The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It 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.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-soc...ed-economy

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.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

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.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-soc...ed-economy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...7695921912#

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joom...?Itemid=50

pffft,what can i say,let's def.give it a try,never gonna happen though,too many control freaks in power

(03-21-2010, 12:06 PM)srijantje Wrote:  pffft,what can i say,let's def.give it a try,never gonna happen though,too many control freaks in power

They have been working on this for a long time. I remember reading about this in grade 7 SJ and that was a long time ago!

ideas like that have been around,i'm sure i remember discussions from the 60's
7th grade?fuck,you're even more educated than me

Have you joined any sites connected with it?

looking at the zeitgeist movement

(03-21-2010, 12:17 PM)srijantje Wrote:  looking at the zeitgeist movement

Yes I am a member there myself.

thanks for the link mate,will def.listen to it

(03-21-2010, 12:23 PM)srijantje Wrote:  thanks for the link mate,will def.listen to it

These people get alot of banter from the same people that call everything a conspiracy theory and for the same reasons. They do not want the current system of rule toppled because that would take away their god like hold over humanity. I think at some point either this plan or something very similar will have to be put into play for the world to survive. If not then most of the current world population I believe is in danger of being terminated.

(03-21-2010, 08:19 AM)Skippyslipper Wrote:  It 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.

(...)

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.

(...)

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.

(...)

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.

und so weite...

With all due respect, it sounds a bit too much like communism.
Sharing the wealth, no currency.

Before you attack me, this is just what I first thought when I read it. And it did make sense in a way, but I doubt whether it's actually possible. Human nature creates the need for money. We are greedy, we want more of the best. Sharing is also human but in this scale I do not believe it's do-able. Call me a cynic if you will....hy:

(03-22-2010, 03:45 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  

(03-21-2010, 08:19 AM)Skippyslipper Wrote:  It 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.

(...)

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.

(...)

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.

(...)

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.

und so weite...

With all due respect, it sounds a bit too much like communism.
Sharing the wealth, no currency.

Before you attack me, this is just what I first thought when I read it. And it did make sense in a way, but I doubt whether it's actually possible. Human nature creates the need for money. We are greedy, we want more of the best. Sharing is also human but in this scale I do not believe it's do-able. Call me a cynic if you will....hy:

Hey it's pretty hard for someone raised to believe the world only works one way and thats by getting paid. It is hard to imagine a system that works without money. Your not alone in that lock.
If you already had everything you wanted and anything you did not have you had access to when ever you wanted it then where does greed come in? Greed is not basic human nature it is taught to us by the system we are raised in. You have been raised from birth as have your parents and theirs before them and so on to know 100% for sure that the monetary system is the only system that will ever work. Everyone around you save a very few have been also. With that kind of reinforcement to a system it becomes very hard to break free and imagine anything different let alone try to change it.
That said this is nothing like any system you have ever encountered before let alone communism. Maybe you should follow the links and do a bit more research other than reading the cover page and letting your breeding block you understanding.

familiar with science fiction writer Iain.M.Banks?this system exists in his books about "the culture"

not only a great concept but really enjoyable reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture

so what happens if i decide i don't want to work for a week or a month?
does this mean i can't own anything?
how do i get something i don't have if i can't build it and wont work?

because if i have to work to get something then it stops being the utopia of
a resourced based economy and becomes just another ism. no one has a better house than anyone else, we can't have any fashion except what we create for ourselves. we basically have to wear what we're given to wear. and eat what we#re given to eat. a quota? sorry but utopia it doesn't seem to be. in fact the devide between the aves and the have nots would be much wider. who would enforce the rules.?

a concept thats impossible to have.

everyone realizes that with a concept like that, healthcare would be free for everyone ? there would be no government as such, just enforcers of equalioty (that would really be a joke ) who would enforce the enforcers? there would be no prisons. because once you start punishing people for crimes against whatever the sytem collapses. nice in an hg wells movie but way way to far from being functional.

even communisn wasn't that bad.

work on what?producing most food and goods will be done by machine,so go to the outlet and load up.devide between haves and have nots will be non existend since you can just about have everything you want.o.k. if some idiot wants to have a 1000 of everything[what's the point?]for mental cases a nut house or 2 will do.
lots of people have hobbies,being mechanics or doctor or anything,i'm sure there'll be enough people to fill the necessary slots.btw the idea of communism wasn't that bad of an idea in my view,only they didn't produce enough of anything except for the elite,so they were left with greed

(03-24-2010, 05:45 PM)srijantje Wrote:  work on what?producing most food and goods will be done by machine,so go to the outlet and load up.devide between haves and have nots will be non existend since you can just about have everything you want.o.k. if some idiot wants to have a 1000 of everything[what's the point?]for mental cases a nut house or 2 will do.
lots of people have hobbies,being mechanics or doctor or anything,i'm sure there'll be enough people to fill the necessary slots.btw the idea of communism wasn't that bad of an idea in my view,only they didn't produce enough of anything except for the elite,so they were left with greed

who builds the machines who keeps them running. who builds the factories. who who who. and please tell me how you can have everything you want?
who manages the farms the factories, the schools. who teaches what and where. who builds the houses who who who. who are the doctors who are the scientists who are the mechanics who who who. who will work for others ?

who will invent new stuff. who will make it woh will run the communications systems, who will build the infrastructure. who who who? and thats not even scraped the bottome of the barrel.

who will bring peace to the the middle east, who will sort out china and south korea. who will sort out sudan and myanmar and every other shit hole war and famine infested place on the earth?

@ bob. you have an excellent point.
we can't begin to build any kind of utopia until we turn human kind into sheep. not a world i want to live.

(03-24-2010, 04:19 PM)billy Wrote:  so what happens if i decide i don't want to work for a week or a month?
does this mean i can't own anything?
how do i get something i don't have if i can't build it and wont work?

because if i have to work to get something then it stops being the utopia of
a resourced based economy and becomes just another ism. no one has a better house than anyone else, we can't have any fashion except what we create for ourselves. we basically have to wear what we're given to wear. and eat what we#re given to eat. a quota? sorry but utopia it doesn't seem to be. in fact the devide between the aves and the have nots would be much wider. who would enforce the rules.?

a concept thats impossible to have.

everyone realizes that with a concept like that, healthcare would be free for everyone ? there would be no government as such, just enforcers of equalioty (that would really be a joke ) who would enforce the enforcers? there would be no prisons. because once you start punishing people for crimes against whatever the sytem collapses. nice in an hg wells movie but way way to far from being functional.

even communisn wasn't that bad.

Yes all those thoughts cover all the ones that I had the first time I read about this. Well prolly the second time actually. So then out of curiosity I decided to follow up and try to find out. What I found is that they have answers for pretty much all of the questios that I asked and they actually made sense. Go figure. Anyway bill I could copy past all the info here but thats crazy man so why not follow the supplied links and get the answers to your questions.
These people are actually trying to do something and not just talking about it. Far as I can tell the project is around 50 years so far in the makeing and not just some new scheme. So fill your boots or don't.
I've been a simi involved member for a number of years and to compare them to anything in you political vocb., is impossible. Communism would be a poor compression.
Anyway if you follow the links your questions are answered.

(03-24-2010, 06:38 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-24-2010, 04:19 PM)billy Wrote:  so what happens if i decide i don't want to work for a week or a month?
does this mean i can't own anything?
how do i get something i don't have if i can't build it and wont work?

because if i have to work to get something then it stops being the utopia of
a resourced based economy and becomes just another ism. no one has a better house than anyone else, we can't have any fashion except what we create for ourselves. we basically have to wear what we're given to wear. and eat what we#re given to eat. a quota? sorry but utopia it doesn't seem to be. in fact the devide between the aves and the have nots would be much wider. who would enforce the rules.?

a concept thats impossible to have.

everyone realizes that with a concept like that, healthcare would be free for everyone ? there would be no government as such, just enforcers of equalioty (that would really be a joke ) who would enforce the enforcers? there would be no prisons. because once you start punishing people for crimes against whatever the sytem collapses. nice in an hg wells movie but way way to far from being functional.

even communisn wasn't that bad.

Yes all those thoughts cover all the ones that I had the first time I read about this. Well prolly the second time actually. So then out of curiosity I decided to follow up and try to find out. What I found is that they have answers for pretty much all of the questios that I asked and they actually made sense. Go figure. Anyway bill I could copy past all the info here but thats crazy man so why not follow the supplied links and get the answers to your questions.
These people are actually trying to do something and not just talking about it. Far as I can tell the project is around 50 years so far in the makeing and not just some new scheme. So fill your boots or don't.
I've been a simi involved member for a number of years and to compare them to anything in you political vocb., is impossible. Communism would be a poor compression.
Anyway if you follow the links your questions are answered.

on a small scale with people being involved all pulling in the same direction i suppose it could work i've been in one such scene, they called it a kibutz but you only get out what you put into it and you have to basically work so thers can benifit. doesn't matter how you cut the custard and exchange of labour at the very least takes place. once people stop working for others the schems can only fail.

i'd also bet my life on them not being able to supply everything to veryone who wants it. a car, house, clothing education (especially healthcare) and a host of everything else.

just saw the image they had as their banner. and i have to ask who built it/them or who would. how many people would it take to build those botas and building in the sea and how would all the world beable to use them?

it's a nice dream but a reality? i can't see it ever being so.

it also quoted manpower being used to build all the extra planes in ww 2 as if they never got paid for it. i take it th epeople who built the boats got feed etc. if so thats barter. the simple equation of no one works then nothing gets done proves that barter has to take place for things to happen.

(03-24-2010, 06:44 PM)billy Wrote:  

(03-24-2010, 06:38 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-24-2010, 04:19 PM)billy Wrote:  so what happens if i decide i don't want to work for a week or a month?
does this mean i can't own anything?
how do i get something i don't have if i can't build it and wont work?

because if i have to work to get something then it stops being the utopia of
a resourced based economy and becomes just another ism. no one has a better house than anyone else, we can't have any fashion except what we create for ourselves. we basically have to wear what we're given to wear. and eat what we#re given to eat. a quota? sorry but utopia it doesn't seem to be. in fact the devide between the aves and the have nots would be much wider. who would enforce the rules.?

a concept thats impossible to have.

everyone realizes that with a concept like that, healthcare would be free for everyone ? there would be no government as such, just enforcers of equalioty (that would really be a joke ) who would enforce the enforcers? there would be no prisons. because once you start punishing people for crimes against whatever the sytem collapses. nice in an hg wells movie but way way to far from being functional.

even communisn wasn't that bad.

Yes all those thoughts cover all the ones that I had the first time I read about this. Well prolly the second time actually. So then out of curiosity I decided to follow up and try to find out. What I found is that they have answers for pretty much all of the questios that I asked and they actually made sense. Go figure. Anyway bill I could copy past all the info here but thats crazy man so why not follow the supplied links and get the answers to your questions.
These people are actually trying to do something and not just talking about it. Far as I can tell the project is around 50 years so far in the makeing and not just some new scheme. So fill your boots or don't.
I've been a simi involved member for a number of years and to compare them to anything in you political vocb., is impossible. Communism would be a poor compression.
Anyway if you follow the links your questions are answered.

on a small scale with people being involved all pulling in the same direction i suppose it could work i've been in one such scene, they called it a kibutz but you only get out what you put into it and you have to basically work so thers can benifit. doesn't matter how you cut the custard and exchange of labour at the very least takes place. once people stop working for others the schems can only fail.

i'd also bet my life on them not being able to supply everything to veryone who wants it. a car, house, clothing education (especially healthcare) and a host of everything else.

I think it is in fact possible bill. It is an economy scheme based on resource's. Same basic as the monetary except without a money base. Personal monetary gain is removed from the equation.
At present we have the resources to feed cloth and house every living person on the planet. And we can sustain that at projected growth patterns. People alot smarter that I say so anyway bill. We also have the technology to do it.
It's much simpler for you to have a look at the links bill. Everything requires work man. I really think that this system may be plausible or some future incarnation of it. Thing is that if we expect to ever get into something better we need to work together to find it.
What we have now is a miserable failure to say the least.

(03-24-2010, 06:55 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-24-2010, 06:44 PM)billy Wrote:  

(03-24-2010, 06:38 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-24-2010, 04:19 PM)billy Wrote:  so what happens if i decide i don't want to work for a week or a month?
does this mean i can't own anything?
how do i get something i don't have if i can't build it and wont work?

because if i have to work to get something then it stops being the utopia of
a resourced based economy and becomes just another ism. no one has a better house than anyone else, we can't have any fashion except what we create for ourselves. we basically have to wear what we're given to wear. and eat what we#re given to eat. a quota? sorry but utopia it doesn't seem to be. in fact the devide between the aves and the have nots would be much wider. who would enforce the rules.?

a concept thats impossible to have.

everyone realizes that with a concept like that, healthcare would be free for everyone ? there would be no government as such, just enforcers of equalioty (that would really be a joke ) who would enforce the enforcers? there would be no prisons. because once you start punishing people for crimes against whatever the sytem collapses. nice in an hg wells movie but way way to far from being functional.

even communisn wasn't that bad.

Yes all those thoughts cover all the ones that I had the first time I read about this. Well prolly the second time actually. So then out of curiosity I decided to follow up and try to find out. What I found is that they have answers for pretty much all of the questios that I asked and they actually made sense. Go figure. Anyway bill I could copy past all the info here but thats crazy man so why not follow the supplied links and get the answers to your questions.
These people are actually trying to do something and not just talking about it. Far as I can tell the project is around 50 years so far in the makeing and not just some new scheme. So fill your boots or don't.
I've been a simi involved member for a number of years and to compare them to anything in you political vocb., is impossible. Communism would be a poor compression.
Anyway if you follow the links your questions are answered.

on a small scale with people being involved all pulling in the same direction i suppose it could work i've been in one such scene, they called it a kibutz but you only get out what you put into it and you have to basically work so thers can benifit. doesn't matter how you cut the custard and exchange of labour at the very least takes place. once people stop working for others the schems can only fail.

i'd also bet my life on them not being able to supply everything to veryone who wants it. a car, house, clothing education (especially healthcare) and a host of everything else.

I think it is in fact possible bill. It is an economy scheme based on resource's. Same basic as the monetary except without a money base. Personal monetary gain is removed from the equation.
At present we have the resources to feed cloth and house every living person on the planet. And we can sustain that at projected growth patterns. People alot smarter that I say so anyway bill. We also have the technology to do it.
It's much simpler for you to have a look at the links bill. Everything requires work man. I really think that this system may be plausible or some future incarnation of it. Thing is that if we expect to ever get into something better we need to work together to find it.
What we have now is a miserable failure to say the least.

EDIT: I have no idea WTF your on about bill. Any system needs work and people to work it. Read up a little on the project.

Thing is that if we expect to ever get into something better we need to work together to find it.

above is what you said. and yes i definitely agree. but it will never happen. not without force or cohersion. we cant as a species agree on anything let alone work together.

also think of this. can you imagine giving every person in a the world a car?
or would there be restrictions?

would anything be restricted or will we all get one of everything? what about land. what if we all want a house with a little garden. you saying everone can have one? somehow i cant see it. one of the main stubling blocks is who gets the first ones of each thing made. who gets the first house. the car the first garden etc. who get the real expenisive cancer treatment?