-11 votes

Resource Based Economy

I watched Zeitgeist Moving Forward
http://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w and found it to be the most sound plan for humans to coexist on the planet.
It's foundation is a resource based economy with all decisions being tested via the Scientific Method. This creates a balance of available resources with human demand and delivers them in the most efficient manner. In this economy there is no stratification. This seems to me the most evolved idea for society to exist. I'm looking forward to reading any and all comments on the subject.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Its just Communism, I mean if

Its just Communism, I mean if you think differently then that means you dont know anything about communism

Ventura 2012

I'm sorry

I really am. But my honest opinion is that you have to be pretty clueless in the study of economics to buy this crap in the first place. So the only way to really get across the many problems with this is to teach them economics, and I don't think you can really do that sufficiently in forum comments. That's why they don't get why most of us immediately shun it, and we don't get why they even would bring it up.

The cure for economic illiteracy...


The first couple lectures should be sufficient to demonstrate the illogic of the "resource based economy."

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

1917 called

They said something about being tardy for the bolshevist party.

There is, of course, no such thing as an anything based economy. Those zeitgeist films all have one thing in common: fraud.

"Resource based economy"

...is just another name for communism.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

The federal reserve

"a resource based economy with all decisions being tested via the Scientific Method. This creates a balance of available resources with human demand and delivers them in the most efficient manner." is exactly what we currently have.

How does nobody see that this concept is exactly our current situation? It's laughable. This idea that we all live in cities with central computers that calculate our needs is nothing different than the manifestation of central bank computers 'calculating' that money needs to be XXXX, so that resources are 'best distributed'.

commodity based money (gold/silver/copper/etc.) and resource-based economy (central planning) are diametrically opposed. This is why there is so much pushback from re-posting old videos on this website.

We've all seen it, and it's good stuff, but it advocates the status quo.

-quiet engineer

Not true

The difference is that the Federal Reserve can print an unlimited amount of money and does not consider resource limitations. A resource based economy is limited by the finite resources available similar to a commodity based gold,silver,copper,etc economy.


The computers decide the resources, and according to the Genesis Project founder, 5% of the population would be people who work on the computers. So really all you have is 5% of the people performing the communist function of the state, and trying to hide that behind the computers they use to perform those functions. It's communism, thinly veiled communism. IAB

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Why don't people get it?

Before you downvote this, please read to the end. I'm not promoting anything that's not free market, libertarian based.

I just don't understand why people here can't grasp this concept. This is not socialism because the computer is not telling anyone what they should or should not have. It's not telling what they can or can't have. It's only telling them WHAT'S IN TOO SHORT OF SUPPLY FOR THEM TO HAVE. That's all. It's not socialist to simply know what resources the planet has left.

If you all had done your homework, you would know that this will not lead to rationing but rather in the other direction. With a global mindset of resource awareness, there won't be any incentive to use up that last bit of some rare metal because it's cheaper than using a larger amount of regular steel. The steel will win every time because the rare metal will be seen as, well... rare. How is this so hard to understand?

With that new direction of efficiency winning out over profit, the resources we have are more than enough for sustained living by even the highest populations the planet is expected to hold.

Sure, in the Zeitgeist movies, Jacques Fresco routinely advocates that 'they' will build the cities for us and 'they' will do so in the most efficient manner and 'they' will (fill in the rest). But he does not own the RBE concept, nor does Peter Joseph. The concept has many supporters from non-related groups. From those groups, there is a general thinking that the world would really not change that much except for the use of money. Replacing it would be what can best be described as 'peer pressure'. Over time, this pressure would re-train people into considering their peers instead of their pocketbook. Isn't this how a close knit family works now? Most of the time, no money changes hands for favors, loans, charity or any other interaction. Why can't society learn to do the same?

Most will answer that with, "Because money is scarce." But the truth is that without banker manipulations, money (e.g. wealth stored from human productivity) will stockpile so high so fast that it will almost lose it's importance. If you disagree, please show your math because the number do support this. The question then becomes, "What would things look like if everyone could become a millionaire by working less than a decade?"

"With a global mindset of

"With a global mindset of resource awareness"

Will this come about by some magical great awakening to all of mankind or does it need to be forced upon us by those that know best what resources should be used for what?

I have some "homework" for you. Go read Atlas Shrugged.

I've read it as we'll

The great awakening is already upon us wether you like it or not. You don't need to look too far to see we're polluting ourselves into extinction.

Read it already.

and I've read tons more like it. Making blanket statements based on one hypothetical scenario won't change anything.

What will make this awareness come about? Do you really have that little faith in the people? Don't you think that if there was a global list that was publicly available which showed the ranked resources in most dire straights for getting depleted that people would rally for the users of said resource to switch to alternatives?

Let's say it becomes trusted for its accuracy and then mentions that Helium has around 15 years supply left. What would the popular mindset be toward wasting it on party balloons? See what I mean?

The price function..

...in a free market already serves that purpose, and has the added benefit of not having to guess which resources are important to certain people. Computers would have to assume all humans need each resource equally, and make calculations based on that. Humans are different, and can make decisions in a free market based on what they personally feel is important. If the resource is scarce, the high price makes it less important to those who can't afford it.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

You make lots of assumptions

First of all, the free market capitalism does NOT account for resource use. It uses them up as fast as possible until just before the end of the supply. Take oil, for example. We're using it way too fast and instead of planning for a switch, we're dumping tons of money and wasting tons of other resources into finding ways to get it faster. Most free market advocates are even blatantly against conservation, alternative energy and anything that slows the 'drill, baby, drill' mentality. If you don't like that example, try deforestation, over-fishing, river and gulf poisoning, pollution, mercury toxification, acid raid, or even climate interference issues. The system is patently dysfunctional absent some accountable authority showing exactly what these problems are leading to.

You're big assumption, however, is that computers would only be pre-programmed with fixed numbers of equality for all. That's insane. Any system designer worth his salt would base limits on the overall trend of use and not even be involved in individual use. If you can get past the indoctrinated picture of what 'human nature' supposedly is, you'll find that peer pressure is the best behavior modifier. And even if it did get to the individual level, it would be equally insane to think that just because this person wanted 1 of something that everyone would also. You're not giving the designers the benefit of this most obvious knowledge.

First of all....

....the oil market is not a free market. Our government as well as the governments of all the main oil producers are deeply entrenched in the process and prevent our consumption and production from being anything close to a free market. As usual, most folks complaining about capitalism and the "evils" of it are really just complaining about the evil that government does to the market. You've just been tricked into thinking that free market capitalism is culprit.
Secondly, if you forced every human to take a survey every week about what products seem most important to them that week, then maybe you could put that into the computer and get a somewhat accurate picture of the "needs" of the economy. However, the price function in a free market does that without all the excess work. People value different things at different levels at different times in their lives. The price funciton allows for that value to dictate that cost of a product and it allows for people to decide how much they really need something based on their ability to afford it. No matter how utopian you want this great computer to be, in the end, all it really could do is ration goods. If we allowed the market to work without government interference, then "rationing" would simply be a process of supply and demand. As supply goes down, some company who is starting to lose out in one sector must invent a new way to meet the needs of its customers. Your central computer idea would do nothing better than treat all people as children at the dinner plate who all have to eat the same, and all only get the same amount until its gone. Computers aren't magic.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Far from it

I'm not saying the free market capitalism is THE culprit, it's a factor. THE culprit is the hoarding caused by money (true wealth, if you will) scarcity. Note, I'm saying that the hoarding is the problem, not the scarcity. Hoarding happens when people think something will be more valuable in the future than it is to them now. All scarce resources follow this principle when monetary scarcity rules the day. There's no denying it. There's no econ 101 textbook explanation that makes it go away. In fact, they don't even address it. And just because the price goes up, doesn't stop people from hoarding it. It actually increases the overall rate of use.

Price is definitely a good signal for a majority of things. It just doesn't work out so well for that last existing white rhino on the resource side or for the unfairly poor villages in 'forgotten' countries. It doesn't have mechanism to cover those problem areas that aren't so common. It tries and I will give it credit for that, but things break down quickly when people rely too firmly on it.

The fear of this is actually the basis for some other 'isms. People think the government has to step in and stop this evil from happening. All I'm saying is that there's another way.

You keep suggesting that some central computer (like it's some single, evil entity) will be making decisions under an RBE. I don't know what it will take to convince you that doesn't need to be the case. Perhaps if you simply pictured a modest web site where every resource holder inputted what they had left. Then the site would total it up and compare it to the use. Then people could go there and see them ranked. They would see, for example, "Helium is expected to run out in 15 years at current projections." Would that do it for you? That's basically all that would be needed. With that capability, advocacy groups would spontaneously form to 'save the helium' from extinction. Party balloons would be socially chastised as wasteful and become politically incorrect. The result would be a dramatic reduction of helium use and the online estimate would now display that we have 150 year's worth. Crisis averted.

This is the entire function of the big bad central computer. Only fear mongers like Jacques and Peter, and emotional non-scientists believe that we can't avert every resource crisis if we focused on them early enough. And without actually running out (or predicting it), rationing never even comes into play.

In the capitalist market of today, people would see such a shortage as an opportunity. They would fudge the resource numbers and bet on the outcome. While some would spend money looking for an alternative to it's supply, many would spend money to create new processes to get all they could before the price went too high. In doing so, they would want to cash in and sell it at some point. And since the price was higher and they owned, they would definitely get it sold and used. The result is that the world now has much less going forward than it could have.

Regarding your weekly survey suggestion... That would work, sure, but the piece you're missing is that when you look at the overall use of something on a global scale, nothing changes very fast. Everything changes according to a very smooth, predictable trend. So, if you actually forced the computer to produce the goods for us, it could predict next week very closely based on last week and this week's numbers. Now if you wanted it to also predict exactly where to pre-ship those goods, that's a problem more like what you're describing. The difference is like predicting the movement of a single salmon vs. the seasonal movement of the entire population. The former is impossible while the latter only requires 3rd grade common sense.

The last thing you fail to address is that by making these products readily available all the time, the need for them actually drops dramatically. People would not feel they had to personally own one of everything. From snow-blowers to yard equipment and even on to cars, if it was easy to borrow it for 30 minutes and then not have to maintain, store and secure it, people would definitely borrow it. The utilization of most major items we own often ranges from 3% all the way down to .05%. (My rototiller has around 12 hours on it in 15 years.) What would the global resource use look like if everyone shared the things with low utilization rates even half of what they could?

I'll answer all your question with one answer. No.

Your entire argument revolves around a super-computer deciding what portion of each resource can be used and you think I don't have faith in people?


Just no.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Oh wise and all knowing super computer...

please tell me, what is it that I need today!

Surely, you can decide better what it is that I desire, than I could myself!

Those pioneering Soviets showed us how successful centrally planned economies can be, if only they had you, great omniscient super computer!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I've seen this film.

One question for you. Who determines the demand and balances the resources accordingly? Isn't this just socialism in disguise?

Earths Finite Resources

The population determines the demand and a computer balances the resources based upon the most efficient model.
You can put any label on it you wish. I'm trying to find a hole is this resource based economy model.