That's right folks, you heard it here last! Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows have, somewhat hamfistedly, severed their affiliation with The Zeitgeist Movement.
My interest in both groups is qualified for many reasons, but perhaps the first of them is that in defining a system humanity has never tried, conviction is the last thing I can have. The term "resource-based economics" may have originated with Jacque Fresco, but that means very little, especially when the man's message is deeply rooted in systems theory, which tells us we are not creators or potent actors initiating The New with the power of our being, we react and respond, are shaped and influenced as we shape and influence in response. Resource-based economics is nothing more than the prioritizing of resources over money, an idea which has many ramifications and implications, but, being untried, needs to be openly discussed and tested in whatever are the most effective ways. I do not believe that process can be tightly controlled, especially not by a 95 year old man. Insistence on such control weakens you.
But there we are, it has happened. We are all only human and should not expect perfection from one another, nor be too surprised when we screw up or when plans don't work out as hoped. Shit happens. Interestingly enough though, in his latest radio address, Peter Joseph mentions working with ideas such as time banks and other monies that are necessary to move beyond the current impasse. It is refreshing to hear that. That was a point that always frustrated me. The Venus Project insists on a moneyless solution, talks often of transition, but does not define the money-design that stands a chance of placing humanity on a path that can prioritize resources over money. That was always a glaring failing. Without that defined all you have is an idea of a possible future and nothing more, no matter how many times transition is mentioned. Peter also mentions working with the Buckminster Fuller Institute and other bodies, and this can only be good. To unite as many people as possible behind an idea as contrary to the status quo as resource-based economics, you simply must work with others, which means mess and compromise. That The Venus Project are still alone cannot be a good sign.
I sincerely hope Peter and others in the movement look at MMT, at demurrage, guaranteed income, and anything else that might serve as stepping stones toward steady state growth, human and environmental concern, and away from our religious reliance on Hand, The Invisible. Diversity is the spice of life. Insistence on purity, whatever the hell purity really is, always ends badly. In the end it's not money itself that matters, it is our systemic relationship with money and money's association with wealth that does. It seems likely to me that a system which needs no money is possible, but not inevitable. There are too many variables. The means are the ends, the journey is the destination. If we, globally, as a species, can have some variant of agreement to demote money and promote wealth, over time and going forward, see the vital importance of staying supple so that we can adjust wisely to the changes that come at us unendingly, that would already be the seed of resource-based economics. And that task is mighty enough.
Showing posts with label The Venus Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Venus Project. Show all posts
24 April 2011
26 October 2009
Scarcity: foundational economic assumption
“Infinite wants versus finite resources” is the definition of scarcity that underpins economic theory. Because of this fundamental law a medium of exchange – money – will always be necessary. To suggest otherwise is to fail to face reality as it is. Sure it’s fun to dream and speculate a rainy Sunday away with such imaginings as the end of scarcity, but well-trained, hard-nosed economists know better: scarcity is a fact of life.
They know and accept the exceptions though; air for example. There is a finite amount of it, we humans need it to live, indeed we can’t do without out it for more than a few seconds, and yet we don’t have to pay for it. We need no medium of exchange to distribute this most essential resource.
So is it just air’s relative abundance that makes it free? Only partly. It also has qualities that make, say, “owning” it difficult; it’s everywhere and ignores all national borders. It is also so desperately vital to life, withholding it from customers to raise price above zero results in their death. Not good for business. (I have the feeling though, that if someone could work out how, it would be turned into a tradable commodity. Let’s not go there.) But whatever the reasons, we don’t have to part with money to breath air, even though it meets the scarcity definition above.
Friendship cannot be distributed via a medium of exchange, not because it is scarce or abundant, but because to do so would destroy it. Money and friendship don’t mix in terms of trade. Ditto love and trust. The best business can do is associate such things with their products via cunning advertising, and sell it to us that way – sell us what we already have. Of course that’s fake, but it does happen, and does shift product. Nevertheless, friendship itself cannot be sold, despite its relative scarcity and desirability.
So there are exceptions to the rule which fully meet the definition of “scarce.” And yet hardly anyone in their right mind believes high culture can run without a medium of exchange. My question to unbelievers is this: What proportion of resources needs to stay scarce to keep a medium of exchange unavoidably necessary? For example, suppose a redesign of cities, transport and energy use made shelter, transportation and energy abundantly available. Would we still need a medium of exchange? What if the system for transporting goods and services were fully automated and redesigned to use only clean, renewable energy? What if hydroponics, permaculture and desalination plants, plus other water-purification processes, made food and water abundantly available for everyone, everywhere? Would we still need money? Are all these “ifs” pipe-dreams, beyond the technical wit of man? The Venus Project suggests not.
What if the only things that need remain scarce – if we really went at scarcity as if it were a design challenge, if we challenged our best minds to produce things in abundance – were things like the top flat of an apartment building, or the love of a good woman? Would we need money then? Just how unavoidable is scarcity, scientifically speaking? Shouldn’t we try to find out, scientifically, and not rely forever and ever on a weird definition (what the hell are infinite wants!?) written a few centuries ago by a Brit working for the East India Company?
I think we should. I think we should test all assumptions. Scarcity is one of them.
They know and accept the exceptions though; air for example. There is a finite amount of it, we humans need it to live, indeed we can’t do without out it for more than a few seconds, and yet we don’t have to pay for it. We need no medium of exchange to distribute this most essential resource.
So is it just air’s relative abundance that makes it free? Only partly. It also has qualities that make, say, “owning” it difficult; it’s everywhere and ignores all national borders. It is also so desperately vital to life, withholding it from customers to raise price above zero results in their death. Not good for business. (I have the feeling though, that if someone could work out how, it would be turned into a tradable commodity. Let’s not go there.) But whatever the reasons, we don’t have to part with money to breath air, even though it meets the scarcity definition above.
Friendship cannot be distributed via a medium of exchange, not because it is scarce or abundant, but because to do so would destroy it. Money and friendship don’t mix in terms of trade. Ditto love and trust. The best business can do is associate such things with their products via cunning advertising, and sell it to us that way – sell us what we already have. Of course that’s fake, but it does happen, and does shift product. Nevertheless, friendship itself cannot be sold, despite its relative scarcity and desirability.
So there are exceptions to the rule which fully meet the definition of “scarce.” And yet hardly anyone in their right mind believes high culture can run without a medium of exchange. My question to unbelievers is this: What proportion of resources needs to stay scarce to keep a medium of exchange unavoidably necessary? For example, suppose a redesign of cities, transport and energy use made shelter, transportation and energy abundantly available. Would we still need a medium of exchange? What if the system for transporting goods and services were fully automated and redesigned to use only clean, renewable energy? What if hydroponics, permaculture and desalination plants, plus other water-purification processes, made food and water abundantly available for everyone, everywhere? Would we still need money? Are all these “ifs” pipe-dreams, beyond the technical wit of man? The Venus Project suggests not.
What if the only things that need remain scarce – if we really went at scarcity as if it were a design challenge, if we challenged our best minds to produce things in abundance – were things like the top flat of an apartment building, or the love of a good woman? Would we need money then? Just how unavoidable is scarcity, scientifically speaking? Shouldn’t we try to find out, scientifically, and not rely forever and ever on a weird definition (what the hell are infinite wants!?) written a few centuries ago by a Brit working for the East India Company?
I think we should. I think we should test all assumptions. Scarcity is one of them.
21 October 2009
Don't get mad, get organised!
Organised greed trumps disorganised (and even angry) democracy every time. Not only are political parties funded predominantly by financial firms, the mainstream media depends for its very life on corporate advertising. Politics and altering politics via MSM outlets are dead-ends when it comes to radical change. Genuine and lasting change cannot be accomplished from within the status quo. So, once you have satisfied yourself that radical change is necessary, you have to step out of the system in some way, and get organised.
I love the speech from the film Network, where the desperate newsreader incites a dulled populace to turn off their TVs and scream out of their windows that they’re “mad as hell.” His call to anger is moving, eloquent, exciting, yet had it proved effective, if people were inspired to turn off their boxes and scream their rage out, what next? Turn the TVs back on ten minutes later after the cathartic screaming session? Most likely.
There’s so much for us to fix, a healing but quick burst of rage is just not going to cut it. We need to develop a very long-term plan after a long process of self-education, while steadily improving our ability to be organised and cohesive in our objectives. We must calmly establish facts, build an argument, and constantly test all assumptions. This while constructing and carrying out scientific tests of those proposals sound enough to commit resources to.
So:
I hate ten-point plans. Seven is a far nicer number. There is an order to the list, but this order is principally of visual, not practical use. Flexibility and cohesion are key. We seek to initiate, organise and sustain a non-violent, idea-driven, leaderless revolution whose sole function is to establish a socioeconomic model designed from the ground up to benefit equally all people everywhere. It’s certainly ambitious, but not impossible. It’s just a matter of harnessing desire with the right objective in the right manner.
We are all sick and need to heal ourselves and each other. This process is one of decoupling from the system philosophically, and carefully establishing a new global paradigm capable of allowing wide diversity of opinion and yet fostering cooperation and a sense of common purpose.
What’s not to like?
I love the speech from the film Network, where the desperate newsreader incites a dulled populace to turn off their TVs and scream out of their windows that they’re “mad as hell.” His call to anger is moving, eloquent, exciting, yet had it proved effective, if people were inspired to turn off their boxes and scream their rage out, what next? Turn the TVs back on ten minutes later after the cathartic screaming session? Most likely.
There’s so much for us to fix, a healing but quick burst of rage is just not going to cut it. We need to develop a very long-term plan after a long process of self-education, while steadily improving our ability to be organised and cohesive in our objectives. We must calmly establish facts, build an argument, and constantly test all assumptions. This while constructing and carrying out scientific tests of those proposals sound enough to commit resources to.
So:
1. Learn calmly what needs to be learned
2. Build database of facts and arguments
3. Become increasingly organised and cohesive, globally
4. Identify assumptions
5. Test assumptions
6. Establish verifiable proposals
7. Continually test proposals as scientifically as possible to strengthen long term plan
I hate ten-point plans. Seven is a far nicer number. There is an order to the list, but this order is principally of visual, not practical use. Flexibility and cohesion are key. We seek to initiate, organise and sustain a non-violent, idea-driven, leaderless revolution whose sole function is to establish a socioeconomic model designed from the ground up to benefit equally all people everywhere. It’s certainly ambitious, but not impossible. It’s just a matter of harnessing desire with the right objective in the right manner.
We are all sick and need to heal ourselves and each other. This process is one of decoupling from the system philosophically, and carefully establishing a new global paradigm capable of allowing wide diversity of opinion and yet fostering cooperation and a sense of common purpose.
“To constantly maximise existing and future technology with the sole purpose of enhancing all life everywhere while protecting the environment.”
What’s not to like?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)