My first poll for the NZ public

[mashman]

So it's a generic statement which is not applicable to my understanding of your system. You misunderstand the quote (of which source you will not reveal), it is not talking about how workable it is, but the long term effects of laziness and moral decay.

Why do you keep bringing up money?

Consumption is governed by the produced goods available to be consumed. One tree can only build so much, one worker can only work so many hours... Were it a simple matter to increase either of these efficiencies, the financial system provides motivation for that improvement to happen,a s well as the base job to happen in the first place, yours provides neither of those things.

I know. I don't see us becoming lazy or immoral because money is out of the picture. My understanding is different.

Coz RBE. Duh.

Really? Oh gosh darn, that's what I missed. But then I'd have to believe that people were lazy and immoral at the core... like Smith's baker

[bogan]

I know. I don't see us becoming lazy or immoral because money is out of the picture. My understanding is different.

Coz RBE. Duh.

Really? Oh gosh darn, that's what I missed. But then I'd have to believe that people were lazy and immoral at the core... like Smith's baker

Your opinion on the understanding is different; don't go confusing the mechanics of how it works (or doesn't) which is the understanding, with your opinion on the chances of it working (or not) which is a subjective evaluation.

rbe doesn't use money though, so why do you bring it up when trying to describe how it works?

Again, that's an opinion, not integral to the understanding of the mechanics behind it. What are the mechanics behind it now, what is it about the mechanism of it that I don't understand? Because what I do understand, is there are no barriers to being the change you wish to see, but those you put in front of yourself; I wonder if you understand that though...

[mashman]

Your opinion on the understanding is different; don't go confusing the mechanics of how it works (or doesn't) which is the understanding, with your opinion on the chances of it working (or not) which is a subjective evaluation.

rbe doesn't use money though, so why do you bring it up when trying to describe how it works?

Again, that's an opinion, not integral to the understanding of the mechanics behind it. What are the mechanics behind it now, what is it about the mechanism of it that I don't understand? Because what I do understand, is there are no barriers to being the change you wish to see, but those you put in front of yourself; I wonder if you understand that though...

No. It's a finding that I've found from talking to people about it.

I've figured out that this can only work if it emerges from and supersedes the financial system, it will never overthrow it.

Mechanics of what?

[bogan]

No. It's a finding that I've found from talking to people about it.



Mechanics of what?

It's an opinion, a finding would require a number of test cases. Talking to a number of people about their opinions on a subject is called an opinion survey. Not choosing said people at random is called survey bias.

Your rbe system. Will there be voting? Will there be criteria on who can join? Limit on how many goods a person can claim? These are the mechanics of it, and there are many more. If you can't even answer those question, then you don't have an rbe idea that is even subject to being understandable, all it would be is a loose concept.

[mashman]

It's an opinion, a finding would require a number of test cases. Talking to a number of people about their opinions on a subject is called an opinion survey. Not choosing said people at random is called survey bias.

Your rbe system. Will there be voting? Will there be criteria on who can join? Limit on how many goods a person can claim? These are the mechanics of it, and there are many more. If you can't even answer those question, then you don't have an rbe idea that is even subject to being understandable, all it would be is a loose concept.

There were a number of them and the discussion went beyond the question of the OP poll. But sure, call it a survey of opinions if it helps you sleep.

I can, and have, answered those questions. I choose not to on this occasion.

[bogan]

There were a number of them and the discussion went beyond the question of the OP poll. But sure, call it a survey of opinions if it helps you sleep.

I can, and have, answered those questions. I choose not to on this occasion.

Well it is a survey of opinions, so it only makes sense to call it that. It certainly isn't an authoritative finding based in reality.

Is that because you've already given a number of different, and contradictory answers to those questions? Your reluctance to discuss that which you promote as being the far better option seems quite illogical, why do you turn away from sharing such an understanding?

[Jin]

Not quite right - Prices reflect the cost of opportunity for any given resource:

Take wood for example - it can be used as fuel, to build a house, to make furniture etc. Using wood to fuel a fire means I can't use it to build a house - If I own a house but am cold, then I would use the wood as firewood, If I'm homeless - I might use it to build a house. When I buy wood, I am compensating the seller for all the things he can no-longer do because he doesn't have that resource.

Now, imagine a system with no cost of opportunity - ie if I decide to use the wood for a fire, I can also use that wood to build a house. Currently impossible, unless I go and chop down a tree (but don't tell Mashman - he'll just tell you that you can magic more wood from somewhere else)

However if one had something akin to a Star Trek replicator (that turns energy into any form of matter) - then there is no cost of opportunity (okay, there is a cost of energy, but should such technology exist - we'd probably have gotten to a point where energy was close to limitless).

Assuming a perfectly competitive market sure. But the key point is that among competing alternatives what someone is prepared pay reflects the need for a resource. If builders want the wood more than someone who wants to burn it then they will pay more. The higher profit on the wood sends the signal more wood is needed. Thats how resources are allocated efficiently.

And prices would still be useful if wood could be magically created. For one thing burning wood creates pollution and a pollutant tax would be useful. The price at which it is set would allow for either alternatives to be found and equilibrium. Without the cost being imposed you couldnt find equilibrium between how much pollution people are prepared to put up with and how much they will pay for it. In a RBE it would be a case of all or nothing. A free for all of burning wood and pollution or it just being banned.

The point i was making about prices in a market system is that it allows voluntary transactions and exchanges to take place. No one engages in a transaction unless they think they will be better off. When i buy coffee its because i want the coffee more than the $5. And the coffee shop wants the $5 more than the coffee. There is an opportunity cost involved but to focus on that is missing the beauty of free trade.

How does it remove choice when all you can ever have is that which the market produces?... and the fact that there'd be no money and therefore no constraint on acquiring what has been produced? Sounds like more choice for more people to me. What's wrong with 1 manufacturer? Especially if they have every motorcycle that was ever devised on catalog and all of the bits n pieces required to produce any component off of any one of those machines? What's wrong with that as an incentive? It's more efficient and you get exactly what you want. Things aren't as black and white as you've taught yourself... there are some rather beautiful shades, more than 50, of grey that RBE can unleash. So no, not less choice at all... just yer usual kneejerk reaction to something that you've never really considered, but that there are more than 2 variants of.

True, not everyone would want to volunteer. However, if they want to live in an RBE and understand RBE, then they will look for something that they can do to be of assistance whether they want to or not... else risk going back to a financial economy which offers no benefits over RBE.

How can you force a volunteer workforce to do something that they don't want to do? Human nature lulz. Of course RBE requires individuals to act on their own interest. Coz if they didn't, they wouldn't be RBE advocates now would they? Why do you morons instantly think hippy when people talk about sharing?

Adam Smith. From 300 years ago? That Adam Smith? So therefore all bakers only bake for money

RBE removes choice because with no prices there would be no way of knowing what people want. The market provides what people want. Everyone gets to vote for what they want. If everyone buys/votes for iphones we get iphones. If we stop voting for iphones apple goes bust and we wont get anymore iphones. Thats the way the market works and allows efficient allocation of resources. In a RBE with no prices there is no way of knowing who wants what. Unless votes were taken but that would be extremely inefficient. Would everyone going to have to vote for every single thing they need in their life? I think its a nice idea but totally impractical in a world of limited resources. Where you have limited resources there must be a mechanism to allow for the most efficient allocation of those resources. Thats whats missing from the RBE theory.

[mashman]

Well it is a survey of opinions, so it only makes sense to call it that. It certainly isn't an authoritative finding based in reality.

Is that because you've already given a number of different, and contradictory answers to those questions? Your reluctance to discuss that which you promote as being the far better option seems quite illogical, why do you turn away from sharing such an understanding?

Ok.

There is no one answer. TVP, TZM, ICS, FWC etc... kinda make that point all too clearly. Anyhoo, thanks for reminding me that I'd mentioned that I'd not engage much further earlier.

[bogan]

Ok.

There is no one answer. TVP, TZM, ICS, FWC etc... kinda make that point all too clearly. Anyhoo, thanks for reminding me that I'd mentioned that I'd not engage much further earlier.

Which only goes to show how far away it is from becoming a reality. Which in turn, only goes to show that the current financial system is not a road block. So what are the road blocks? why hasn't it come about yet?

Or, alternate theory it is coming about, the financial system is what is bringing it here. Think about it, how much personal resources do we each have today, compared to 10, 20 years ago... You may look at it and simpyl say, "I want more" (the attitude that will be the downfall of any rbe implemented any time soon), whereas us more positive folk look at it and say, we're actually pretty well off.

[mashman]

RBE removes choice because with no prices there would be no way of knowing what people want. The market provides what people want. Everyone gets to vote for what they want. If everyone buys/votes for iphones we get iphones. If we stop voting for iphones apple goes bust and we wont get anymore iphones. Thats the way the market works and allows efficient allocation of resources. In a RBE with no prices there is no way of knowing who wants what. Unless votes were taken but that would be extremely inefficient. Would everyone going to have to vote for every single thing they need in their life? I think its a nice idea but totally impractical in a world of limited resources. Where you have limited resources there must be a mechanism to allow for the most efficient allocation of those resources. Thats whats missing from the RBE theory.

You don't see the dichotomy of phones that are destined for the junk heap v's a planet of limited resources?

We already have an efficient allocation of resources. It's called counting. The country needs 50,000 tins of peas per year. The country needs approx X number of doctors, X number of teachers, X number of builders, X number of electricians, X tonnes of wood, X litres of fuel etc... to meet demand. I heard that businesses are really good at that sort of stuff and produce reports that count litres and people as units and not a $ in sight. How would we ever cope.

That we've had what, 6 maybe 7 iphones in as many years always makes me laugh when it's seen as a triumph of resource allocation. What is wrong with having the best features of each phone on a single device with a battery that has the best lifespan available?

[mashman]

Which only goes to show how far away it is from becoming a reality. Which in turn, only goes to show that the current financial system is not a road block. So what are the road blocks? why hasn't it come about yet?

Or, alternate theory it is coming about, the financial system is what is bringing it here. Think about it, how much personal resources do we each have today, compared to 10, 20 years ago... You may look at it and simpyl say, "I want more" (the attitude that will be the downfall of any rbe implemented any time soon), whereas us more positive folk look at it and say, we're actually pretty well off.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, sure.

[bogan]

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, sure.

Well they're both coherent theories, you should try to understand them sometime

[TheDemonLord]

And prices would still be useful if wood could be magically created. For one thing burning wood creates pollution and a pollutant tax would be useful. The price at which it is set would allow for either alternatives to be found and equilibrium. Without the cost being imposed you couldnt find equilibrium between how much pollution people are prepared to put up with and how much they will pay for it. In a RBE it would be a case of all or nothing. A free for all of burning wood and pollution or it just being banned.

If we had the ability to turn energy into matter, I don't think Pollution would be a concern tbh.

The point i was making about prices in a market system is that it allows voluntary transactions and exchanges to take place. No one engages in a transaction unless they think they will be better off. When i buy coffee its because i want the coffee more than the $5. And the coffee shop wants the $5 more than the coffee. There is an opportunity cost involved but to focus on that is missing the beauty of free trade.

I agree with this in regards to our current system, but should we have the ability to turn energy into matter, such transactions would become meaningless.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeh market forces do cut down on the bullshit products that are not fit for purpose etc; but is that an issue without the market? Online reviews are pretty good, and the motivation to produce cheap and nasty shit just to make a buck would dissapear also.

Well, there are always people that will invent for the sake of inventing, they however tend to be of the eccentric persuasion. Market Forces however can help shape and drive inspiration - probably my favorite example would be James Dyson - by seeing what is the current method and seeing it's difficiencies, and seeing the oppertunity to either:

a) profit
b) decrease consumer TCO
c) save time

this can then drive inspiration and innovation. Sure the last option will exist in an RBE, but if no one is spending all their time at work, what incentive is there to save time?

As for the cheap and nasty products - I actually disagree - I think we will see MORE of them in an RBE - afterall there is no barrier to throw an item away and get a new one and there is no incentive to spend the extra time to make a superior product (ie no ability to sell at a higher price point, to put a premium on quality) - plus with everyone being able to have anything, there will be an increase pressure on the manufacturer to meet demand: quality will suffer.

Someone should just dress up in a borg costume, roll up to whitehouse, say prepare your anus's, we'll be back in ten years...

Don't they do that every year for ComicCon?

[TheDemonLord]

I know. I don't see us becoming lazy or immoral because money is out of the picture. My understanding is different.

Coz RBE. Duh.

Really? Oh gosh darn, that's what I missed. But then I'd have to believe that people were lazy and immoral at the core... like Smith's baker

I'd just like to point out this wonderful example of Circular Logic:

An RBE will work (paraphrased)

Coz RBE. Duh.

10/10