Talk:Resource-based economics

From Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Jump to: navigation, search


Sometimes RBE is said to stand for "really bad economics". Nathan Larson (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (MSK)

Two RBEers walk into a bar. One points at the other and tells the bartender "I'll have what he's having". Nathan Larson (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2013 (MSK)

Comments by RBErs

If scarcity still exists, it's only because we are trying to profit from it. It's not real scarcity but assumed scarcity. And the only way it will always exist is if we continue with the monetary system.

Perhaps the largest misunderstanding about a Post-Scarcity system such as RBE is that we are not saying everything will be infinite, just that technology outside of a monetary-market model is capable of producing an abundance of goods (and of access) that are essential to human needs, while also providing the tools to create/customize specialized products for individual enjoyment, etc. The logic of property rights becomes irrelevant with sustainable and efficient technology.

There will always be finite resources, but if managed properly, everyone can have abundant ACCESS to resources, which negates the need for property as seen today. This is where free market advocates do not understand the RBE model, they read one paper, or one article and think they have the whole thing figured out.

You still have property in the sense that you will have a home. But if you want unlimited property (capitalism) then of course you would advocate a different system.

The RBE model is typically advocated by those who recognize that the whole planet needs to have equal opportunity. Free market advocates are generally selfish and desire nothing more than survival for their selves and their families (something I personally see).

People who advocate free market capitalism, also don't understand human psychology or sociology very well. And typically make no attempts to understand it, as to otherwise preserve their beliefs in a free market. As if they were to come to an understanding of sociology and psychology within a market system, and equally be moral people - they would have to change their minds.

This is called - cognitive dissonance.

The idea encompasses so many aspects of life -- people read one thing and immediately go to an association fallacy, or think it's some pigeon-holed utopian senate bill that "if we could all just vote this in" it'll take hold and change everything. No, in order to do that, we have to change EVERYTHING - including a puppeteer political system, and the idea of forcing ideas on others through legislation.

What flabbbergasts me is the frequent accusation that I "don't understand psychology/sociology/'human nature', which is fucking hilarious because I spent years studying psych and soc, not only in school but in independent research as well. As for 'human nature' it's a nonsense term to describe what people don't understand about human behavior. It's similar to the 'god of the gaps' argument in theology debates. If we don't understand it or have no explanation, it must be 'god did it'. The same is true of 'human nature.'

It's massively misunderstood, the ignorance or some to assume they know all about it without thorough research is unbelievable, especially for those who consider themselves intelligent.

I think what it is, outside of what I just described, is that they don't understand how an economy/way of life like RBE could exist, so beyond all the fallacies and equivocations they have about what it actually is (i.e. 'abolishing' money and property, universal socialism, etc.) they don't wish to investigate it further because they believe the premise is too unrealistic.

the other argument I get sometimes is "I don't need to understand human pathology, just how economics work." -I always retort with "But if your social system is designed to make people happy, vs make money. Then how can you say you don't need an understanding?" - typically causes cognitive dissonance again lol

It's amazing how similar creationism and free-market mentalities are. a lot of them are Christians lol I've seen that as well, where the market = god.

With ancaps in particular, its obvious when talking with them that they have ascribed all negative human behaviors to the state, and all positive aspects to the market. Therefore, no state = everybody happy!! And then they tell ME I don't understand the psychology of behavior...

Leucosticte (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (EST)