a resource-based economy. What else do you think the economy "runs on"?
2. We do have the technology and ability to house and feed everyone on the planet. What we lack is will, and corruption in many organisations, including third-world governments. If we want to feed and house everyone we'd have to send engineers out, for example. This costs money. Tell me exactly why you think this could be achieved for free?
3. There are 24 hours in the day. I don't think this is going to change. Why would switching to a resource-based economy change the economy from one of scarcity to abundance?
4. What does any of this have to do with monetary policy?

Économiste Monétaire

RoMiLe wrote: »

Recently, I saw a film called Zeitgeist Addendum on Google Video. In it, plans for a resource-based economy are outlined in the form of 'The Venus Project'. A resource based economy goes on the fact that we currently have the technology to supply every human being on the planet with everything they need(food, water, shelter etc.) for free. It would be an economy based on abundance rather than scarcity and therefore money and the monetary-system would no longer be needed.

At first this sounded crazy to me but after putting in a bit of research I found that a rsource-based economy could actually work. But not only that; it would put a monetary-based economy to shame.

If you're interested you can check out the film(just google 'zeitgeist addendum') There is also more info on thevenusproject.com. Finally, you can search 'The Venus Project' on Youtube if you want to see a few short vids on the subject.

Tell me what you think of this idea.:)

What research would that be? I'm interested. You probably should have stuck with your original prognosis. The big problem for Venus is that it doesn't exist in something called "reality." That seems to be a general problem for both Zeitgeist movies...

phantom_lord

damn hippies!

RoMiLe

The Economist wrote: »

I'm going to let this thread live, but only if people reply to questions asked.

1. The world economy is already a resource-based economy. What else do you think the economy "runs on"?
2. We do have the technology and ability to house and feed everyone on the planet. What we lack is will, and corruption in many organisations, including third-world governments. If we want to feed and house everyone we'd have to send engineers out, for example. This costs money. Tell me exactly why you think this could be achieved for free?
3. There are 24 hours in the day. I don't think this is going to change. Why would switching to a resource-based economy change the economy from one of scarcity to abundance?
4. What does any of this have to do with monetary policy?

1. The world economy is based on money's relationship with resources. Not on resources alone.
2. I know we have the ability to feed/clothe/home everyone on the planet. The problem is not will, it's the corrupting influence of money on governments. Corruption is caused by money. Could be achieved by rewarding the engineers with resources instead of money. After all, money is only the 'middle-man' between the Engineer and the resources. Why not eliminate the middle-man?
3. The monetary system thrives on scarcity. Once something becomes abundant it loses all monetary value. Therefore scarcity is needed if a monetary system is going to 'work'. Scarcity is actually encouraged eg. Limiting oil production to keep oil prices high.

This cannot be said for a resource-based economy.
4. Is this not to do with the economy? Where should I have posted this?

To anyone else who is going to reply to this thread(ie. Economiste): Please do a bit of research first so we can have a civil discussion. And not a flame war. Please do not jump down my throat for bringing something 'different' to the table.

The Venus Project is a legitimate organisation. It just so happened that they got som of their publicity from the Zeitgeist.

silverharp

RoMiLe wrote: »

the monetary system thrives on scarcity. Once something becomes abundant it loses all monetary value. Therefore scarcity is needed if a monetary system is going to 'work'. Scarcity is actually encouraged eg. Limiting oil production to keep oil prices high.

I'll admit I havnt read any of the material , however unless this group thinks we are on the verge of a nano technology revolution there is going to be a scarcity of natural resourses , human capital & time. , the money system that is used to allocate scare resouces is up for debate , you can start with a community currency like LETS , Money by gov fiat or a free market solution maybe based on some form of gold standard or anything else that people can agree on
I diagree with your assertion that oil prices are artifically high on the scale of magnitude you are talking about , are you honestly saying that 3billion adults can consume as much energy as they like with little or no cost?

Économiste Monétaire

Research = watching youtube videos? This is a utopian idea. There are not infinite resources in the world, so nothing is in abundance according to Venus. Why? because nothing is in supply that is beyond the limits of demand when price is nothing. Goods command a price based on utility, either in use or exchange, ergo when price is zero demand is infinite. What are the penalties of consuming one extra unit of a good under Venus? Everyone can have everything; this does not live in reality.

Also, do not dictate the required reading to me as to when I can, and cannot, reply to a thread :rolleyes:.

silverharp

ok here is the first couple of paragraphs from the website. the ww2 example is very weak in that it ignored the rationing that existed in the consumer economy. As for the rest its a bit of a rip off of Star Trek. I was trying to find the clip from the next generation where they find the banker from the 20th C and explain why there is no need for money




A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US 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.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

BenjAii

RoMiLe wrote: »

1. The world economy is based on money's relationship with resources. Not on resources alone.
2. I know we have the ability to feed/clothe/home everyone on the planet. The problem is not will, it's the corrupting influence of money on governments. Corruption is caused by money. Could be achieved by rewarding the engineers with resources instead of money. After all, money is only the 'middle-man' between the Engineer and the resources. Why not eliminate the middle-man?
3. The monetary system thrives on scarcity. Once something becomes abundant it loses all monetary value. Therefore scarcity is needed if a monetary system is going to 'work'. Scarcity is actually encouraged eg. Limiting oil production to keep oil prices high.

This cannot be said for a resource-based economy.
4. Is this not to do with the economy? Where should I have posted this?

.

This argument doesn't make much sense to me.

Giving those (say the bottom 1 billion poorest) the means, where they don't already have it, to minimum clean water, food, basic medicine, shelter wouldn't cost the rest of the world that much money. It would certainly be less than the Iraq war.

Apart from renewable energy, others have made the point, resources are scare. Oil being a case in point, we are soon to be at (or may be at) the point of peak oil production. After which the worlds output of oil will start to fall rapidly, while demand keeps rising.

Flamed Diving

So without money, there is no scarcity?

Did scarcity not exist before money?

Is there an infinite abundance of everything for everyone?

A final question, how is the problems of incentives addressed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incentive

SimpleSam06

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A final question, how is the problems of incentives addressed?

Presumably with better than minimum living conditions and food, as with most socialised first world economies at the moment.

Longer term I find the question of near infinite resources and its effect on economies to be of particular fascination coming into this new century, as mankind extends his reach to the resources available in the inner and outer solar system. I know its a purely academic exercise at this point, but it is in my opinion an inevitable development.

In one primitive rock floating out there alone, you have the world's supply of iron and nickel for several million years. And there are a great many more than that out there, it only represents maybe 1% of the entire belt. Another one contains an estimated twenty trillion dollars in raw materials, more aluminium, gold, silver, zinc and other base and precious metals than have ever been excavated in history or indeed, could ever be excavated from the upper layers of the Earth's crust, and that isn't even in the belt.

The inevitable (they are indisputably there, we will indisputably reach and exploit them - half of that process has already been competed) removal of these resources to earth orbit for solar processing and distribution by automated means will change the equations dramatically, I feel, leading to a situation whereby markets and economies will be unrecognisable to us today.

RoMiLe

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Research = watching youtube videos? This is a utopian idea. There are not infinite resources in the world, so nothing is in abundance according to Venus. Why? because nothing is in supply that is beyond the limits of demand when price is nothing. Goods command a price based on utility, either in use or exchange, ergo when price is zero demand is infinite. What are the penalties of consuming one extra unit of a good under Venus? Everyone can have everything; this does not live in reality.

Also, do not dictate the required reading to me as to when I can, and cannot, reply to a thread :rolleyes:.

Research can be conducted through any medium.

This is not a utopian idea so stop dismissing it as such. It is merely an attempt to better the current out dated system(monetary) we have in use today.

We currently have the technology to sustain every single human being on the planet indefinitely. Alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal which everyone knows about, are not being implemented to their full potential. This is understandable as those who control the oil flow are preventing proper implementation. What do you think would happen if oil became the least used form of energy on the planet? The oil companies would go bankrupt. So we see the diversification of oil companies into different areas of energy production. But, with oil still dominating the market, solar, wind and geothermal energy sources have been largely ignored.

There is an infinite supply of renewable energy that can be harnessed. And no, there aren't infinite resources on the earth. But there are enough resources(food, water, copper, iron etc.) to sustain the current and future population of the earth, if we do it right. And with the current system, we are failing.

I'm not saying the monetary system is completely useless. It was probably the best possible system during the industrial revolution. But we didn't have the technology back then that we have now.

"Everyone can have everything"? When did I say that? You are the one with the unrealistic expectations.

I never said this idea was perfect. But it has the potential to be great.

And yes, I think you should at least know something about what we are trying to discuss, before you try to argue with it. So I think my telling you to research the subject before you debate it is totally appropriate. Otherwise, how valid of an opinion do you have?

RoMiLe

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So without money, there is no scarcity?

Did scarcity not exist before money?

Is there an infinite abundance of everything for everyone?

A final question, how is the problems of incentives addressed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incentive

1. There are 2 main types of scarcity:

- Legitimate scarcity: Some things truly are scarce on this planet such as diamonds, gold, platinum etc. Note that most commodities that are truly scarce are not essential for sustaining human life.
- Illegitimate scarcity: When a company/organisation regulates their production of certain commodities to keep demand and, therefore prices, high. An example would be, as I mentioned before, an oil company which purposely limits production. Note that a monetary economy requires this type of scarcity to function.

In a resource-based economy there would be no such thing as illegitimate scarcity.

2. Scarcity did exist before money. The difference is that we now have the technology to keep scarcity to a minimum. Something that cannot happen in a monetary economy as it would destroy it.

3. No there isn't an "infinite abundance of everything for everyone". There is however an infinite supply of energy available and, therefore, an infinite supply of the essentials that hundreds of millions of people go without(enough food, clean water, clothing, housing etc.).

4. Contrary to popular belief, money does not equal incentive. Money is merely what you are rewarded with for doing work. Can you eat money? No. Does money keep you warm? No. Does money have any practical/physicl use whatsoever? No.

Money is the mechanism we use in order to get our hands on resources that are essential in order to live. Many people find their jobs boring and repetitive. Most people's incentive comes from their hobbies/ interests or the main ones: Family and friends. What do you value more?

1. Your job?
2. Your family, friends and hobby?

Sure, people can be interested in what they do for a living, but this is often not the case. This whole theory about 'if you take away someones job, then they will lay around and do nothing' is utter rubbish. It is a myth perpetuated by those who want you to work, feed the monetary system and continue to fund the tiny percentage of the world's population that it truly benefits.

Économiste Monétaire

RoMiLe wrote: »

Research can be conducted through any medium.

Watching Zeitgeist isn’t research. Just like watching “Wall Street” doesn’t make you a trader. I’d like to know what research you have done beyond Youtube. You stated in your opening post that you have done so, and you now contend the Venus project isn’t “crazy”. I asked for that research, which is not a particularly strenuous thing to do, and was told to go and do my own... i.e watch Zeitgeist and some promotion videos.

RoMiLe wrote: »

This is not a utopian idea so stop dismissing it as such. It is merely an attempt to better the current out dated system(monetary) we have in use today.

Yes it is a utopian idea. It assumes we can evenly divide resources amongst people and that they will be satiated--just look at the site and how it is marketed. They won’t be satiated; discover human greed, i.e. self interest. People cannot be satiated when the cost of consuming an extra unit of something is zero.

RoMiLe wrote: »

We currently have the technology to sustain every single human being on the planet indefinitely. Alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal which everyone knows about, are not being implemented to their full potential. This is understandable as those who control the oil flow are preventing proper implementation. What do you think would happen if oil became the least used form of energy on the planet? The oil companies would go bankrupt. So we see the diversification of oil companies into different areas of energy production. But, with oil still dominating the market, solar, wind and geothermal energy sources have been largely ignored.

There is an infinite supply of renewable energy that can be harnessed. And no, there aren't infinite resources on the earth. But there are enough resources(food, water, copper, iron etc.) to sustain the current and future population of the earth, if we do it right. And with the current system, we are failing.

That address nothing about how the Venus project is wrong when they state resources are in abundance, when you have no constraint on demand, after you remove the monetary system. Refer to utility theory. I never asked about how evil the oil companies are, I don't need the brochure read to me. If you admit that we have resources that are not infinite, then that is contradictory to your second post (when something loses its monetary value it is abundant). Nothing is abundant when cost is zero. Also, the amount of renewable energy is not infinite in production. You have a limited amount of building resources to allocate. Trade-offs exist, i.e. even land is finite.

RoMiLe wrote: »

"Everyone can have everything"? When did I say that? You are the one with the unrealistic expectations.

The Venus project believes everything is in abundance if you move from a monetary system. If everything is in abundance then there is enough supply to meet demand. Is there enough supply in everything to meet demand when you have no constraints? From what I can see, Venus also contends that the majority of people need not work? Was that not marketed in Zeitgeist? The Eden type image being portrayed is utopian.

RoMiLe wrote: »

And yes, I think you should at least know something about what we are trying to discuss, before you try to argue with it. So I think my telling you to research the subject before you debate it is totally appropriate. Otherwise, how valid of an opinion do you have?

And I’ll know something by watching Youtube videos? My opinion will be valid by watching a Youtube video? Check: done that; still think its waffle. I would argue that you’re completely understating human potential for self-interest, and how one meets demand (when it is infinite) and supply is constrained. “A resource economy” does nothing to solve that, ergo I would contend your arguments are ignorant.

This also assumes that people are homogeneous in their desires and that a central system can allocate everything they want. Living in the now, i.e. reality, this is not possible. People are corrupt, they comprise the "system."

Time Magazine

RoMiLe wrote: »

- Illegitimate scarcity: When a company/organisation regulates their production of certain commodities to keep demand and, therefore prices, high. An example would be, as I mentioned before, an oil company which purposely limits production. Note that a monetary economy requires this type of scarcity to function.

A direct implication of this is that, if the entire economy were to be perfectly competitive, the monetary system we use would not function.

That's not true.

You are correct that monopolies create illegitimate scarcity by withholding production from the competitive level. I completely agree with you that this sort of activity is unethical and should be challenged. Sub-competitive exist in service industries too, think of lawyers. Lawyers are, to an extent, a grand cartel. They limit the amount of people who may pass their exams just like OPEC limit output. However the constraint which they impose is time. They withhold their time and essentially hold us to ransom over it.

How would you sort that out? Physically force them to work longer, thereby increasing output and lowering price? (That's the same principle as slavery...)

RoMiLe

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Watching Zeitgeist isn’t research. Just like watching “Wall Street” doesn’t make you a trader. I’d like to know what research you have done beyond Youtube. You stated in your opening post that you have done so, and you now contend the Venus project isn’t “crazy”. I asked for that research, which is not a particularly strenuous thing to do, and was told to go and do my own... i.e watch Zeitgeist and some promotion videos.

I want to start by saying I am not the best representative of this project and it's goals. I admit that I do still have a lot to learn about it. All of the concepts I argue have in fact been proven to work or are in the process of being proven to work. Far greater minds than me are currently in the act of trying to prove/disprove the ideas put forward. The fact that the project has gotten this far is evidence of it's legitimacy. There are in fact plans to build a prototype city.

People like you are actually beneficial to the project by being skeptical. I was skeptical at first but I am not a fundamentalist. I know that the system that is in place now is inneficient at best.

All the information you need on the subject is available online. I cannot possibly explain to you every single aspect of the Project. Doing so would be an act of futility as there is far too much information. My main objective is to raise awareness of the subject.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Yes it is a utopian idea. It assumes we can evenly divide resources amongst people and that they will be satiated--just look at the site and how it is marketed. They won’t be satiated; discover human greed, i.e. self interest. People cannot be satiated when the cost of consuming an extra unit of something is zero.

No it isn't. A utopian idea impies that things will be perfect. Nowhere did I say that this system is perfect. It's just a hell of alot better than what we have at the minute.

In today's society, there is no such thing as human nature, only human behaviour. Human greed is a myth. It is caused by the monetary system and our social conditioning. We are brought up in a society where money is given a higher value than human life.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

That address nothing about how the Venus project is wrong when they state resources are in abundance, when you have no constraint on demand, after you remove the monetary system. Refer to utility theory. I never asked about how evil the oil companies are, I don't need the brochure read to me. If you admit that we have resources that are not infinite, then that is contradictory to your second post (when something loses its monetary value it is abundant). Nothing is abundant when cost is zero. Also, the amount of renewable energy is not infinite in production. You have a limited amount of building resources to allocate. Trade-offs exist, i.e. even land is finite.

The Venus project believes everything is in abundance if you move from a monetary system. If everything is in abundance then there is enough supply to meet demand. Is there enough supply in everything to meet demand when you have no constraints? From what I can see, Venus also contends that the majority of people need not work? Was that not marketed in Zeitgeist? The Eden type image being portrayed is utopian.

See my reply to the other person(can't remember his username).

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

This also assumes that people are homogeneous in their desires and that a central system can allocate everything they want. Living in the now, i.e. reality, this is not possible. People are corrupt, they comprise the "system."

Advances in technology will make a central system possible.

The biggest factors that cause conflict between people:

- Nationality/race.
- Religion/culture.

Both things that drill into our heads that we are 'different' from those who do not belong to our group. Once again this is social conditioning. It's not a real factor. It's a hangover from the days when sticking to your own tribe/people was a legitimate method of survival. We, as a race(at least the civilised people), have progressed since then. It's just a matter of educating people properly to get rid of these ignorances. If it worked for me then it is possible for everyone else.

One people with one goal is very possible.

"People are corrupt"? Or money/power corrupts people?

Chicken or the egg?

RoMiLe

silverharp wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that 3billion adults can consume as much energy as they like with little or no cost?

Within reason, Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. It is possible if we harness Geothermal, Solar, Wind and Hydro properly. And we are capable of doing so today.

Obviously people won't be able to consume "as much energy as they like" but they will have as much as they could ever need.

Économiste Monétaire

RoMiLe wrote: »

I want to start by saying I am not the best representative of this project and it's goals. I admit that I do still have a lot to learn about it. All of the concepts I argue have in fact been proven to work or are in the process of being proven to work. Far greater minds than me are currently in the act of trying to prove/disprove the ideas put forward. The fact that the project has gotten this far is evidence of it's legitimacy. There are in fact plans to build a prototype city.

People like you are actually beneficial to the project by being skeptical. I was skeptical at first but I am not a fundamentalist. I know that the system that is in place now is inneficient at best.

All the information you need on the subject is available online. I cannot possibly explain to you every single aspect of the Project. Doing so would be an act of futility as there is far too much information. My main objective is to raise awareness of the subject.

Yet you cannot link me to your “research,” other than to say watch promotion videos, as to how this can work. This comes across to me as more than the, ‘shucks, I just thought it would be a good idea to make people aware of this’ to really being ‘I watched one video, thought it was obviously the solution to all the world’s problems, but I base this solely on Youtube’. I hope the irony of Venus asking for over $100 for a movie isn’t lost on you; it strikes me as cult-y, and this all seems like a desperate marketing ploy. Maybe all of this is "proven" in John Fresco’s mind... If one already believes that this is true, do you really need to “prove” it? Just how does Venus “prove” its theories?

RoMiLe wrote: »

No it isn't. A utopian idea impies that things will be perfect. Nowhere did I say that this system is perfect. It's just a hell of alot better than what we have at the minute.

In today's society, there is no such thing as human nature, only human behaviour. Human greed is a myth. It is caused by the monetary system and our social conditioning. We are brought up in a society where money is given a higher value than human life.

Utopian: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes. So, again, this is a utopian idea. Human greed is a myth? People desire to be satiated--satiation problems exist with, or without, budget constraints. You keep on about ‘the monetary system’. Money is a medium of exchange. My demand for money is a derived demand, not a final demand; the alternative is barter. Our pursuit for self interest is because there are scarcities in this world, regardless of what you believe from Youtube, and based in a world (where we recognise there are scarcities) we allocate what we have in a manner to best maximise our benefit. How would a central system do this more efficient than each person can? Of course, if everyone desired the same goods, and we to have the same tastes, this would be far easier.

Be careful about allocating causation. Greed isn’t ‘caused’ by the monetary system. Greed existed before we used a medium of exchange like money. Greed, and the desire to horde, will always exist when you have limited resources, which are not infinite, and demand for goods is infinite when there are no budgetary constraints. Pretty basic microeconomics... Venus won’t magic up new resources, even when it replaces “illegitimate scarcity” with a unilateral monopoly on the allocation of everything. Sure, we might even have specific bureaus to allocate these common resources--this is awfully reminiscent of something...

RoMiLe wrote: »

See my reply to the other person(can't remember his username).

That doesn’t answer my point about zero cost and satiation. It actually answers nothing, except contradicts your earlier claim of absolute abundance.

RoMiLe wrote: »

Advances in technology will make a central system possible.

How? Explain that exactly to me.

RoMiLe wrote: »

The biggest factors that cause conflict between people:

- Nationality/race.
- Religion/culture.

Both things that drill into our heads that we are 'different' from those who do not belong to our group. Once again this is social conditioning. It's not a real factor. It's a hangover from the days when sticking to your own tribe/people was a legitimate method of survival. We, as a race(at least the civilised people), have progressed since then. It's just a matter of educating people properly to get rid of these ignorances. If it worked for me then it is possible for everyone else.

One people with one goal is very possible.

"People are corrupt"? Or money/power corrupts people?

Chicken or the egg?

You seem confused about what I wrote. Labour is not a homogeneous good; this is the economics realm, not about racism and religion. We each have different tastes. A central system cannot allocate goods based on our desires because human beings are not perfectly homogeneous. I’m uninterested in the sociological and psychological ramblings of John Fresco, and don’t have any relevance to my points/questions.

We are different, each person is unique. I’m baffled how you can argue that labour is homogeneous, either in skills, or in their desires. Will this homogeneity in desires evolve, or be imposed?

Essentially, you appear to be arguing for a different energy policy. Which, I agree with. But, not with this "proven" system of ambiguous details of how to allocate resources, which aren't infinite, when price and jobs do not exist, and does not address infinite demand...

RoMiLe

The Economist wrote: »

How would you sort that out? Physically force them to work longer, thereby increasing output and lowering price? (That's the same principle as slavery...)

The solution is simple: get machines to do the work. And this isn't something that's going to happen in the future. People are already losing their jobs because of mechanisation and automisation in every sector.

SimpleSam06

RoMiLe wrote: »

Human greed is a myth.

Ho-kay, and thats where you lost me. This is starting to sound more and more like a certain other distributed wealth scheme, which went a bit like this: step 1, give all the money resources and power to the government, step 2, distribute them equally among the people. Of course things never got beyond step 1 for some reason, can't imagine why.

Beyond the minimum for a reasonable life, there will always be competition for resources among people, which is a good and healthy thing, and the system we have at the moment in socialised first world countries. If you're worried about third world countries, hire an army of mercenaries and take out the leaders, because thats the most direct cure for their ills.

What you're talking about sounds like yet another shadowy grab for all the breeding females from a gang of cultists, tbh.

Kama

Not a fan of Zeitgeist btw, except as an instructional example in how do do Web-based propaganda which has effectively conveyed a general worldview as a mass-meme. But I'm quite well-disposed towards zany utopian schemes; social experimentation and variation sounds more healthy to me than one-size-fits all approaches...that and neoclassicalism was a 'zany utopianist scheme' once ^_^

People cannot be satiated when the cost of consuming an extra unit of something is zero.

Maybe homo oeconomicus can't, in an abstract world where we assume infinite consumptive desires...I'd always hoped/assumed this was understood as an attempt at formalism rather than an ontological statement about innate human nature. Which seems a somewhat theological position for a social science to take...

An abstract stomach is never full, and all that...I've done extensive empirical tests on this at my local All-You-Can-Eat, and the utility decreases markedly after the third plate. The only phenomena I can personally attest to exhibiting close to the non-satiation of theory is drug addiction. While admittedly a mite twee, contentment with what one has (past the point of dearth and deprivation) seems a more efficient route to the old utilitarian goal of happiness through what Scitovsky called 'joyless consumption'.

Économiste Monétaire

If you think we can meet demand for all goods, to a point of MU being negative, for every person in this world, with recognition of limited resources, then I would like to live there. That's when this great abundance theory comes to being, which apparently comes solely from the removal of the monetary system to being complete common goods through "technology." Total Abundance => Supply ≥ Demand

Also, I think you understand I'm not talking solely about consumption of food. Rather, the oddity of saying there is abundance in a situation where there are tradeoffs in supply but none in demand (budgetary). I never said that experimentation is unhealthy or pointless. However, this is clearly a utopian vision for the future when machines can do all, and humans can live the permanent baby life, while we have infinite resources off-world (like what SimpleSam06 pointed out), which seems more fitting for a Sci-Fi section... I'm talking about the now, the reality that we live in, where demand, without constraints, cannot be met with supply to give a great abundance. John Fresco cannot magic up new resources.

P.S. I contend that I am homo economicus when it comes to ice-cream... My demand is immeasurably large, i.e. infinite :pac:

SimpleSam06

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

while we have infinite resources off-world (like what SimpleSam06 pointed out), which seems more fitting for a Sci-Fi section... I'm talking about the now, the reality that we live in, where demand, without constraints, cannot be met with supply to give a great abundance. John Fresco cannot magic up new resources.

I'd agree that whatever form the future takes, it won't be the Venus project calling the shots.

leninbenjamin

the Venus project would fall apart for exactly the same reasons Communism collapsed and Capitalism suffers market failures... people are greedy, corrupt bastards who will always look to make a quick buck.

DaSilva

I've seen two of them and I'm not a huge fan of the Zeitgeist films, but they definitely have some interesting idea's.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Human greed is a myth?

Definitely not a myth, most of us witness it very often. However I completely disagree that it is human nature (i.e. that it is something that is inbuilt and can never be removed), I believe it's a product of our environment.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

If you admit that we have resources that are not infinite, then that is contradictory to your second post (when something loses its monetary value it is abundant). Nothing is abundant when cost is zero. Also, the amount of renewable energy is not infinite in production. You have a limited amount of building resources to allocate. Trade-offs exist, i.e. even land is finite.

I know these weren't directed at me but whatever . First I'm not going to admit that resources(matter) are not infinite because they actually might be, we should ask a physicist, same goes for energy. "Nothing is abundant when cost is zero", well I'm not quite sure what that Economics pseudo-law means so, whatever .

I think the question shouldn't be about whether or not we have infinite resources but whether we have enough. And to add to that whether we will always have enough, will at certain stages our demand exceed what is effectively attainable? Well, I believe that we do have enough. So why are people still starving all over the world? Well that's hard to say but part of it is I think because we are not managing our resources correctly, some of us are hoarding them for fear that we might not have enough in the future.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A final question, how is the problems of incentives addressed?

I'm not sure what you mean by the problem of incentive(is it a problem currently?), but if you are suggesting that if money ceased to exist, and we all had a constant plentiful supply of what we need, would we become couch potatoes? I think definitely not. Look around and you will see there are people everywhere doing things for non-financial gain.

leninbenjamin

DaSilva wrote: »

Look around and you will see there are people everywhere doing things for non-financial gain.

but the amount of people who require incentive is far greater. that's what forms the stumbling block to any communism based society.

SimpleSam06

DaSilva wrote: »

So why are people still starving all over the world?

Their leaders redirect national funds towards a new wing on the palace rather than education systems for the poor.

DaSilva wrote: »

Well that's hard to say but part of it is I think because we are not managing our resources correctly, some of us are hoarding them for fear that we might not have enough in the future.

Er that sounds to me like perfectly reasonable resource management given the environment. Even squirrels know that.

leninbenjamin wrote:

that's what forms the stumbling block to any communism based society.

I'd have said that the problem with communism was that a) Marx couldn't add, subtract or multiply, and b) its leaders worked out that you don't need any middle ??? step, its just profit.

Économiste Monétaire

DaSilva wrote: »

I've seen two of them and I'm not a huge fan of the Zeitgeist films, but they definitely have some interesting idea's.

Interesting is a word one could use. Fantasy is another.

DaSilva wrote: »

Definitely not a myth, most of us witness it very often. However I completely disagree that it is human nature (i.e. that it is something that is inbuilt and can never be removed), I believe it's a product of our environment.

And that environment is? Yes, one where resources are limited in comparison to all human demands. Our relative positions cannot be equal in satiation of all demands, so we compete to satisfy as much as we can.

DaSilva wrote: »

I know these weren't directed at me but whatever . First I'm not going to admit that resources(matter) are not infinite because they actually might be, we should ask a physicist, same goes for energy. "Nothing is abundant when cost is zero", well I'm not quite sure what that Economics pseudo-law means so, whatever .

That point, to be blunt, doesn't seem to be a response written in any comprehension of my previous posts; which isn't really rectified, or clarified, by me re-typing them. "Pseudo-law" or common sense point... ignorance determines the perception--I never said it was a "law."

DaSilva wrote: »

I think the question shouldn't be about whether or not we have infinite resources but whether we have enough. And to add to that whether we will always have enough, will at certain stages our demand exceed what is effectively attainable? Well, I believe that we do have enough. So why are people still starving all over the world? Well that's hard to say but part of it is I think because we are not managing our resources correctly, some of us are hoarding them for fear that we might not have enough in the future.

"Enough" is subjective. On the starving point, try the dictators who prefer to buy weapons, and build white-elephant projects, than invest in a country's infrastructure.

Flamed Diving

RoMiLe wrote: »

What do you value more?

1. Your job?
2. Your family, friends and hobby?

Sure, people can be interested in what they do for a living, but this is often not the case. This whole theory about 'if you take away someones job, then they will lay around and do nothing' is utter rubbish. It is a myth perpetuated by those who want you to work, feed the monetary system and continue to fund the tiny percentage of the world's population that it truly benefits.

Well, if I value one more than the other, does that mean the less valued has no value at all? Any periods in my life where I was unemployed were horrendous, no matter how much I filled them with hobbies. I just wanted something to do, which had a predictable cycle to it. I simply don't understand people who like to laze around and do nothing (i know a few). Maybe I am on my own with this one, but I would rather be working.

Flamed Diving

DaSilva wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by the problem of incentive(is it a problem currently?), but if you are suggesting that if money ceased to exist, and we all had a constant plentiful supply of what we need, would we become couch potatoes? I think definitely not. Look around and you will see there are people everywhere doing things for non-financial gain.

Thats not what I was addressing, maybe I should have clarified further. Of course people find incentive to do things for non-financial gain. The most cynical would say that they still gain a feel-good factor, but thats not the point. My problem is with directing the 'engineers' that Venus refers to to work to their maximum potential, for the benefit of society. Why should they work their hole off for a binman to have a cushy lifestyle? We had this exact problem in communist states in the past, remember? What is the incentive for a person to break their balls?

Flamed Diving

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Interesting is a word one could use. Fantasy is another.

I wouldn't be that harsh. The fantastical part is that they think this kind of world can be planned and directed by humans. The way I see it, the advancement of technology will lead to this sort of lifestyle for all, some day. Whether we like it or not. Most of us (in the west) have a lifestyle today that would have the been the preserve of absolutist monarchs a few centuries ago, and that is because of technology, for the most part. We are speaking to each other on computers that only governments could afford just fifty years ago. Science will eventually solve the resource problems of this planet, but not in our lifetime.

So in a way, the Venus guys are kinda right, but in a more accurate way, they are talking out their holes.