@Lilraine Financial voting would be the method to decide what programs & services the government provided. It would be controlled by the people directly since they would voluntarily provide the financing for the programs they support. The government could not impose any unpopular programs (like war) on the public and force us (or our children) to pay for them. The collective outcome of individual choices would direct the government and everyone's vote would count. It would not affect the price of an I-pad or mortgages or anything else that the government is not involved in.

I've already discussed wages (units of exchange based on labor hours that are transferred to workers' personal accounts at the record office) and inflation (without subjective value and profit & interest there would be none) so there's no need to re-explain it all again.

If voluntary taxation isn't enough to fund a program, it doesn't get implemented. Without profit and inflation there will be nothing to fuel cost overruns. Government programs will have to stay on budget. I would gladly pay for many of the services that government provides like fire departments, hospitals, parks, etc. We already "vote" for goods & services that are provided by private companies in the marketplace when we choose to buy them, so why not extend the same logic to public services?

Although it wouldn't be printed "currency", units of exchange are useful for expressing individual preferences. They are also useful for tracking individual contributions of productive labor. That's two good reasons to keep some sort of "money" or medium of exchange intact.

I too am sick to death of being trapped in a P.I.T. (of Profit, Interest & Taxation) and of having the true value of my productivity stolen from me and transferred to people who are totally non-productive themselves. Life doesn't have to be this hard!

DonOld, on your post that starts with “The Financial Party's concept of public capital investment is a unique synthesis of public and private ownership.”

I have read almost everything you have said here on your websites, and it sound pretty. There are only a few holes I see, which is much better than the system we use today.

It still fails to explain how you are going to provide over 7 billion paying positions without hindering efficiency and lowering production?

I also still don’t see how it prevents the Bush family from owning the land with the water if as you say “No one has the right to prevent him from using (or not using???) his buildings or equipment or to take any of his property away from him.”

You said “When you "purchase" a house the public credit that was extended to the builder to create the house is simply transferred to you. You are only responsible for paying the amount your use of the house actually depreciates it's true value.”

That works for things that are produced, but not everything people want or need is produced by another.

Land has no depreciation factor and requires no labor to produce so how do you value land?

Water, and other raw resources in the land, are in a similar category. It wont depreciate over time and a natural spring requires little to no labor to use. As long as you own the land you own the resources on and in that land in modern ownership laws.

Now the value limits you have set seem to stop the ability of the Bush family from selling the water at a higher price, but what is stopping them from owning it and refusing to share with others? Decreasing the accessible fresh water we have, and since scarcity isn’t a factor in your pricing it wont raise the price of water.

Which brings my next point. You asked me “What if resources started running out”? so I ask the same, what is to stop the over consumption of a scarce resources? Not all scarcity result in more man hours to balance the value.

We are able to harvest water with very little cost from the water table, so the bulk of the cost would be the transportation expense of moving the water. This low price would be steady as water tables decreases because as it lowers it does not require more labor or more equipment to harvest the remaining water, up until the wells dry up. Then the price of water would skyrocket overnight when we are forced to start purifying brackish sources or desalinate salt water.

All this could be happening while the bush family sit happy on their freshwater spring, saving countless “hours” on water they don’t need to pay for to bend toward more acquisition.

“If the producer continues his private use of the assets until they are completely worn out, they will have no value”

That is where I see waste, for most things will always have value as raw materials in recycling.

And in another place, I don’t remember what site, I read you said something like products that ware out or expire as stock wouldn’t be held against the business, instead it would count as being consumed. Couldn’t this encourage the making of things that ware out quickly, at least in some fields?

“Not at all. Say you love free time, so you choose to live simply and contribute only 4 hours per day. I love my job so I choose to work 8 hours per day.”

Your example of individuals sounds reasonable, for programs that are very costly. But what about large groups or policies that are not so costly to implement but has great power over the public, like a proposal to add demand as a factor in pricing goods?

And you claim “There will be no political parties, no back-room alliances or secret deals.”

But what is to stop, lets use the bush family again, from working together, or even joining with the Cheyne family, and getting several family members working 16 to 20 hour days and using that spending power to support a policy that would benefit them. Like changing a limit that has been set?

If you only vote by agreeing to pay for it, and the bush family dump loads into this policy, how do the rest vote against it?

Not to mention, from what I understand, in your system I wouldn’t be able to only earn 4 hours a day. As it says here http://www.monetaryreform.com/MR/betterWay.htm

“All employees would be paid the same amount each week, but the number of hours that each would have to work would very substantially. Skill, risk, and difficulty would be rewarded with paid rest rather than more income.

…Workers performing skilled, stressful, dangerous or unappealing tasks could bargain for shorter working hours, more paid holidays and earlier paid retirement. For the first time in history, workers would have the upper hand over capital. All employees would be paid 168 hours per week (24 hours per day X 7 days) and would earn 8,760 hours per year (168 hours per week X 52 weeks)…”

So according to this you get paid the same as long as you have a job. So unless I continually quit my job I couldn’t earn less than you if I wanted to.

This brings up one of two problems. Either someone could get another paying job to work during their “paid rest” giving them more voting power. Which would allow the problems I described here with the bush family to happen very easily.

Or you would forbid someone from getting more than one paying job making everything equal, which still allows the families to work together, and even chose not to pay for the hospitals and fire man ect., saving their “hours” and slowly change things.

It also brings up MiddleGround’s question “if everything is distributed equally, what happenes to my friend who honestly wants to work to get ahead?. “

With regulations preventing people from doing more work their would be no way to “get ahead”, or so I think given it was never clarified what “to get ahead” really means.

donOld:

"If voluntary taxation isn't enough to fund a program, it doesn't get implemented."

But what if it's a needed program, lets say it doesnt affect or benefit the public directly somehow so they're not interested in spending money on it? I think many people would still have the "what's in it for me?" attitude. Lets say one community needs the help of another? If I'm understanding this right, community B would have to vote on helping community A and paying for whatever it is that has to be done. if they agreed to, would this not leave a deficit in community B? and if they voted against it, what of community A?

"Although it wouldn't be printed "currency", units of exchange are useful for expressing individual preferences. They are also useful for tracking individual contributions of productive labor. That's two good reasons to keep some sort of "money" or medium of exchange intact."

So is my ID card & work record/credit idea. Well actually the people themselves would be expressing their individual preferences, not the card or the credit.

But we do agree.. life truly doesn't have to be this hard, and I am sick of it too.

@lavant From the FP website... "The natural resources of the earth are a sacred, inherited treasure that belong to all living things equally. Mankind has an obligation to respect and preserve this priceless common heritage for future generations. Although the gifts that nature provides are free, there is an immeasurable cost for squandering them. No private interests should ever be allowed to own, control or take profit from the earth's natural resources."

Raw land is a natural resource and it should always remain in the public domain. Since nature, not human labor, created the raw land, public ownership of it is justified. However, improvements made to raw land to make it usable for some particular purpose do involve human labor and do increase its value. Land improvements should be treated like all other durable assets that store human labor in a particular shape or form.

So if anyone occupies property on a lake or with a natural spring neither the land itself or the water resources belong to the occupant. His deed or title allows him to use the land and the resources on it for his own personal use, as long as he respects his responsibility for not harming the sustainability of the land or any of the resources it contains. The occupant cannot sell what he does not own but he could ask for reasonable compensation for any improvements that he made to the land.

There should also be reasonable limits set on how much land an individual or family can claim for their own personal use. The limit would of course depend on where the land was and how much demand for land there was in that area. Nothing would really have to change that much in most of North America except perhaps for the upper limit to prevent a "Bush family" from controlling too much land. Perhaps something like a land lottery could be used to decide how more desirable properties were transferred from one occupant to the next.

You raise an interesting point about creating enough paying positions for everyone. First off, we wouldn't need 7 billion jobs because at any given time about 40% of the population is either too young or too old to be included in the work force. That brings our total down to 4 billion jobs. If the length of a normal work week was cut in half (from 40 to 20 hours per week) that brings it down to just 2 billion jobs. If we include services like raising our own kids, caring for our own elderly in our definition of work, and include all of the new occupations that will arise once people can freely access public capital to empower their own self-development and self-employment, then the total becomes much more reasonable. Plus an enormous amount of work will be required to repair the damage that we have already done to the environment and to devise the technologies that will enable us to achieve our sustainable consumption objectives.

@lavant "what is to stop the over consumption of a scarce resources?"

Society's goal should not just be to accelerate production and increase consumption so that everyone can gorge themselves with unlimited material comforts. We would run out of natural resources in no time and it would be a criminal, selfish, betrayal of our obligations to respect and preserve the earth for all living things and for all future generations. Although nature has provided all of our natural resources for free, the cost of depleting them completely would be immeasurable.

I have been working on a way to include resource depletion into prices, but because I haven't got it clear enough yet in my own head, it does not appear on my website. If all durable assets are really just different combinations of human and natural resources, then an accurate pricing system must include the costs of both. I have suggested a pricing model for the human labor component but so far I have neglected the very real cost of depleting our natural resources.

So what if we calculated how sustainable our current usage of each resource really is and then applied this factor to the total labor cost of producing that resource to determine its selling price. For any resource that was 100% sustainable (like wind or solar power) the depletion factor would be 0% and the price would be equal to the labor cost only. For any resource that had already been depleted by 50% (like oil), the depletion factor would be 50% and the price would be equal to the labor cost plus 50%. For any resource that had already been depleted by 90%, the depletion factor would be 90% and the price would be equal to the labor cost plus 90%. These calculations would only be applied once by the firms who actually produce the resources.

As I said, I have not fully thought this through so there are probably problems left to solve but at least it is a starting point for discussion. I'm tired now, but I'll try and answer the rest of your questions tomorrow.

Everybody ...All these paragraphs! We have a superior governmental system. Using the structure as it was establish, will repair our country. There is nothing in our Constitution, that as a community, we can not find of value. However, there are some cold hard facts all of us need to be willing to accept.
1. The US Constitution, in structure, is perfect.
2. The person who is not willing to follow the rules is to blame... not the system. 3. There will be winners and losers.
4. Losers will anyways get another chance to win if they take they opportunity.
5. Winners should expect to be losers before they even get a chance to refect
on their success.
6. There is no reason for interpretation on what the Constitution means, the rules are
clear. It is only when we don't like the rules and want to avoid them (or Cheat) that
interpretation begins.
7. If we all follow the rules, we all can benefit.
8. The community is at fault when a Cheater is not crushed like a bug for breaking
the rules.
9. When a rule is broken it must be immediately repaired


No one is ever treated unfair in America if we correctly use the US Constitution.
Anyone want to play the game of Life in America,,,,,,,who wants to roll the dice?

@lavant Financial voting would be used solely to decide which government programs and services got funding. Proposals to change government policies and laws (like adding demand as a factor in pricing goods) would be voted on separately on the basis of 1 vote per person. We would still have the negative aspects of majority rule on policy issues until someone came up with a better way to handle this too, but at least we wouldn't be forced to pay for programs and services that we did not support.

Depreciation "...works for things that are produced, but not everything people want or need is produced by another." The depreciation method I describe would only be used to make acquiring major assets affordable (houses, cars, etc.) All other products that are actually fully consumed within a year or two would be paid for in full at the time of purchase. If no one else's hours are involved in the creation of a good or service, it would be free so there would be nothing to depreciate.

"That is where I see waste, for most things will always have value as raw materials in recycling." O.K. so major assets will be depreciated until their current value becomes their recycled valued (not zero).

"...products that ware out or expire as stock wouldn’t be held against the business, instead it would count as being consumed. Couldn’t this encourage the making of things that ware out quickly, at least in some fields?" I don't see how the two would be connected.

So donOld.....you are one vote for scraping the US Consitution I guess?

gott5:

What on earth are you talking about? Who is talking about scrapping the Constitution? I know I've mentioned that to retain it is integral to the success of my ideas. I dont think anyone else has mentioned it at all.

gott5

“1. The US Constitution, in structure, is perfect.”

Starting at which amendment? If its perfect why has it needed to be amended so many times?

“2. The person who is not willing to follow the rules is to blame... not the system.”

The rules are made by the ones braking them, the ones who don’t brake the rules are the ones getting walked on.

“3. There will be winners and losers.”

In a system of competition, hence the flawed system.

“4. Losers will anyways get another chance to win if they take they opportunity.”

Where are our chances when we cant afford to have our votes counted?

“5. Winners should expect to be losers before they even get a chance to refect
on their success.”

Hard to do when the “winners” have been the same families for hundreds of years.

“6. There is no reason for interpretation on what the Constitution means, the rules are
clear. It is only when we don't like the rules and want to avoid them (or Cheat) that
interpretation begins.”

Again, if the constitution is so clear why has it been amended so many times?

“7. If we all follow the rules, we all can benefit.”

This one might be true, but we have no reference to support the claim. How do you intend to do this?

“8. The community is at fault when a Cheater is not crushed like a bug for breaking
the rules.”

You will never see this in a system of competition. As long as it’s a system of “winners and losers” how are you going to get a community to work together against a “cheater”?

“9. When a rule is broken it must be immediately repaired”

But if a system is obsolete we should try and perpetuate it? I am sorry but America is not the superior of governmental systems.

As I have said before, this system is not broken. It is simply obsolete. Also the 1% are not cheaters, they used this system of competition to their best advantage. Could you honestly say if in their position you would have grown to be any different?

This system was brought about thru our intelligence and ingenuity as we faced real scarcity brought by a lack of production and transportation. Now look what has happened, we overcame every problem we faced and spread across the entire planet with this system, dominating most others. Now, as a result of our abilities of production and transportation, we no longer face real scarcity and the system we made to fight scarcity, that thrived on it, now must create artificial scarcity to keep going. And that is what has created almost all the problems we face today.

Instead of trying to find ways of continuing a system we no longer need, we should bend our intelligence and ingenuity and focus on a new system that addresses the new problems we face. A lack of access to what is already available, a lack of education, A LACK OF FREEDOM!!!! A system that uses our knowledge and technology to its fullest to produce the best quality products we can and ship them anywhere they are needed fast enough to help ease any disaster that presented itself, instead of trying to profit off it or fighting over who is going to pay for it. A system focused on improving the life of the planet as a whole, including every human equally.

It is time for a change. There are things in the constitution that must remain, like Lilraine said, but even you suggest it needs to be rewritten from its present form “Using the structure as it was establish, will repair our country.” so if we are going thru all the trouble of making a change, why not make it the best change we are capable of? not just one that works.

"At present, we are taking the future, selling it in the present, and calling in GDP" Paul Hawken.

Truth is, we have been doing this for a long time now, and the future he is referring to, is happen right now. Even people like Christine Lagarde have come to label the coming ten years as 'The lost decade'. Money as resource is both wonderful and devastating. Societies require the adoption of a monetary system to propel itself forward, however, at the great expense of the environment.

Money is basically every resource on the planet boiled into one, because it can buy anything. A side effect of having this type of resource is that it detaches the society from the environment and social affairs; every important decision is ultimately decided from staring at an Excel sheet. Not only Capitalism has demonstrated this; any overarching structure, be it political or economical, if it is based on money, will neglect and exploit key factors to our species continued survival.

Once a species has industrialized, it becomes a race against time to achieve sustainability. And where money allowed for a society to become industrialized, money in itself cannot provide sustainability. It's a resource the promotes self-interest and encourages - even requires - exploitation.

Lavant ....you fault the structure the US Constution, it is as clean as brand new glass.
Amendment are how the document is living and breathing......you must be stuck on having been a loser...what is your problem with the 1st admendment?

Reply to Lavant

From: gott5

“1. The US Constitution, in structure, is perfect.”

Starting at which amendment? If its perfect why has it needed to be amended so many times?

Amendment were meant to happen........ some i like some you like

“2. The person who is not willing to follow the rules is to blame... not the system.”

The rules are made by the ones braking them, the ones who don’t brake the rules
are the ones getting walked on.

So Jefferson, Adams & Madison were such rule breakers the whole idea of the US
Constitution was pointless?

“3. There will be winners and losers.”

In a system of competition, hence the flawed system.

Are you afraid of all competition?

“4. Losers will anyways get another chance to win if they take they opportunity.”

Where are our chances when we cant afford to have our votes counted?

My vote always counts as long as i have not accepted money for that vote. I always
vote MY opinion.

“5. Winners should expect to be losers before they even get a chance to refect
on their success.”

Hard to do when the “winners” have been the same families for hundreds of years.

Sorry to hear you give up so easy.................I have been a winner more than a loser.
I encourage the same for you.

“6. There is no reason for interpretation on what the Constitution means, the rules are
clear. It is only when we don't like the rules and want to avoid them (or Cheat) that
interpretation begins.”

Again, if the constitution is so clear why has it been amended so many times?

Could Slavery be established in America again...........yes ........that is the negative of
such a liberty weighted process. But most of the time it prove to be a positive.

“7. If we all follow the rules, we all can benefit.”

This one might be true, but we have no reference to support the claim. How do you
intend to do this?

I do it every day I fail sometimes ....how about you?.......that makes two of us.

“8. The community is at fault when a Cheater is not crushed like a bug for breaking
the rules.”

You will never see this in a system of competition. As long as it’s a system of “winners and losers” how are you going to get a community to work together against a “cheater”?

I will..................will you ?.............that makes two of us.

“9. When a rule is broken it must be immediately repaired”

But if a system is obsolete we should try and perpetuate it? I am sorry but America is not the superior of governmental systems.

So What is your replacement????

As I have said before, this system is not broken. It is simply obsolete. Also the 1% are not cheaters, they used this system of competition to their best advantage. Could you honestly say if in their position you would have grown to be any different?

I have grown from being less to being more..........sounds like I should have as much fear for you as the 1%

This system was brought about thru our intelligence and ingenuity as we faced real scarcity brought by a lack of production and transportation. Now look what has happened, we overcame every problem we faced and spread across the entire planet with this system, dominating most others. Now, as a result of our abilities of production and transportation, we no longer face real scarcity and the system we made to fight scarcity, that thrived on it, now must create artificial scarcity to keep going. And that is what has created almost all the problems we face today.

Instead of trying to find ways of continuing a system we no longer need, we should bend our intelligence and ingenuity and focus on a new system that addresses the new problems we face. A lack of access to what is already available, a lack of education, A LACK OF FREEDOM!!!! A system that uses our knowledge and technology to its fullest to produce the best quality products we can and ship them anywhere they are needed fast enough to help ease any disaster that presented itself, instead of trying to profit off it or fighting over who is going to pay for it. A system focused on improving the life of the planet as a whole, including every human equally.

It is time for a change. There are things in the constitution that must remain, like Lilraine said, but even you suggest it needs to be rewritten from its present form “Using the structure as it was establish, will repair our country.” so if we are going thru all the trouble of making a change, why not make it the best change we are capable of? not just one that works.

Most of what you said in your last few paragraphs makes me think you agree with my statements.........If I am virtuous and you are virtuous doesn't that mean something???

gott5

I don’t know where you get the idea that we agree. I don’t think the constitution is perfect, I definitely don’t think America is a superior governmental systems, and I certainly do not want to take a step backwards to something that has led to disaster once before.

“So What is your replacement????”

Have you even read ANY of this thread, do you even know what the topic is? I promote a moneyless system termed a Resource Based Economy (RBE) as first described by Jacque Fresco.

As I said “so if we are going thru all the trouble of making a change, why not make it the best change we are capable of? not just one that works.”

So why step backwards when we have the power to move forward?

@gott5 I am no expert on the US Constitution but I have read many times that the founding fathers wanted to include an article which clearly stated that the most sacred and precious right of a sovereign government was to provide and control the currency and credit of the nation. The founding fathers recognized the tremendous power that the English banks had used previously to control the colonies and repeatedly warned that the same private control of money & credit should never be allowed to take hold in the new Republic. Of course, the private banks were against this and used their influence to ensure that no such article was ever included in the Constitution. Sure enough, by 1913, the private banks completed their takeover and control of the money & credit supply of the nation.

The greatest flaw of the Constitution was that it never clearly addressed this issue and failed to provide the necessary safeguards. I believe the US Constitution is a masterpiece that is respected worldwide. Too bad that the American government hasn't followed the intent of the declarations for nearly a century now. An amendment like Bill HR6550 (the NEED Act) that Dennis Kucinich introduced would go a long way to restoring the individual rights & freedoms and the economic sovereignty of the US government that the founding fathers had in mind.

I'd be really interested to know if you can follow the logic that is laid out here: http://www.monetaryreform.com/MR/profitDebt2.htm

@lavant The idea behind the suggestion of weekly hours was to avoid needless bickering over the issue of equality. Compensation for more difficult or dangerous jobs would be rewarded with rest, not more pay. Earning the same pay in fewer hours does translate into a higher pay per hour (higher reward) but the differential does not interfere with the equality of all workers final purchasing power.

When I wrote that page I was thinking more in terms of full-time positions so it doesn't really take into account part-time work. I believe that the full-time hours needed from & by individuals would be reduced so greatly by the other changes I suggest that part-time work would probably not be needed at all. 8, 12, or even 24 hour production schedules, broken down into shifts of 4 or 6 hours per day, would provide enough work and income for everyone to enjoy life fully.

Since writing that page, it has become obvious to me that this is not enough to satisfy most people. From e-mails and blog comments it is clear that most people simply do not accept such equality. So I have begun to talk about other possibilities that could include part-time work and pay. Straight compensation for the actual hours you work would enable some people to "get ahead" of others solely through genuine work, which may not be a bad thing I guess. Although I have not yet changed the page, I probably will if I can find an alternative proposal that I agree with.

@Lilraine "But what if it's a needed program, lets say it doesn't affect or benefit the public directly somehow so they're not interested in spending money on it? I think many people would still have the "what's in it for me?" attitude. Lets say one community needs the help of another? If I'm understanding this right, community B would have to vote on helping community A and paying for whatever it is that has to be done. if they agreed to, would this not leave a deficit in community B? and if they voted against it, what of community A?"

Does true freedom include the right to be selfish? I believe it does as long as you are not personally INITIATING any harm to others. I think most people will have enough natural compassion and empathy to help others once they have stopped being ripped-off themselves by corruption and greed. IMO you can't force morality or values on people through taxation without denying them their personal freedom.

@lavant @Lilraine

O.K. ...and now for the really obvious question. Is it worth the time that it is taking to have this discussion, considering the fact that there are really only 3 of us talking? Why are all the other people visiting this site not commenting on this topic that is so fundamental to all other effective change? If the issues that we have been discussing are so "off the radar" of most people's thinking, then we are simply dreaming in technicolor here. What do you think?

gott5:

Nobody is attacking or faulting the Constitution in anyway. The Constitution is NOT our economic system.

You have a wonderful way with not understanding what you read, and making assumptions based on what you dont understand. And I think you just came to this thread to be disruptive (since you clearly have no interest or desire to READ the posts in this thread) because that's what the ignorant does.

donOld:

I do think most people have compassion and empathy, but it always takes a back seat when money is involved, dude. I simply dont see that changing until we do away with money altogether. Especially if everyone makes the same thing. Inside a monetary system people will always think of themselves first, and this system I see leaves no room for such generosity. If community A need X-amount of money to fix something, and community B just doesnt have the extra $ to spare. My mother once told me it's great to help people, but once it starts hurting yourself then it's time to stop.

If people are still depending on money, you have to plan for such possibilities. Selfishness and money have gone hand in hand from the beginning. We cannot assume people will be stingy, but likewise we cannot assume they will be generous either. Expecially if they're only ever allowed to "make ends meet" instead of "getting ahead" individually.

And to answer your question about this thread... all I can say is, I had to try. My only goal was to get people to think about it. But sadly, most people won't learn until it's too late. And that's what I'm afraid of.

"The natural resources of the earth are a sacred, inherited treasure that belong to all living things equally. Mankind has an obligation to respect and preserve this priceless common heritage for future generations. Although the gifts that nature provides are free, there is an immeasurable cost for squandering them. No private interests should ever be allowed to own, control or take profit from the earth's natural resources."

The more you clarify, the more you make quotes that sound as if they came strait from TVP, and I mean that in the best way possible.

As we agree that all natural resources are the common heritage of all living things equally, the world as a whole must work together to maintain homeostasis, and that there needs to be limits to our consumption that are realistic and tangible.

The only thing we really seem to disagree on is, as you said “the lazy factor, and thus the need for tracking the level of individual social contributions”.

As there is no reference to support either view, by that I mean a place people could prove to be lazy or restless despite complete sustainability, there isn’t much to be dun on the subject. But I will keep thinking on it and try if not to convince you at least to explain why I believe people are not lazy.

“The idea behind the suggestion of weekly hours was to avoid needless bickering over the issue of equality….Since writing that page, it has become obvious to me that this is not enough to satisfy most people. From e-mails and blog comments it is clear that most people simply do not accept such equality.”

It is really too bad this is the revelation you have reached, thou I can not really deny the statement.

I liked the first way better because I was toying with the idea of doing away with the actual accounting of the hours, since everyone that works is equal, then the equal distribution program like I suggest for an RBE could work with a little tweaking from total population to working population. Or something like that

My bro is right, it is a waste of time and energy to change to a different system just to implement a better system right after, if there is another way. But I don’t think your system is really a different one we would be throwing away. More like an intentionally evolving system, as an RBE is meant to be, with the first few evolutionary steps loosely planed out.

From what I am understanding of your system it is essentially an RBE with a labor reward system (LRS), or at the very least I assume you would support an RBE as long as it had an LRS. With some fine-tuning to the LRS and distribution program we could set it up like a “second step“ transition.

Start with changes similar to what my brother proposes to get things on track, then start to implement our “combined system” which will get the base of an RBE in place with a LRS to facilitate anyone still stuck in the old way, then after that system gets thing running smooth and efficient just remove the “need” to work for access and presto, a fully functioning Resource Based Economy.

And if in the end you are proven correct, people in sustainability would chose to do nothing, a LRS could be retained.

Now a reminder this is just an idea I am toying with just the last day now, I still find it hard to see an LRS in an RBE, because in your system it would be better described as a Labor Based Economy. Since everything is valued thru human labor.

So, let me throw this at you, If “The natural resources of the earth are a sacred, inherited treasure that belong to all living things equally”

And if humans are part of the natural living things, then why are our products of labor valued more than the products of nature? Why shouldn’t everything be freely accessed with similar limits like with land or raw resources?

“O.K. ...and now for the really obvious question. Is it worth the time that it is taking to have this discussion, considering the fact that there are really only 3 of us talking?”

Absolutely it is. Even if there is only 3 of us involved in the bulk of this discussion, there are others who are following closely and adding their 2 cents when inclined, like Memeotis.

Then there are the countless others who read this and say nothing, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t get something from it.

Put all that aside and I think it would still be worth it if it were just the 2 of us alone in the corner of some bar where no one else would ever hear the conversation just for the advancement to our own ideas and understandings.

If nothing else you have fixed a typo on your site thanks to this conversation.

“Why are all the other people visiting this site not commenting on this topic that is so fundamental to all other effective change?”

First off it’s a touchy subject, most people just want to stop the one thing that’s affecting them right now and leave the rest alone. People fear change.

Second, it’s a lot of longwinded intelligent talking, like gott5 said “Everybody ...All these paragraphs!”. some people just cant handle a little reading, it hurts the brain.

And finally, most people have been convinced in school that as individuals they are insignificant and that their ideas are either inferior, insignificant, or unwanted. They don’t reward individual thinking, they reward following directions. One reason i droped out.

“If the issues that we have been discussing are so "off the radar" of most people's thinking, then we are simply dreaming in technicolor here. What do you think?”

If it were not for “off the radar” thinking we would be using a Frisbee instead of a globe to represent the earth in the classroom.

As you said, this discussion is fundamental for real change. No one person can hope to successfully design something that the whole world is meant to use. We need as many minds working together to achieve something that diverse. And until we refine and clarify our ideas for others to understand, we will need to continue to think “off the radar”.


@Lilraine

I think that might be a little much at gott5

A suggestion, instead of making insulting comments try and phrase them as a question

Instead of saying “I think you are ignorant” which in short is what you said (or at least how the majority will take it) simply ask them “are you ignorant?”

That way its not a direct insult and it gives them the chance to either defend themselves, might even encourage them to read the topic to have a way to fight back, or prove the answer to the question.

I adopted this strategy while in the workforce. You can be fired for calling a coworker fucking retarded, but they cant do anything if you ask them “ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED!?!?!?!?” because its just a question.

Just some food for thought. =)

LOL thanks, I'll take that into consideration. :)

gott5 is a sock-puppet...heads up!

@lavant Where are the changes that your brother proposes?

my last post on page 2

"We can just make a few changes to the current crumbling system to make it work for us while it is still necessary, without the massive investment of time and energy building some elaborate new transition system be it time banks, resource credits, or some other idea for a new better money system we would intend to do away with as soon as possible anyway. We have far better things to be working on.

Step one would be get rid of all for profit banks or nationalize all the banks and eliminate all interest beyond operating costs. I am thinking something like 0.5% and all excess money goes into the banks reserves but i am no expert and need to analyze several things in more detail to elaborate further. We could just go off of the NPO credit union model but i think there would still need to be some changes, though very few i believe. Bank reform is a HUGE must, for profit banks only benefit rich people and tie up resources in unproductive investments. There is a lot of "deregulation" that would need to be undone and major restrictions placed on what would remain of wall street. We would still need an avenue for wealthy people to invest money such as wall street but the investments need to be heavily regulated. We would create an environment with little to no risk but also very little profit to be had over the short term which should eliminate most shenanigans and keep the dishonest greedy bastards away. there is a lot of work needed in this area but it should be easy once we start.

Step two would be to eliminate runaway profit potential. Create strict regulations dictating how money works in business. Create a formula in witch a companies profits will be fixed based on several things including total operating costs, excess investment in employee benefits, reinvestment into the company, investment into the local community, research and development, and many other things. When done a company would still be able to make as much money as they can or want but their profits would be limited proportionally to their costs and investments. Any profit gained beyond a certain ratio would be taxed like 70% or something unheard of but profit within the ratios would be taxed at like 15% or less witch would be a tax cut for the rich bastards. Limits would need to be in place to prevent fraudulent or immoral investment practices while promoting a company to spend like crazy on employee benefits and improvement of the company and community. We don't want seven figure bonuses for CEOs counting as employee investment but high end health care for all employees and giving full benefits to part time employees and loaning money interest free to someone in the community to build a new business in your supply chain should allow you to make a higher profit to operating costs ratio without getting higher taxes.

Step three would be to work the new system to promote investments in automation and elimination of labor while increasing production of energy and available resources. there are too many ideas to go into beyond this but it is not a big jump to eliminate money all together once the resource equilibrium is reached in an area.”

Here's a scenario that I think is unavoidable in the not too distant future, no matter what system is in place. I don't know what the answer is but we better find one before it starts WW3.

Region 1 desperately needs a resource (water, oil, whatever). Life in region1 has become so miserable that the people will do anything to get more of that resource. Region 2 has enough of that resource that they could offer some temporary assistance but there is not enough of the resource left to keep both regions going for long. The conditions of life in region 1 have made the people in region 2 very frightened and they don't want to share the resource that they produce locally for fear of falling into the same miserable existence. No reasonable alternative resource is available now, or can be made available in the foreseeable future.

Even an RBE system would have to deal with region 2's outright refusal to allow or cooperate with any attempt to remove such a critical resource from their region. This is where the shit hits the fan.

Well for starters there is no resource I am aware of that is essential for life that is that scarce or any other resource we cant create, replace, or render obsolete.

The closest is fresh water, but we have many ways to purify water that isn’t used simply because its not profitable. Seeing as the planet is over 70% water I think we are fine.

As for oil, it is not as precious of a resource as they try and make it seem. Its 2 main uses are to make power, which we can completely replace with green energy, and the creation of synthetics, which again anything you make from oil can be made from hemp oil. The only thing oil has over these others is its profit margin.

“Even an RBE system would have to deal with region 2's outright refusal to allow or cooperate with any attempt to remove such a critical resource from their region”

This is not correct. Even in your system you said all resources are the heritage of all equally. In an RBE this cant be just lip service. Everything is shared equally.

If that has been agreed upon how could they refuse? That would essentially cut R2 off from the rest of the world, for if they refuse to share what they have who would share anything with them? then the whole system crumbles.

If there is any resource you think is scarce remember how wasteful this system is. If we can survive in a system that has such disregard for resource management, how can you think a problem would arise in a system focused on durable, upgradeable, and recyclable products?

So unless WW3 starts before an RBE, which is very possible, I don’t see how such a problem could happen.

@Lavant

Be careful when you say that resources would be shared equally, because it implies that everyone has a limited amount. In an RBE, the planet's resources would be managed as a society, and through a collective voting system, will be distributed into different "projects" that the society chooses to pursue. People would not need to claim specific resources, but rather come up with ways to use them for the betterment of society. In a system of ownership, resources become this must-have thing for every individual, and ends up with redundancies like everyone having things they under-use, such as tools (hammers, drills etc), cars and what have you.

I remember the first time when I heard people talking about discarding the idea of ownership and I felt a strange, impulsive rejection to that idea. But the more you come to think of it, it actually makes sense. I think my emotional response was because I immediately drew parallels to our current system, where trust is very scarce, but I later came to realize that the idea of ownership is what has created this situation where people don't trust one another.

@lavant Regulating banks, wall street, profit levels and taxation rates ALL require the support of the 1% that control everything including our wall street government. The political machinery of the media, corporate lobbyists, and establishment economists would crush any movement towards real reform. Pleading with the 1% to be a little nicer, a little less crooked, is just hopelessly naive.

With sufficient public support, a new party can take control and clean house all in one term of office. No tinkering around the edges ...complete structural reform. Bang, it's done and the effects will be miraculous and enjoyed instantly by all of the 99%. The public will never again permit the crooks to enslave them. Then we can begin working on the RBE and have a real chance of winning.

"In an RBE this can't be just lip service. Everything is shared equally. If that has been agreed upon how could they refuse?" When your own survival is at stake everything turns to lip service. Desperation displaces common sense and fear displaces humanity. When there's a crisis at home, caring about people living thousands of miles away in other countries just doesn't matter anymore.

This is why we don't have time to waste getting people to realize that BIG changes are needed FAST, before too many more of our precious resources are squandered by this useless, wasteful system to make a sustainable solution possible. I don't believe it is too late yet, but we can't waste even another decade arguing about it or it will be. Just think about the resources that are being destroyed every day by the ongoing countless wars on this planet. Think of the resources going into the armaments and the technologies used to deliver them. Think of the massive destruction of assets & infrastructure. Think of the additional environmental damage being caused. These guys are NUTS. They have to be stopped, completely, instantly, NOW!

@Memeotis

“the planet's resources would be managed as a society, and through a collective voting system, will be distributed into different "projects" that the society chooses to pursue.”

The limits are how we manage the recourses. The system I see would have something like a limited consumption level for everyone individually. Present allotment would be present stock divided by the number of humans on the planet. Daily allotments, if present stock ever ran out, would be whatever production is divided by the number of people, thou at this point production should be streamlined to the point most things would not be produced till it was demanded or supplies would be set to satisfy average demand verses production time.

In a sense everyone owns everything equally, hence the equal access for everyone. When using industrial resources you would use the program to make the proposal. It would find the most efficient way to achieve your goal, you would make changes as you see fit until you reach a final product. Then the system would determine what recourses are needed, how many people would benefit (like thru the voting system as described earlier), and how beneficial the project would be. and that would determine what recourses would be allotted which determines how fast it will be completed.

There would not be any hindrance on what you want. At worst it could take a long time to complete, in the case of some rare resource, to which you could work on increasing production of that resource or reduce consumption of it somewhere. Solving either of these problems will get your project finished faster as a result, AND forever help anyone else in the same field!

So something you want made for yourself would only be allotted one person’s resources. Where as if you propose a project to supply fresh water to a desert region, I would hope the locals would all vote for it, it would be allotted the resources of everyone who voted for it. And any project that proves to benefit the vast majority of the planet should get top priority in implementation.

I believe most resources are either in such abundance or in so little demand the limits wont affect most people. As for the ones that do as I said they wouldn’t be denied just set a timeline, which you could either work on increasing the supply of the resource or reducing the need for it somewhere to reduce the time required by default. Not some special reward.

So things such as tools (hammers, drills etc) cars and what have you would mostly be used by the community and managed thru the communities limits. But if you wanted your own custom car ect, such individual limits would be needed.

Now this is just how I have thought it out, its not how it must be. Is there a way to manage the resources without setting a limit on individual consumption?


@DonOld

“Regulating banks, wall street, profit levels and taxation rates ALL require the support of the 1% that control everything including our wall street government.”

I don’t think that is true, and you explain it yourself.

“With sufficient public support, a new party can take control and clean house all in one term of office. No tinkering around the edges ...complete structural reform.”

I have always said the only way to start is either overthrow our government of secede from it. If a new party can do it even better. But the changes could still be the reform.

The point of the reform isn’t to work with the government, it is because it seems most people wouldn’t except an instant change.

If instant miraculous change is possible, I would be behind it 100%. I am just trying to plan a fast and easy transition, as it seems it is needed.