Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
I get it, you are misunderstanding what I mean by value. I am not talking about supply and demand. I am not talking about profit. I am talking about how useful a product is and how much it is needed. I am not talking about the more value it has, the more expensive it is.
OK, here is some good information. They call it a resource based economy:
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.
We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.
Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.
A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.
What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.
As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.
If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.
Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
The problem with money being treated as an inefficient artificial system is that it is not one. Money was not an invention of some greedy prehistoric man that then spread it around, the concept of a good that had no use other than to stand in as a sort of broker between goods developed independently. In the sense that it is a go-between from apples to plywood to room on an airliner to what-have-you, money is not a thing but a unit of measurement for how much society is indebted to a person. If a man has ten thousand in his bank account, this literally means that he is short goods and services equal to ten thousand dollars. Although it sounds(and is) simple in theory, strange things such as inflation begin to occur when monetary systems go into practice. The unit of measurement for value is changing as well as the value of what it may be exchanged for.
Now, you seem to agree that money is an acceptable system for manufactured goods but not for raw material and necessities for life. Someone has to be in the field, planting and harvesting wheat. That person will not receive compensation for their work past their own share of wheat. The person running the water treatment machines receives nothing more than their eight glasses a day. The emissions inspector would, quite laughably, get nothing more than an unlimited supply of fresh air.You might say, the resources are free so people would need to get their own wheat and water and... air? There simply isn't enough room on the Earth to have wheat fields for everyone, or water test kits for everyone, or air testers for everyone. Someone must do a greater than normal share of the work to ensure there is empty space. It would be illogical to pay these people a salary, as they are simply making the free resources available. No one would voluntarily take these jobs, as under this system a cashier at a fast-food restaurant gets paid more. With no one to free up Earth oh-so-bountiful resources, there effectively are none. And just like that, post-scarcity is suddenly dystopia.
Moreover, what kind of world would that be? A world where hard work in the raw materials professions is punished and laziness is rewarded. A world where the man that harvests twenty acres gets the same payment as the one that harvests ten. A world where incredibly advanced technology is brought to standstill for want of materials. A world where there is no progression for lack of need to progress further than your competitors. A world where every meal one eats is made of goods stolen from people doing unpaid work on land that belongs to everyone.
|
|
Bookmarks