My first poll for the NZ public

[Akzle]

All resources are scarce.

incorrect .

[Jin]

incorrect .

Such as what?

This whole idea of a RBE is dumb. It assumes that resources/wealth can be effectively distributed. The only way you can effectively redistribute wealth / resources is by destroying the incentive to have wealth / resources.

And they get so caught up with the issue of money which is a red herring. Money is simply a claim on resources.

[mashman]

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?

Serious? Ok.

The metric isn't an issue, because counting exists. 1lb, 1kg, 1 diamond, 1 loaf, 1 car, 2lb, 2kg, 2 diamonds etc...

Your example of steak shows just how ill equipped you are to digest what's being proposed. http://kiwiharvest.org.nz/news/ 1 example... singular. That there are more shoots your scarcity argument in the bollocks. Scarcity is created by the inability to get a resource to a place. That's a money problem as it is logistiaclly possible to get virtually any resource anywhere in the world given enough of a need... because at that point in time, the financial cost is ignored. However where the financial cost is incurred, budget constraint becomes an issue when trying to keep a healthy bottom line. So to be clear. We can get any resource we want anywhere we want it, so long as there is enough money avilable to do it. That proves that the resources not only exist, but that it is logistically possible to get that resource to where it is needed. Therefore the only thing that actually creates scarcity is money. But by all means, carry on ignoring logic, reason and common sense in regards to what scarcity is in this day and age. It's budget constraint... and that's alllllll money baby.

Why do you care if someone is working or not so long as you are getting access to what you are currently getting access to? That's a serious question. Money going to the "unemployed" (inc pensioners, disabled etc...) removes money from other areas of the economy. Removing money entirely means that the "unemployed" will still get exactly what they need to live the day to day life they were going to live anyway, except it doesn't create budget constraint in areas that otherwise wouldn't get the resource they require because of the scarcity introduced by money. Logic, reason and common sense, again.

Incentive is easy. People will have voted for an RBE when an RBE govt takes power. That means they're prepared to do what it takes to have all of the benefits of RBE. That may well be losing something that they hold dear... but by the time they're ready to vote for RBE, they'll realise that they won't actually be losing anything. It's called being a grown up and having accountability for ones footprint in regards to how it affects others. Growing up may happen to you one day, but I do have my doubts.

1. You can't guarantee against corruption 100% because as you mentioned earlier, there are other methods of corrupting people outwith money. It just so happens that in this day and age, money is by far the most potent corrupting influence that mankind has ever seen. You'd have to be bat shit crazy to deny it. The simplest experiments work the best. I offer to punch people in the arm and they tell me to fuck off. I offer them $1 million to punch them in the arm 10 times and they start rolling their sleeves up. ISIS fight, because they're being paid money to do so. As soon as the money dries up, so do the bodies wanting to fight. Again, logic, reason and common sense proving that without money, it'll be almost impossible to peacefully corrupt anyone.

2. RBE is all about freedom. Consider that every single person in the country will be a volunteer. Now consider that in the context of the employer - employee relationship. Should anyone decide, under RBE, to stop producing, well, that's entirely up to them innit. As such, NZers will have access to all that is available.

When was Communism Mk 1.0? It never happened. I know, I've looked. There was always money involved. Communism was defined as having no money and controlled at gunpoint. Ironically enough that's exactly where we're headed. Bonus irony is that those who scream the loudest against Communism, are actually the ones who are driving us towards it... the gunpoint version that is. There's a couple of logical reasons why it isn't communism Mk 2.0.

As for abject failure. Apart from saying that the faint heart never fucked a pig... that people will have voted for RBE in enough numbers for an RBE govt to implement RBE, anyone going against that would realise that they'd be cutting their nose off to spite their face by allowing it to fail.

[mashman]

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

I considered it similar after having the post ready to go last night, I thought fuck him... but then I was at a mates place this morning and he mentioned that him and his missus had watched one of the Zeitgeist movies a couple of nights ago and that, despite me having talked to him about RBE over the last few years and him not really seeing the benefits of it, the movie opened his eyes and everything that I had said to him over those years finally sank in.

The Parable of The Pub. Lightning strikes when lightning strikes.

Onwards and upwards

[mashman]

Such as what?

This whole idea of a RBE is dumb. It assumes that resources/wealth can be effectively distributed. The only way you can effectively redistribute wealth / resources is by destroying the incentive to have wealth / resources.

And they get so caught up with the issue of money which is a red herring. Money is simply a claim on resources.

Everything. 7 billion people are testimony to that fact. Scarcity is budget related, not resource related.

As for the highlighted... you can take yer ECP and shove it where the sun don't shine. Sure, once upon a time, with the modes of communication that where available and scarcity actually being resource scarcity the ECP was a "valid" argument against RBE. Now it's just embarrassing when I see people use it. ECP is an argument that's 100 years out of date. There is no wealth redistribution under RBE.

And you're a fuckin idiot.

[Akzle]

Such as what?

such as: shit's not scarce

[Brian d marge]

Such as what?

This whole idea of a RBE is dumb. It assumes that resources/wealth can be effectively distributed. The only way you can effectively redistribute wealth / resources is by destroying the incentive to have wealth / resources.

And they get so caught up with the issue of money which is a red herring. Money is simply a claim on resources.

Ummmmm

No

Money, is a perceived unit of measure of energy

Incentive is related to a post above talking about collectivism....but I'll stop there and see if anyone can join the dots .....

sent for a divine source

[Akzle]

or:

Everything. 7 billion people are testimony to that fact. Scarcity is budget related, not resource related.

As for the highlighted... you can take yer ECP and shove it where the sun don't shine. Sure, once upon a time, with the modes of communication that where available and scarcity actually being resource scarcity the ECP was a "valid" argument against RBE. Now it's just embarrassing when I see people use it. ECP is an argument that's 100 years out of date. There is no wealth redistribution under RBE.

And you're a fuckin idiot.

must spread...

[Jin]

You guys are fucken retarded. Scarcity is a made up thing? Just need more money? Holy shit. So under a RBE we would all live in nice mansions, all the food we want, we would all have top class euro bikes and a rolls in the garage. Becauses resources are infinite.

In case you fucktards didnt notice most money isnt made from resources its from producing high end products. Resources are just the input.

Everything is finite and scarce. Except your idiocy. Why dont you piss off to venezuala, cuba or north korea to live out your utopian communist fantasy.

[mashman]

You guys are fucken retarded. Scarcity is a made up thing? Just need more money? Holy shit. So under a RBE we would all live in nice mansions, all the food we want, we would all have top class euro bikes and a rolls in the garage. Becauses resources are infinite.

In case you fucktards didnt notice most money isnt made from resources its from producing high end products. Resources are just the input.

Everything is finite and scarce. Except your idiocy. Why dont you piss off to venezuala, cuba or north korea to live out your utopian communist fantasy.

WTF are you talking about?

... seriously, wtf are you on about?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Anyone have any bridges to sell?

[Jin]

WTF are you talking about?

... seriously, wtf are you on about?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Anyone have any bridges to sell?

Pretty sure you dont understand because your faith based literature doesnt give any basis for claiming resources are not scarce.

Do you have any other bullshit opinions youd like to share?

[mashman]

Pretty sure you dont understand because your faith based literature doesnt give any basis for claiming resources are not scarce.

Do you have any other bullshit opinions youd like to share?

Faith base literature ... what literature? As I've provided logical, reasonable and common sense arguments for scarcity being budget constraint, your claim that I don't understand is somewhat ironic. Or you're simply just another dumb fuck that has learned by rote without actually applying any form of critical thinking as to what they've learned. I reckon you fall in the latter, because you haven't put up any argument supporting scarcity of resource. Just propaganda spewed from the capitalist handbook of entitlement that bares virtually zero resemblance to how the world works post-70. Fuckin moron.

[Brian d marge]

WTF are you talking about?

... seriously, wtf are you on about?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Anyone have any bridges to sell?

Hahaaa + 1

Not a friggen clue

sent for a divine source

[Jin]

Sorry but you are the dumb fuck not me. Anyone who can grasp the concept of a supply and demand graph and understand the basis of the price system would not make a retarded claim that resources are not scarce and that is just a budget constraint.

The other issue with your fantasy is that if you remove money from the equation then as you say resources can be delivered anywhere. The problem is that of you remove money then someone has to decide where resources are allocated. Who does that? You walk right into a politburo and central planning elites and a communist nightmare. That is real corruption. At least with money resources are allocated according to what people want. Each dollar is a vote people can decide what they want and how badly they need / want it.

Remove that ability to vote and the common man becomes a beggar to the elites at the top who decide who gets what.

Grow up please. This kind of rbe idiocy is communism in disguise and for idolistic children who don't know any better.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm not sure that you have the objectivity to adequately ask the questions on my behalf - It's like an Atheist asking a Devout Christian to ask another Devout Christian on proof if God Exists and then expecting something other than the 2 Christians to go in unison 'But of COURSE he exists, Bwaaaahahahaha'....

Serious? Ok.

The metric isn't an issue, because counting exists. 1lb, 1kg, 1 diamond, 1 loaf, 1 car, 2lb, 2kg, 2 diamonds etc...

Your example of steak shows just how ill equipped you are to digest what's being proposed. http://kiwiharvest.org.nz/news/ 1 example... singular. That there are more shoots your scarcity argument in the bollocks. Scarcity is created by the inability to get a resource to a place. That's a money problem as it is logistiaclly possible to get virtually any resource anywhere in the world given enough of a need... because at that point in time, the financial cost is ignored. However where the financial cost is incurred, budget constraint becomes an issue when trying to keep a healthy bottom line. So to be clear. We can get any resource we want anywhere we want it, so long as there is enough money avilable to do it. That proves that the resources not only exist, but that it is logistically possible to get that resource to where it is needed. Therefore the only thing that actually creates scarcity is money. But by all means, carry on ignoring logic, reason and common sense in regards to what scarcity is in this day and age. It's budget constraint... and that's alllllll money baby.

That is not an answer the question - I'll refine the example so you can properly ask it:

For a given cow - there are 100 Steaks cut from the Carcass, 50 Rump, 30 Sirloin and 20 Eye Fillet (yum). there are 120 people who want Steak. Of those 120, 40 want Eye Fillets. In the current system, the price would rise to a point where only 20 people could afford Eye Fillets (unfair, but effective) - How does an RBE deal with this issue without killing an additional Cow (this point is key)

Why do you care if someone is working or not so long as you are getting access to what you are currently getting access to? That's a serious question. Money going to the "unemployed" (inc pensioners, disabled etc...) removes money from other areas of the economy. Removing money entirely means that the "unemployed" will still get exactly what they need to live the day to day life they were going to live anyway, except it doesn't create budget constraint in areas that otherwise wouldn't get the resource they require because of the scarcity introduced by money. Logic, reason and common sense, again.

Simple - There are things that make my life easier (Power, Water, Internet, Waste Collection) that are done by other people, people who are currently compensated for their work by me. Now imagine if the entire Waste Management sector decided that they would rather spend their time with their family, instead of dealing with smelly crap - my quality of life goes down.

Incentive is easy. People will have voted for an RBE when an RBE govt takes power. That means they're prepared to do what it takes to have all of the benefits of RBE. That may well be losing something that they hold dear... but by the time they're ready to vote for RBE, they'll realise that they won't actually be losing anything. It's called being a grown up and having accountability for ones footprint in regards to how it affects others. Growing up may happen to you one day, but I do have my doubts.

So, the people that currently are able to afford Ferraris - will still be able to have Ferraris?

1. You can't guarantee against corruption 100% because as you mentioned earlier, there are other methods of corrupting people outwith money. It just so happens that in this day and age, money is by far the most potent corrupting influence that mankind has ever seen. You'd have to be bat shit crazy to deny it. The simplest experiments work the best. I offer to punch people in the arm and they tell me to fuck off. I offer them $1 million to punch them in the arm 10 times and they start rolling their sleeves up. ISIS fight, because they're being paid money to do so. As soon as the money dries up, so do the bodies wanting to fight. Again, logic, reason and common sense proving that without money, it'll be almost impossible to peacefully corrupt anyone.

I disagree, Money is a Symptom, Humans are the problem. Money does however make it easier to track corruption.

2. RBE is all about freedom. Consider that every single person in the country will be a volunteer. Now consider that in the context of the employer - employee relationship. Should anyone decide, under RBE, to stop producing, well, that's entirely up to them innit. As such, NZers will have access to all that is available.

And what happens when there are more people consuming and not enough people producing?

When was Communism Mk 1.0? It never happened. I know, I've looked. There was always money involved. Communism was defined as having no money and controlled at gunpoint. Ironically enough that's exactly where we're headed. Bonus irony is that those who scream the loudest against Communism, are actually the ones who are driving us towards it... the gunpoint version that is. There's a couple of logical reasons why it isn't communism Mk 2.0.

As for abject failure. Apart from saying that the faint heart never fucked a pig... that people will have voted for RBE in enough numbers for an RBE govt to implement RBE, anyone going against that would realise that they'd be cutting their nose off to spite their face by allowing it to fail.

That should be a hint - they all failed before they could even get to the Communist Utopia, even with the threat of Violence to keep the unbelievers in line...