https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo
Tell me /pol/, why is he wrong?
bump watching
>>70089294
>most decisions were made by kings, politicians, statesmen, but nothing based upon resources.
And all of those leaders made decisions with resources in mind. Even in a resource based economy, somebody is making the decisions and allocating the resources. The fucking resources aren't deciding what cool futuristic building to construct.
>His example of a resource based economy.
It's a technocracy. The scientists and experts are made the oligarchs making the decisions. He says they wouldn't decide the life choices of the people. It would however decide where someone could live and how much space they could take up and what they could eat and what activities they could partake in. If someone is deciding what you can do with the environment around you, they are deciding what your lifestyle is. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. And it curiously ignores trade.
Under his example, you couldn't settle most islands with a large enough community to create a high-functioning society. Take those natives on the island that still shoot arrows at visitors for example.
>Must be global.
So a global, centrally planned technocracy. Sounds like a dystopian novel.
>Cities built near resources to make them more efficient.
Except cities need a lot of resources, and they aren't always close together. Cities are near high-traffic trading points, sea-lanes, etc. Other shit, like mineral deposits and shale rock formations and oil wells are FAR AWAY. And you probably don't want your energy production near your city, because even if it's alternative energy, those rare earth metals need to be refined somewhere and it's generally not a kind process to the surrounding area.
>Cities designed to use minimum amount of energy.
Now you need to find places with a lot of resources, but also moderate climate so you aren't using as much energy. You can imagine how these factors add up into incredibly complex problems. Now you have to trust people to make these decisions for you
>>70089294
His ideas are far out there, but he's pretty based for a man that's now a century old.
there should be a tl;dr
anyway
so first of all, he's basically talking about the end goal of communism and capitalism, which is abundance for all. just like those ideologies tho, he doesn't specify who the rulers will be and who will make the laws, and many other important things.
for example should abortion be legal? will it be forced on you by the state if they don't want you having kids right now? should you own a gun? should there be sharia law? etc etc.
>how much wood and water, etc should determine the amount of people and money supply
those are temporary. if they start running out, you would have to reduce the population.
and if technologies improve, and you can use it better / get more wood, water. should you be bringing in people, or storing?
anyway the reason money isn't based on resources is because there is literally an infinite amount of resources. for example those who say money should be based on gold or silver, as soon as we start mining space, there will be huge amount of those metals coming in. (and ofc there will be just as much room for fraud). this happened to the spanish and others when they discovered the new world
he doesn't address things like space travel, language, or groups that would oppose the globalization.
a one world government literally can never work, unless it's a totalitarian hell. there will always be groups who would rather be left alone and be independent. be it because of their language, race, religion, ideology, or other reasons. the idea he's proposing, would seem to answer that problem by crushing them.
humans are not cattle
>>70090750
>>70089294
>what is available and what is unavailable.
To whom? Virtually everything is scarce. Every commodity, good, and service. So who decides what goes where? It's not the people, who collectively make offers to set prices, It's a group of technocrats. How many economists will it take to decide if you, the guy running the IT department at a company should be allowed to consume some product over a professor at a university or the owner of a restaurant? How do we decide what people are worth and how much they should get of what they want? More importantly, how do THEY decide. The people you are supposed to trust to making this decision because they are deemed an expert by a thusfar unspecified authority?
Or is it first come first serve? So someone who works MORE hours a week than an unemployed teenager studying whatever he feels like is now at a disadvantage in rushing to the store based on these televised announcements of product availability.
>Money does not represent resources.
Yes it does. It's a method of exchange. The price system is not all-efficient, but its probably more efficient that a bunch of people being assigned to keep track of resources, products, labor, and how available they are.
>>70089294
seems like it would only work in space colonies with a homogenous group of people
>>70091559
>Or is it first come first serve? So someone who works MORE hours a week than an unemployed teenager studying whatever he feels like is now at a disadvantage in rushing to the store based on these televised announcements of product availability.
my parents told me that's how it was in communist times. things like cars, washing machines, exotic food, etc would all be very cheep, but you had to be aware when the local supermarket (it was called a storage) would have them. so there would be long lines, limited amount any one person can buy, lot's of paperwork, etc.
and ofc there was fraud, people who worked at the supermarket, or knew a guy who knows a guy, could steal anything they wanted (and did)
>>70089294
central global goverment.
that is dystopia.
a nightmare.
if that happend i would go killing anyone who supports that. and unlike most time on this board, this time i am not exaggerating, i mean it
>>70089294
It's a pipe dream, the world will only be at peace with the removal of obsolete tribes who were incapable of evolving.
Muslims, arabs, niggers all need to go.
All minorities without blood right, married to spouse or children need to be put to death.
>>70091915
yeah I mean unless you're going to set up some kind of point system to track everyone's contribution. Or maybe everyone gets the same thing. The same amount of food, the same entertainment, the same house.
What a fucking nightmare.
What if you want to build a prototype for a technology. You can't go to people in relevant industry to seek investment of MONEY. You need to go appeal to the central-planning "experts" and they get to decide the cost of your new thing, the potential of it, weighing it against everything else. Just fuck my shit up
>>70092402
>unless you're going to set up some kind of point system to track everyone's contribution
https://youtu.be/KBYBSX-lNsI?t=56
>>70091559
Money is a method of exchange, but most of the things being exchanged aren't actually resources. They're just financial instruments and debt and imaginary aspects of our economy that only exist to increase liquidity.
Take a financial crisis, for example. The market crashes... and no resources are actually lost. All the factories, all the houses, all the natural resources are still there. They're just "insolvent" because the imaginary money that was used to pay for them ceased to exist. People are unemployed but work still needs to be done, the machines to do the work are still there, and people still need the products of that work.... but nothing is happening because the factory is closed. That is not efficient.
>>70092773
> They're just financial instruments and debt and imaginary aspects of our economy that only exist to increase liquidity.
debt isn't imaginary. It's a real amount of money that needs to be paid, but people use money they don't have to do things because there is an opportunity cost to waiting.
>The market crashes... and no resources are actually lost. All the factories, all the houses, all the natural resources are still there. They're just "insolvent" because the imaginary money that was used to pay for them ceased to exist.
Yes, the imaginary money earmarked for it now cannot be afforded to it. These are large scale mistakes in the economy. What makes you think panels of thousands, if not millions of experts in this or that field won't make similarly terrible errors?
>>70089294
>muh socialism
>>70093324
Try socialism on micro-management steroids.
>>70092402
> some kind of point system
Nah, just, money. Don't help anyone. Nature will eat the hindmost.
There is a lot of talk about this resource based shit but that's all it's ever gonna be - talk. The only viable solution is governments led by people that understand reason over monetary gain and a severe restriction of corporate power.
any idea that takes the good intentions of humans as a basis is doomed to fail.
>>70093537
the amount of money you can make is not decided by government officials.
>>70089294
>minimum use of energy
and thats when its dropped. We must not to stop the consumption of energy but increase it. The level of the civilization comes directly to the energy produced and consumed and this whould be something trivial long ago if not for the green utopia of everyone living under a rock with NO NUCLEURRSS.
Fucking ecologist, mother of god. fucking retarded big children i swear
>venus
>woman
Stopped reading there
>>70089294
The resource based economy is jargon for centrally planned technocratic socialism.
Fact of the matter is that there are (almost) no new ideas. Anything you think is new can actually be broken down into their core elements to determine what they really mean.
Fact of the matter is that people are already free to practice socialism. They're more than welcome to share their things with other people. You don't need some grander system to do it for you, just start sharing.
Personally I rent out all inclusive rooms to trusted people at half the market rate. I could get more, but I'd rather not squeeze people who I know can make value out of it. We travel to events together, and save on all of our expenses.
Even if you don't have a house, you can always just give someone a ride on Craigslist. If you're on a road trip anyway and have room, why not pick up a random person for the gas money? Why would you need an overarching system outside of your power in order to be a good person?
