47 ms·
> The real solution is to move to a resource managed economy that eliminates money all together So, rationing? I wonder if that's been tried before. Money is
by justinmk 13y ago
> The real solution is to move to a resource managed economy that eliminates money all together
So, rationing? I wonder if that's been tried before.
Money is a repesentation of resources. And resources cannot be allocated efficiently by central authority, because of the calculation problem[1]. But maybe some college dorm discussions will bear some other solution.
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
- thebooktocome 13y ago"Resource-managed economy" does not imply a centralized authority, which is where your snide rejoinder comes off the rails.
- sliverstorm 13y agoHow the hell do you allocate resources with maximal efficiency, without either a central authority or trade? Maybe I'm just an old stick in the mud, but those two are "I tell you what you want" and "You tell me what you want", and I don't see the third option.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- brianpgordon 13y agoYou could manage (distribute) the resource of money, and allow people to spend it how they like within a free market. Of course, I'm aware that whyme said "eliminates money all together" so this might not be what he meant.
- whyme 13y agoI don't think it matters which. We are potentially going to go from 7 billion people to 9 billion people. At the 7 billion mark we would need 5 planets worth of resources if everyone were to consume at the level Americans do, so where does that leave us is a few decades while the poorer nations are evolving at such a rapid pace? Ideally we get engineers and scientists to start with x amount of resources and x number of people then learn along the way.
- pdonis 13y agoAt the 7 billion mark we would need 5 planets worth of resources if everyone were to consume at the level Americans do You're assuming that we are already making maximal use of all available resources. We aren't; we're not even close. The reason the "poorer nations" are poor is politics, not lack of resources.
- whyme 13y agoWhat indication did I give you that leads you to believe I'm making that assumption? I didn't make any claim to suggest why poor nations are poor, did I? I simply suggested that as poor nations evolve, their people will consume more.
- pdonis 13y agoWhat indication did I give you that leads you to believe I'm making that assumption? You said we would need 5 planets worth of resources if everyone lived at an American standard of living. That would only be true if it took a full one planet's worth of resources for everyone at the standard they are living at now. But it doesn't; we aren't using the full productive capacity of planet Earth now, not even close, and a lot of what we do produce gets wasted for political reasons. If we got rid of that waste, we might well be able to support everyone at an American standard of living with just one planet's worth of resources, not 5. I simply suggested that as poor nations evolve, their people will consume more That's part of what you suggested, but it isn't all of it. See above.
- boomlinde 13y agoThe American standard of living is inherently based in part on the standard of wastefulness. Our attitude towards wastefulness in general is a prerequisite for many of our liberties worldwide. If you remove these properties from the equation you don't really have the American standard of living anymore.
- 13y ago
- ahomescu1 13y agoDistributed resource-managed economy sounds a lot like a barter economy. IMHO, money-based trade is almost always better than bartering.