Donna asks…
Do you think a resource based economy is a good solution to humanities problems?
taken from http://www.thevenusproject.com
All social systems, regardless of political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social customs, ultimately depend upon natural resources, i.e. clean air and water, arable land and the necessary technology and personnel to maintain a high standard of living.
Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources rather than money and provides an equitable method of distributing these resources in the most efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude
.
Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; today our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technologies and can make available food, clothing, housing, medical care, a relevant educational system, and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy such as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, etc. It is now possible to have everyone enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities that a prosperous civilization can provide. This can be accomplished through the intelligent and humane application of science and technology.
To better understand the meaning of a resource-based economy consider this: if all the money in the world were destroyed, as long as topsoil, factories, and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we choose to build and fulfill any human need. It is not money that people need; rather, it is free access to the necessities of life. In a resource-based economy , money would be irrelevant. All that would be required are the resources and the manufacturing and distribution of the products.
When education and resources are made available to all people without a price tag, there would be no limit to the human potential. Although this is difficult to imagine, even the wealthiest person today would be far better off in a resource based society as proposed by The Venus Project. Today the middle classes live better than kings of times past. In a resource based economy everyone would live better than the wealthiest of today.
In such a society, the measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon. Our customs, behaviors, and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur.
Today, much of the technology needed to bring about a global Resource-Based Economy exists. If we choose to conform to the limitations of our present monetary-based economy, then it is likely that we will continue to live with its inevitable results: war, poverty, hunger, deprivation, crime, ignorance, stress, fear, and inequity. On the other hand, if we embrace the concept of a global resource-based economy , learn more about it, and share our understanding with our friends, this will help humanity evolve out of its present state.
The Expert answers:
I don’t know where you copy/pasted that from but it sounds like a bunch of ” intellectual look how smart I am bull shit ” to me.
Mary asks…
Would the fact Mr. Obama has agreed to make modest changes in his proposed tax cuts (Cont’d)?
Would the fact that Mr. Obama has agreed to make modest changes in his proposed tax cuts be indicative of more rifts between he and the democrats?
If they can’t agree now, and he’s not even been sworn in yet, how in the world can he keep the promises he made to the American people?
WASHINGTON – Pushed by fellow Democrats, President-elect Barack Obama agreed to modest changes in his proposed tax cuts on Friday after inviting lawmakers to “just show me” ideas for fixing an economy shedding jobs at an alarming rate. Democratic congressional officials said that Obama aides came under pressure in closed-door talks to jettison or significantly alter a proposed tax credit for creating jobs.
Further, Democrats sought inclusion of relief for upper middle-class families hit by the alternative minimum tax. The so-called AMT was originally designed to make sure the very wealthy did not escape taxes, but it now hits many more people because of inflation, despite measures by Congress every year to prevent it from reaching tens of millions of middle-income families.
Congressional officials said aides to the president-elect had agreed to increase the $10 billion originally ticketed for energy tax breaks, although the final total remained unclear. Two officials said at least $20 billion would be reserved, but others indicated it could go higher.
Details were not available, but Obama has spoken in the past about increasing tax breaks for production of alternative energy sources such as wind power. The energy tax provisions make up a small part of a massive economic stimulus bill — expected to reach over $800 billion over two years — that congressional leaders hope to pass before mid-February.
With more than 11 million Americans out of work, Obama pressed Congress for urgent action and said the U.S. is undergoing “a devastating economic crisis that will become more difficult to contain with time.” His warning was underscored by a government report showing that unemployment hit a 16-year high of 7.2 percent in December.
But congressional Democrats are making it clear they want to put their own stamp on the revival plan, despite the inevitable delays. Some Obama ideas, like a $3,000 job creation tax credit, might get scrapped.
Many Democrats aren’t thrilled with Obama’s business tax cut plans and are griping that there’s not enough money in the measure for traditional infrastructure projects like road construction and water projects or for tax credits to promote renewable energy.
Beyond the emerging rifts — and the openness with which Democrats are pushing back against some of Obama’s ideas — is the sheer enormity of crafting such a complex, controversial measure in just weeks. Lawmakers’ insistence on making changes could delay the recovery plan beyond a mid-February deadline declared by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy
The Expert answers:
Yes….
But I’d rather discuss something even MORE basic, let’s talk taxes on a level that a fifth grader can understand…
If the economy is BAD, and the president, congress…It doesn’t matter WHO wants to CUT taxes to STIMULATE the economy….The FACT is, ANYONE wanting to CUT taxes to STIMULATE the economy is working on the (correct) ASSUMPTION that it WILL WORK, and in a free market economy, people who MAKE more money SPEND more money…AND they should be able to KEEP what they have earned…
Instead of the government taking their (my) money AWAY from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have NOT earned it….(social programs).
The MORE the government TAXES, the LESS money is LEFT in the private sector….JUST BY ADMITTING that CUTTING TAXES DOES STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, THEY HAVE ADMITTED THE INVERSE….THE MORE THEY TAX, THE MORE IT HURTS THE ECONOMY….
IS THIS A REVOLUTION FOR THE DEMOCRATIC (party) MINDSET?
IF SO, I’D SAY ABOUT TIME. Then all we need is to get Democrats to admit that unborn babies are human and God belongs in public…I could VOTE Democrat….
I’m not holding my breath on ANYTHING that the new President and Congress do or don’t do, and if ANYONE thinks that all is peaceful between the Democrats, you ARE more naive than a sixth grader….And definitely NOT smarter than a fifth grader.
Ruth asks…
Can someone explain the apparent american infatuation with tax breaks?in light of our crumbling infrastructure?
Is there a disconnect somewhere?
depleted military, health care issues, porous border, need of renewable energy, soon to be bankrupt social security etc..
???
Do you think americans are delusional???
and believe in ignoring spending money on things that are really needed unless its just an ouright emergency and even then just pay for it on a credit card???
thanks sewious..for helping make my point…about americans being delusional. “the military and border are the only things that need our collective attention” LMAO…ROFL.
whose collective attention do other things require? Martians???
The Expert answers:
That’s because the private sector is what runs the economy, and not the government. Private spending vs. Govt spending.
Government can’t help the economy by “spending money on thigns that are really needed”. This spoiled generation always thinks there is something we NEED to buy or spend money on. The best thing government can do with the money it steals from the public is to give it back to them and let them control how it is spent, the public always does a better job spending money than the government. Did you know that out of ever dollar spent on welfare, only 20 or 30 cents actually go to those who need it? Whereas in a church, at least 90% goes to people who need it.
The only big things the government really needs to spend money on collectively is the military, schools, and roads. And even many libertarians don’t support publicly funded roads and education.
There is nothing wrong with the govt giving money back to the people, in fact it is the right thing to do. Especially when you have a government who mismanages how money is spent. The sooner the public has money to spend, the sooner the economy will get back in shape. There are also a lot of other factors, obviously, but the bottom line is businesses need buyers.
Boy Wonder
George asks…
Is there a single intelligent reason to oppose a carbon cap and trade system?
Most people (with the exception of jim z, apparently) agree that an energy bill is necessary to reduce our dependence on oil, increase domestic energy production, etc. I asked a question whether an energy-only bill can be economically justifiable, given that if there’s no way to pay for the programs contained in such a bill, it will increase the federal deficit. Something which in theory, even conservatives oppose.
The only answerer to propose that an energy-only bill could be economically sound suggested merely encouraging utilities to increase renewable energy production through tax credits. Such a method would either fail to significantly increase renewable energy production, would add to the federal deficit, or both.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgPJx9k23Y0iTuVxHPqQm43sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100625112615AAfVn8W
Meanwhile an energy bill coupled with a carbon cap and trade system would reduce the federal deficit while imposing a very minimal cost on the average American family. So I have to ask, why the heck does anybody oppose such a system, other than for purely ideological reasons? Is there a single intelligent reason to oppose a carbon cap and trade system?
Surely even if you deny man-made global warming you can support a bill which increases domestic energy production, decreases oil consumption, reduces the national deficit, and costs the average American family about $100 per year, can’t you?
DaveH – by definition cap and trade reduces emissions. That’s what the cap is. Besides which, we’re talking economics here. Try again.
$100 per family per year is the average. Lower income families will pay less because they use less energy. In fact studies have shown that the lowest income families may even come out ahead by taking advantage of energy efficiency programs in the legislation.
The Expert answers:
I believe there are reasons to be skeptical about implementing a Cap and Trade (CAT) system and only time will tell if such skepticism is validated. At the same time, I believe there are very good reasons why a CAT scheme should be implemented.
On the downside are the brokers who stand to make vast sums of money. In my mind these people are no better than the bankers. They place themselves as intermediaries, deal in something that isn’t theirs in the first place and change a fortune for doing so.
I think it’s highly likely that the major financial markets of the world will empower themselves so that they control the reins of the CAT schemes – in much the same way that many other commodities are controlled. In doing so the market will become regulated by a small few and the trading and price of credits will be controlled by third parties who are only interested in making money for themselves.
In theory, the total amount of equity in a CAT scheme should be a constant amount moving around within a closed system. However, the brokers will eat heavily into this and undoubtedly there will be exorbitant auditing fees and all the costs associated with the implementation and administration of such schemes.
As a consequence, the value of trades within the loop will be eroded thus undermining the whole system, alternatively some form of premium or levy will need to be added to cover the external costs. In short, for every $1 within the CAT system the participants will end up paying $2.
However… if the governments that implement CAT schemes keep a tight control, or hand control to an agency that doesn’t receive remuneration or commissions on trades, then the equity within the system can be maintained more effectively and thus the value of credits will remain close to their original value (less inflation, admin costs etc).
The other alternative of course is to throw the CAT market wide open and make it very easy for the participants to buy and sell credits directly from one another without the need to go through a third party. Thus the cost of a $1 credit is just that – $1, no commissions, admin charges, handling charges, processing charges, procuration fees, costs, disbursements, consultancy fees or other third party parasitic charges.
If, and it’s a big if, the system can be allowed to operate without hindrance within a free market and with a fixed value per credit and where direct trading between participants is permissible then the system should work. But it’s going to take a strong government to stand up to the powerful moneymen and industry controllers to tell them to keep their grubby little hands out of the pot.
What then are the alternatives? Clearly the problem isn’t going to go away and it’s not something that will be addressed through voluntary measures. Many corporations have implemented their own voluntary schemes, this is a step in the right direction and is certainly helping but isn’t going to be anywhere near enough.
Alternatively of course we could just do nothing and deal with the consequences as and when they arrive. We could adopt this selfish approach and let future generations deal with the aftermath of our incompetence and reluctance to take action. This would appear to be the preferred option of some of the skeptics and deniers but perhaps they don’t realise that the economic cost of climate change is already $600 billion a year – and rising.
These costs are ‘hidden’. They’re the extra we pay on our insurance premiums, that additional bit of tax that goes towards flood defence schemes, the bit extra we pay for a loaf of bread because crop harvests half way around the world have failed. We all have to pay these costs and charges but because they’re not in the form of a direct taxation or something that is physically purchases they’re much less apparent.
If we don’t act soon then these hidden charges are going to keep escalating and perhaps in 10, 20, 30 years time when we’re all forking out $1000 extra a year to cover the cost of climate change we may look back and wish we’d acted sooner.
Another option would be one of direct taxation – a financial impediment imposed on businesses, goods, products, services and calculated based on the size of the respective carbon footprints. Given the track record of many governments, this would be little more than a tax raising exercise with much of the money raised being used to subsidise other areas of public spending.
Then there is the option of geoengineering – physically removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or implementing a scheme (or schemes) to reduce the amount of sunlight that is converted into thermal radiation.
My own feeling is that this is the avenue we should be pursuing. Not some crazy scheme that tries to replicate nature or interferes with the complex climatological processes of our planet, but a simple scheme that removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere; the amount removed being equal to the amount we emit.
Such a scheme would take time to implement and time is something we don’t have. As an interim measure CAT may be the best option, it has the potential to be a fair system but could so easily be abused. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not actually moving toward a solution, even if it were to be introduced, we would still need to make very substantial progress in other area such as alternative fuels.
Sandra asks…
Can I get or find people to fiance a wind turbine for my home?
I have search long and hard for grants and places that gives loans for renewable energy. There are no grants for individuals and the loans are just to refinance your home to pay for one.
I would like to purchase a 10kw turbine to proved all my electrical needs and even sell some to the electric company. I have called around and most are asking for 70k to 100k for building, preparing, and permits. I live in the middle of no where USA so it cost more to have supplies ship to me.
Even the tax credits would not help. The tax credit only pays 30% of putting it up.I am a disabled veteran so money is tight.So if anyone has any ideas on how to raise the amount needed to purchase one it would be greatly appreciated.
Final thought- If the government really wants us as people to help with energy and a cleaner earth they have to bring down prices for us lower class people so we can afford wind solar or other renewable energy‘s tax credits are good if your rich enough to afford the up front costs to buy them.
I live in Oklahoma we do not have that stuff. I have done a month of research. So I have looked at all government site’s and a lot of of .org site. I have hit a dead end and hoping a well of person would give me a low interest loan or even a grant.
Please no fraud! If you really want to help me please have a real link. I will not answer to responses where you have a email link, then when you send me a reply it asks for all my personal info. I may be in need of help but I am not in need of having my identity ripped off. Thank you.
please help me im begging
The Expert answers:
Here is a web site for a federal program. I don’t know if it will fit your situation. Http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=US48F&State=federal¤tpageid=1&ee=1&re=1
This is the main page that leads to the one above, your state may have grants or a loan program in addition to the one from the feds. Http://www.dsireusa.org/
I live in Wisconsin and got a grant for almost $12,000 from the states Focus on Energy program for my wind turbine. I had to take out a home equity loan for the rest.
Thank you for your service to our country.
I did some checking over the past few days and I did find a few banks/credit unions but they are charging 10% interest or more. This is almost as much as they are charging for unsecured debt and they will only loan a small amount, equivalent to less than 6 months of your gross income. If you can swing a refinance on your property that would probably be the least expensive way to go with the banks being nervous right now about anything out of the norm.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers