Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    21st Century Ideas: A natural resources based economy

    Replacing supply/demand economy with economy based on natural resources spend

    Started by: fransgaard Raves:6 Badge Winner! Multi-Capitalism

    Subscribe » RSS

    I wonder if you could base an economy around something like an enhanced, personalized carbon-neutral scheme. So things would be prized based on what natural resources they use rather than supply/demand. So each individual person can only “buy” as many points natural resources as they put back in the system. In effect being in balance with nature.

    This is interesting - something that struck me as a change between my grandfather and me is that when he had a thing that broke, he went and had it fixed because labour to repair it was relatively cheap and materials were relatively expensive. Now, if I have a thing that breaks, it is almost certainly cheaper for me to throw it away and replace it instead of trying to get it fixed (setting aside any ethical objections to waste). The raw resources required for thing with intrinsic use - such as a boot - can be quite low; you cold make something like a boot from raw leather but it would not be very durable (or comfortable). I think a useful addition to this system (though heavens knows how you would do it) would be to account for the resources that were not consumed because a skilled person made something durable - with then did not need to be replaced for longer.

    I think this idea has fantastic potential! You can only get out of a system what you're putting into it. At the same time, everyone will need to be able to get a basic amount out because we cannot expect those who have no home or are starving to produce initially. One issue is- how do we organize the entire system? Is it possible to do it from the bottom up?

    We are a definatly part of a consumer driven world. Anything that can take us back to making more use of what we have and appreciating those things is excelent. Whilst I can see much objection to this from those with the most money to loose, this is definatly going to benefit the individuals. This is a brilliant idea.

    An interesting idea. Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute, if you don't mind. Say you have two manufacturers of a certain product, A and B. A is exploitative, greedy, and uses the most eco-unfriendly means to produce their product. B, on the other hand, uses very sustainable, green manufacturing techniques. However, because of their concern for the environment, their product is more expensive than A's. No let's say I am a poor single mother ofthree children, and all three need this product.. say it's a pair of shoes. How are you going to encourage me to buy the more expensive product? You could add a eco-tariff to A's product to increase its price to the same level as B's product, but that just means I, the poor single mother, have less money to buy other things my children need. Now you are going to implement a new rationing program whereby I am only allowed to buy according to what I put back... it is a good idea, I honestly feel. But who decides what each person's contribution is worth? The current economy is based on the perceived value added to a product or by a service. How do you set a "unit value" to this new currency? Oh... and, Neochick, it's "lose," not "loose."

    well fransgaard, though it is a very creative and helpful idea, the economy can´t be based on something that excludes supply and demand. You see, they are not a choice we took and decided we would base ourselves on this model. To assign scarce resources to ever growing needs necessarilly calls for supply and demand, not only for the relationship consumer-distributor-producer, but in all kinds of aspects.

    and i very much agree with zephyr40k, lets imagine it also from the other side, if i were to make a certain product, certainly i would give it to whom gave me more for it (be it a currency, or points) again, supply and demand. You see the market always finds its way around it all.

    it is still cheaper for me to fix my kids boots with shoe goo than it is to buy new boots. Skill sets and DIY is everything in a situation where you cannot be bogged down by things you dont need or cant really use. The ability to discern the true utility of an object is a gift, an d the reason that talented traders still want for nothing.

    "Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute, if you don't mind. Say you have two manufacturers of a certain product, A and B. A is exploitative, greedy, and uses the most eco-unfriendly means to produce their product" Well, the idea is that eco-unfriendly means would be more expensive as everything would be valued on their toll on the eco balance. Forget the conventional idea of money. I do take drpeppa's point on supply and demand, but even so something more eco-balanced would be worth more than something that is not simply because of the drain in your own pockets

    "But who decides what each person's contribution is worth? The current economy is based on the perceived value added to a product or by a service. How do you set a "unit value" to this new currency?" In the end it has to be a global council setting up values based on some kind of eco-balance measure.

    "something that struck me as a change between my grandfather and me is that when he had a thing that broke, he went and had it fixed because labour to repair it was relatively cheap and materials were relatively expensive." This reminds me of something afriend told me recently. She went to this speech about this idea of everything had to be returned to the store it came from so the materials could be re-used. Say you bought a pair of shoes for £100. you then return them when they are ruined or you get fed up with them and get £80 back. Effectively you pay for the use, not the materials.

    ...line breaks would be nice in this forum ... :-D

    There are a few of other perspectives that need to be included when one starts thinking about economics. Value derives from several factors, amongst them are: how important is this thing to me; and how difficult is it to get. Consider oxygen, it is vital to everyone, yet in most circumstances it is very easy to get, so has no value. It is only in very specialised circustances, like when under water, or when required in higher or lower concentration than the 20% found in the atmosphere, that it becomes valuable. Consider also, that eco-friendly applies mostly to the production and distribution of physical products. Most of the economy is now devoted to non-physical (knowledge) products. It is true that many of these have an impact on the environment, and it is also true that none of them directly damage the environment in their manufacture. It is now true that the economy can grow indefinitely without causing any more environmental damage (and can even lessen environmental damage - as smart ways of doing things become cheaper). Consider the idea that none of us are born into the world as nothing. Each of us comes with a physical body, composed of many parts. Each of us grows in a culture, that contains knowledge derived from the activities of countless people over eons of time. We accept this and take it for granted. What if we developed a set of technologies, such that every individual also came into the world with a set of machines that could meet the physical needs of the body, and train the mind up to masters level in any discipline of that person's interest or choice ? What would that do to the concept of economics? That is the thesis behind UIET superstruct (http://www.superstructgame.org/SuperstructView/416 ). If it appeals, come join it, rave about it, propose it for badges, tell everyone you know about it - and let us make it happen.

    "Most of the economy is now devoted to non-physical (knowledge) products. It is true that many of these have an impact on the environment, and it is also true that none of them directly damage the environment in their manufacture." Interesting, yeas that does complicate things signinficantly when it comes to creating a measure for this.

    well yes, it is value that is appreciated and therefore "bought". Though the creation of value is also important to consider in this matter. I think fransgaard is mostly refering to value not veing "valued" (damn this word is very useful) in monetary units but in a sort of eco-friendly-what-you-do-to-better-this-planet unit. In which case, this would be the new "money" (a measurement of value). forgive me if I am utterly wrong fransgaard, it may be I am getting this quite wrong. In any case, I think the point of this discussion is that producers and consumers would be incentivated to be friendly to nature... It is very sad to see that even in this times, individual greed is ever more powerful. For units, points, dollars, whatever all fall within the adquiring capacity of value, and when it comes to value the more, the better.




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL