How would a needs based economy affect

[derleydoo]

We need accommodation. Food. Clothing. Fun. Excitement. Etc.

How would a needs based economy affect western efforts at civilization?

[Serendipper]

The slave owners wouldn't like it.

[derleydoo]

The slave owners wouldn't like it.

Yes, there would be no need for slave owners. We are unable to say whether they would like it or not. They would need to do something other than slave own! They might like it!

That can go the list of things not needed. Unless a suitable defence is presented!

Water, there will be a need for clean drinking water.

[Serendipper]

Those looking for a way to stand out from the herd may have a hard time of it.

Are you looking to analyze something like the Venus Project?

[derleydoo]

Those looking for a way to stand out from the herd may have a hard time of it.

It's their own fault! Everyone else has everything they need!

Are you looking to analyze something like the Venus Project?

What is the Venus Project?

[Serendipper]

It's a resource based economy.

https://www.thevenusproject.com/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project

[derleydoo]

Thanks. Similar pipedream. I am more for tweaking the current system.

[Serendipper]

Me too. Baby steps.

[derleydoo]

Excuse me for asking... Did you used to be, derleydoo? You share the same avatar?

[Serendipper]

Excuse me for asking... Did you used to be, derleydoo? You share the same avatar?

Never heard of him. I don't have an avatar.

[MagsJ]

Excuse me for asking... Did you used to be, derleydoo? You share the same avatar?

Never heard of him. I don't have an avatar.

Lol

Never not be derleydoo again.. it doesn't suit you.

Weren't the ancient active temple-based civilizations of old, like Angkor Wat and Göbekli Tepe, self-sufficient needs-based cities.

[derleydoo]

"Weren't the ancient active temple-based civilizations of old, like Angkor Wat and Göbekli Tepe, self-sufficient needs-based cities"

You're asking me!

[Santiago]

The United States prides itself on being modern, tenchnologically advanced, and free... Upholders of Democracy.

Yet, in spite of this, many people still live in poverty and are forced to perform menial labour that alienates them from themselves and the world.

I am not a communist, but I agree with them about alienation.

Shouldn't a government, which supposedly cares about civility, justice, and the intrinsic rights and well-being of humankind, create a society in which its members are afforded free-housing and are paid substantially more for menial labour?

Critics will claim that free-housing will create mass laziness, a lack of productivity. They say, "People must work and they must suffer as they work, or else it doesn't count!"

The truth is that people would, actually, have more time to pursue noble and creative endeavors, instead of being forced to live a double-life of wage-slavery. The citizens would be so much happier, resulting in more qualitative productivity and innovation, and a substantial decrease in the crime rate.

Not everything would be free; people would still pay for luxury items and so on. And there would still be those who work regular jobs; it's just that their salaries would be significantly increased, so that they could have a living wage and be able to, actually, save up money and do other things, apart from having to work all the time.

This is so patently obvious, yet the government continues to perpetuate a draconian system, a colossal exploitation machine, in which people are forced to work or freeze, outside in the cold...

If the government, really, does care about intrinsic human rights and well-being, should they not practice what they preach and take better care of the people? Shouldn't they, actually, see us as people and not as cogs in a wheel?

[Serendipper]

Shouldn't a government, which supposedly cares about civility, justice, and the intrinsic rights and well-being of humankind, create a society in which its members are afforded free-housing and are paid substantially more for menial labour?

Critics will claim that free-housing will create mass laziness, a lack of productivity. They say, "People must work and they must suffer as they work, or else it doesn't count!"

The truth is that people would, actually, have more time to pursue noble and creative endeavors, instead of being forced to live a double-life of wage-slavery. The citizens would be so much happier, resulting in more quality productivity and innovation, and a substantial decrease in the crime rate.

What you say is entirely too sensible lol

It's much easier to be better than others by keeping others down rather than lifting oneself up, therefore the idea that someone somewhere may get something for nothing is abhorrent and completely unpalatable. Consequently, people would rather cut off their own hand to be sure that others don't have arms.

Start at 10:00 or so

[MagsJ]

"Weren't the ancient active temple-based civilizations of old, like Angkor Wat and Göbekli Tepe, self-sufficient needs-based cities"

You're asking me!

More like.. putting it out there, for you to respond to and from. Should I have been more clearer?

Well they seem to have been, and that much we know.. but why such places of old were deserted, we do not. They held 1000s of citizens, but catered for everyone's wants and needs, so why fail?

[Serendipper]

"Weren't the ancient active temple-based civilizations of old, like Angkor Wat and Göbekli Tepe, self-sufficient needs-based cities"

You're asking me!

More like.. putting it out there, for you to respond to and from. Should I have been more clearer?

Well they seem to have been, and that much we know.. but why such places of old were deserted, we do not. They held 1000s of citizens, but catered for everyone's wants and needs, so why fail?

How many robots did they have? Scarcity can only be eliminated with slavery, so somebody or something has to be the slaves.

[Silhouette]

I've solved this one elsewhere on the forum. But the solution lies extremely problematically in a significant strength of the current economic model: voluntary trade.

When voluntary trade is thought of, one tends to think of their part alone - and forget that trades are two-way agreements. We all want our own part to be voluntary, but what manages the expectations of the bounds of what one is prepared to consent to pay? The party who has less to lose.

So long as we have voluntary trade, the party with less to lose will make the price, and the party with more to lose will take the price.
This reaches a natural equilibrium in our current economic model, that varies - extremely usefully - in accordance with how many people are willing to settle for the offered price, and with the agreed compensation to provide that which is intended to be sold.

The chain of transactions, priced by the above principle, goes all the way back to the initial extraction of the primary ingredients from the earth - and the earth charges nothing.
And so is revealed the artitrary nature of our current economy, but with huge strengths in responding to supply and demand, and in allowing choice to take or leave what is provided - with incentive to provide what is likely to be taken rather than left.

_____________________________

Altering this model requires not only that voluntary trade is compromised.
It also encounters problems with determining the "needs" of a needs based economy.

At least some people are going to have to sacrifice consent in trade, and we are still at a point where we cannot truthfully determine what each individual's real needs really are - and beyond the technological and pragmatic difficulties in discerning what people's real needs are, do people want their needs to be known? Is there not a value in privacy, and an intrusion in forcing it out? Further, is there not psychological value in forbidden things?

This is the strength of the emerging "AI computer algorithm" model. Nobody knows quite how AI comes to learn what it does - human beings for their part only program the initial structure of how to start doing so, and then the AI takes over at a rate with which humans cannot keep up. The whole process of learning what people want/need can be learned it seems, but humans cannot keep up with it and this is potentially a good thing. The issues here are in the ability to track the wants/needs of specific parties, which would be in breach of privacy, and in who programs the AI. Under the voluntary trade model, there is further issue in who "owns" the process, and what they use the results for. As I pointed out above, the earth charges nothing, so there is no fundamental basis for anyone to own anything. But as I pointed out above, there is value in pretending that there is a basis for anyone to own anything.

But aside from these circumstantial issues, the breach of privacy may be opaque enough to not pose a threat - however perhaps not so to the issue of who programs the AI. Obviously it is no easy task to program such advanced things, so very few are capable of doing so, but the policing of these few is not self-regulating.... except perhaps without voluntary trade. Without voluntary trade, the inequalities of each trade that produce pricing may be eliminated, and without pricing, those who program the AI and those who would seek to abuse those who program the AI have no monetary leverage.

So to answer the question "how would a needs based economy affect... western efforts at civilisation?", those who benefit from having less to lose from turning down a trade i.e. the powerful/the rich, would lose their relative value - as has already been pointed out in this thread. We would all lose out from the ideal of voluntary trade, with AI technology we are half way there, but the moderation of voluntary trade is required to complete the journey. And who moderates voluntary trade?

[Serendipper]

AI learns through genetic algorithms in an evolutionary process just like animals.

[Mad Man P]

Critics will claim that free-housing will create mass laziness, a lack of productivity. They say, "People must work and they must suffer as they work, or else it doesn't count!"

The truth is that people would, actually, have more time to pursue noble and creative endeavors, instead of being forced to live a double-life of wage-slavery. The citizens would be so much happier, resulting in more qualitative productivity and innovation, and a substantial decrease in the crime rate.

Not everything would be free; people would still pay for luxury items and so on. And there would still be those who work regular jobs; it's just that their salaries would be significantly increased, so that they could have a living wage and be able to, actually, save up money and do other things, apart from having to work all the time.

Not everyone is well equipped to make productive use of their freedom... who should pay the price for their wastefulness?

Let us pretend that we are only a handful of people on this planet and that we're just starting out...
If you had no talent or skill meaning you cannot grow or hunt your own food nor build your own house, who should be responsible for taking care of you? Would that person not be your slave in a sense?
What if I trade you the food and shelter I can spare in exchange for your menial labor... you clean my house, do my laundry and so forth?
Is that an act of cruelty or kindness?

Do you think you are entitled to the food I gathered and the shelter I built?

The main flaw with our current economic model lies in the way we've twisted the concept of ownership...
We have made it possible for someone else to own the product of YOUR labor... the fix can't be more of the same.

The aim should be a meritocracy...

[Santiago]

Madman,

Nobody will pay the price for their wastefulness.
As mentioned before, the people living in the society of which I mentioned would be much happier, a lot less stressed out, due to not having to worry about struggling to pay rent. As a result, they would have more leisure time to pursue exciting, creative, and higher things, such as art, science and philosophy.

I imagine many people become drug addicts due to financial anxieties and pressures. A free housing society would eliminate this problem in a significant way.

In regards to your scenario about a handful of people existing on the planet, I would do my best to assist the person incapable of hunting and so on. I believe in philanthropy, so doing so would not be a problem. But, honestly, I think anyone with basic human decency would not have a problem helping out that person.

Only someone who lacks compassion, such as a narcissist, would view helping out the individual as a form of slavery.

Madman wrote: "Do you think you are entitled to the food I gathered and the shelter I built?"

Uhmmm... No, I don't. I never proposed such a view of things. It's not a matter of entitlement, but rather of a virtuos understanding of human benevolence.

If you don't want to help out other people, you don't have to. But the government, proclaiming itself a champion of human rights and well-being, should take to it to meet the basic and essential needs of the people. Having access to secure and stable housing is something so fundamental to human life. The government should view it as an inaliable human right and provide housing to the people without any financial conditions.

A side note: I don't believe in taxation, so hold your horses, angry tax-payers.

[Mad Man P]

Madman,
Nobody will pay the price for their wastefulness.
As mentioned before, the people living in the society of which I mentioned would be much happier, a lot less stressed out, due to not having to worry about struggling to pay rent. As a result, they would have more leisure time to pursue exciting, creative, and higher things, such as art, science and philosophy.

Someone builds their houses... someone maintains their plumbing, access to clean water and electricity, someone grows their food, disposes of their waste...
Or are you picturing a future where we have robots doing all those things?

In regards to your scenario about a handful of people existing on the planet, I would do my best to assist the person incapable of hunting and so on. I believe in philanthropy, so doing so would not be a problem. But, honestly, I think anyone with basic human decency would not have a problem helping out that person.

It'd be a generous thing for you to elect to do... it'd also be generous of you to plow fields, mine coal or generally do grueling work for no pay.
But it's only generous because it's above and beyond what is morally expected of you. If it were a moral expectation and enforced... that would make you a slave.

If you don't want to help out other people, you don't have to. But the government, proclaiming itself a champion of human rights and well-being, should take to it to meet the basic and essential needs of the people. Having access to secure and stable housing is something so fundamental to human life. The government should view it as an inaliable human right and provide housing to the people without any financial conditions.

When you say people have a right to housing what do you think that means?
Let's take it back the handful of people scenario
So does that mean you have a RIGHT to the house I built? Do you have a right to demand I build you a house of your own?

If you have the right to make demands of me without any form of reciprocity, how is that not slavery?

Your moral convictions seem self-contradictory.

[Santiago]

Mad Man,

In my initial entry, I stated that there would still be people who work regular jobs. They would receive living wages to counteract the drudgery of menial labour. The work would not seem so dismal, if they were paid substantially more; they would, probably, go to work buoyantly, resulting in increased qualitative production and a butterfly effect of happiness.

When I state people should have a right to free housing, what I mean is that having secure housing is something essential to human well-being. Just like some of the other constitutional amendments, housing should be considered an intrinsic right, without financial obligations.

It is inhumane to coerce people into working or freezing outside in the cold. If people don't want to be a part of the rat race, they shouldn't have to. If they prefer to live a more simple life, in which they can spend time reading, playing sports, creating art, and so on, they should be allowed to.

As mentioned before, people would still work; there would be financial incentives. Society will not collapse, if people have free housing.

Also, when I propose that people should have a right to free housing, I do not mean that others have a right to the house you built, or that you are obligated to build one for somebody else. What I mean is that the government should do its job of ensuring human well-being by creating a society in which free-housing exists. You, as an individual citizen, are not expected to do this; but rather government officials should be.

[Serendipper]

When you say people have a right to housing what do you think that means?
Let's take it back the handful of people scenario
So does that mean you have a RIGHT to the house I built? Do you have a right to demand I build you a house of your own?

If you have the right to make demands of me without any form of reciprocity, how is that not slavery?

Your moral convictions seem self-contradictory.

I think he means that society should provide a minimum standard of living for the poor before allowing a billionaire to have another billion.

And we also can't forget how the rich got that way: ie exploitation. You're making it seem too innocent with your simplistic example as if everyone actually worked FOR themselves instead of either working FOR someone else or having others work FOR them.

Of course no one is entitled to someone else's labor which is exactly the argument the rich are putting forth in defense of their keeping the fruits of the labors of masses of other people as if it was their labor alone.

[Mad Man P]

It is inhumane to coerce people into working or freezing outside in the cold. If people don't want to be a part of the rat race, they shouldn't have to. If they prefer to live a more simple life, in which they can spend time reading, playing sports, creating art, and so on, they should be allowed to.

You don't seem to understand what I'm criticising here.
I'm all for a welfare state with comfortable minimum wages, progressive taxation and other forms of enforced solidarity...
I'm all for having a comfortable safety net for people who are out of work, preventing a turn of bad luck from ending in abject poverty and desperation without any opportunity to bounce back.
That can all be be justified...

But you're talking about a free ride.

If society doesn't need you to work right now, I agree you should be able to rest easy knowing the rest of us have your back...
But if we need you to work and you're response is "no thanks, I'm just gonna watch some tv, maybe do an oil painting" then we should cut you off to go fend for yourself.

Also, when I propose that people should have a right to free housing, I do not mean that others have a right to the house you built, or that you are obligated to build one for somebody else. What I mean is that the government should do its job of ensuring human well-being by creating a society in which free-housing exists. You, as an individual citizen, are not expected to do this; but rather government officials should be.

The government can't "magic" houses into being or food, or services... they have to hire people, and they would have to pay the people they hired, so they would need money or goods to pay them with...
Where is all that coming from?

I agree it would be nice if we didn't HAVE to work... if food magically appeared when we were hungry, but alas, that does not seem to be the reality we find ourselves in, for you to have food at all SOMEONE has to go get it.
For you to have a house SOMEONE has to build it.

For human beings to survive, for society to function some number of people have to work... they HAVE TO, it's not optional
And the rest of us HAVE to work if only to (re)pay them, for the literal fruits of their labor.

And besides, what kind of ungrateful shit, would feel good about being a parasite that survives on the kindness of others without any thought to ever giving back?
How is that conducive to a healthy and happy society?

[Serendipper]

But you're talking about a free ride.

No the machines are doing the work; that's why the rich are so rich.

If society doesn't need you to work right now, I agree you should be able to rest easy knowing the rest of us have your back...

That's a disingenuous picture you're painting.

But if we need you to work and you're response is "no thanks, I'm just gonna watch some tv, maybe do an oil painting" then we should cut you off to go fend for yourself.

If you want StarBucks coffee, then make it yourself. You can't conscript people into producing luxuries and most of production is just that.

The government can't "magic" houses into being or food, or services... they have to hire people, and they would have to pay the people they hired, so they would need money or goods to pay them with...
Where is all that coming from?

The profits from the machines and exploitation of people.

I agree it would be nice if we didn't HAVE to work... if food magically appeared when we were hungry, but alas, that does not seem to be the reality we find ourselves in, for you to have food at all SOMEONE has to go get it.

One single farmer produces enough food to feed 155 people. https://kxrb.com/how-many-people-does-one-farmer-feed/

If not for stockpiling 1.4 billion pounds of cheese and who know what else for the purpose of keeping prices high for the purpose of keeping small farmers in business, 1 farmer could feed 1000s of people. The number of people that are actually required to work is a relative handful and that is the principle premise of the Venus Project and TZM: once free from the monetary shackles to take an engineering approach to production, the required human labor will be minuscule.

For human beings to survive, for society to function some number of people have to work... they HAVE TO, it's not optional

No it's all about the hangup that someone might get something for nothing that prevents us actually getting something for nothing. People who rather submit to slavery themselves just to be sure someone else is also slaving away. That's at the bottom of the only existing objection. So we're not waiting on technology, but we're waiting on the required number of funerals to happen.