My first poll for the NZ public

[mashman]

You really are clueless, aren't you. If you'd read your own reference you'd recognise that what I posted was the article's footnote, attributing the article to a mentally unwell person, (using a Psych-related nom de plume) and admitting that even that had been significantly edited for "clarity" and "impact".

In other words, click-bait for consipracy fuckwits.

Now go away and try to do something actually constructive.

You didn't read it then. Who says satire is a dead art.

[Ocean1]

You didn't read it then. Who says satire is a dead art.

Dude, there's absolutely no difference between satirical humour and the drivel you typically post as serious reference.

None.

[mashman]

Dude, there's absolutely no difference between satirical humour and the drivel you typically post as serious reference.

None.

Bold statement given that you've demonstrably shown that you don't have a clue why the link was posted in the first place, dude. Tis absolutely hilarious that you use the source to classify the context of the content. Your ignorance may well know know bounds.

[Ocean1]

Bold statement given that you've demonstrably shown that you don't have a clue why the link was posted in the first place, dude. Tis absolutely hilarious that you use the source to classify the context of the content. Your ignorance may well know know bounds.

Given that the source was the only content of your post it's difficult to see how you can claim there was any supposed alternative "context".

Yet again: you posting pretend drivel and you posting actual drivel = same. Indistinguishable.

[Brian d marge]

Bold statement given that you've demonstrably shown that you don't have a clue why the link was posted in the first place, dude. Tis absolutely hilarious that you use the source to classify the context of the content. Your ignorance may well know know bounds.

oh it knows boundries alright , not as constricted as the sesame street character though.......

[mashman]

Given that the source was the only content of your post it's difficult to see how you can claim there was any supposed alternative "context".

Yet again: you posting pretend drivel and you posting actual drivel = same. Indistinguishable.

That's not surprising to hear.

[mashman]

oh it knows boundries alright , not as constricted as the sesame street character though.......

So long as they leave feeling better eh .

[mashman]

"We don't need bosses. We can run this by ourselves."

[mashman]

There's gonna be some Resource Based Economy fullas at the Wellington City Library 18th June 11am -... all ready to answer any questions anyone might have.

[Akzle]

There's gonna be some Resource Based Economy fullas at the Wellington City Library 18th June 11am -... all ready to answer any questions anyone might have.

dont those feckless khunts have jobs to go to or something?

[Brian d marge]

There's gonna be some Resource Based Economy fullas at the Wellington City Library 18th June 11am -... all ready to answer any questions anyone might have.

Who owns the resource?


sent for a divine source

[mashman]

dont those feckless khunts have jobs to go to or something?

You are our job. Remember to vote I think i'm the only one that doesn't oddly enough.

Who owns the resource?


sent for a divine source

When? 5 years down the track? 10? 20? Mebees 30 or 50 or 100.

[TheDemonLord]

There's gonna be some Resource Based Economy fullas at the Wellington City Library 18th June 11am -... all ready to answer any questions anyone might have.

Serious questions:

In the absence of any metric (such as money) to measure the value of different resources and therefore provide a means to balance supply and demand, how does an RBE intend to deal with the inherent problem of Scarcity (in this case, Scarcity is defined as humans wanting more than they need for base survival).

An example being that for each Cow killed, there is a limited number of Steaks that can be cut from the carcass - currently the price is higher for the more desirable cuts, How does an RBE address this problem (without limiting consumer choice) and without unnecessarily killing more cows?

How does an RBE deal with people who consume resources, but contribute nothing. And its corollary How does it incentivize the people who do contribute (ie through work) to continue to do so?

Final question - if the country moved to an RBE, and there was some form of centralized bank that manages the Balance of Payments for the country - how do they intend to do the following:

1: Safeguard against corruption, without a convenient metric to check if it is going on (ie - follow the money)
2: Allow the average NZer the freedom of choice over goods and services that is currently provided by Money.

Bonus snarky question (which I don't think you'd ask):

How is this not Communism Mk2.0 and doomed to abject failure?

[Brian d marge]

I was going to reply with a glib reply but I won't because it's actually a good question
In that 99.99 percent will not under the answer
Scarcity causes corruption. And is used to frighten everyone into not doing the third part which is sharing .....which when things are abundant..... which they are ...there is no scarcity
If you want to control a group introducing a scarce commodity is a great way to do it .... gold ..currency ....caviar ...
One of the best control systems ever invented .... scarcity
If you imagine that it is I n short supply... ...you might have to revisit your belief system

Local diversified systems often lack scarcity.......due to their diversity and pressures on said system

Imho

sent for a divine source

[Jin]

All resources are scarce. And that had nothing to do with corruption.

What is your definition of corruption?