Skip to content

PETER JOSEPH – Blog Radio Lecture No. 2 – A Resource-Based Economy

Resourced Based Economy – An Economic Model

What is an Economic Model?

In the most simplistic terms one could say that an economic model shows variables and the dynamic processing or interaction of said variables to meet production and distribution demands, and anything else generally related to economic functionality. That is obviously a very loose categorisation and definition I have just given, especially if you go back and research the various economic models that have been produced by monitory economists over the past 200 years. There you will just go into a mind-blowing world of risk assessment, statistic behavioural models, interest rate to exchange rate protocols, arbitrage conditions service, vector evaluations, rational choice theory, price equilibrium attributes, and so on (ad infinitum) (fascinating) However as a point of consistency (as we are on the subject) nowhere in these highly intellectualised, sophisticated, novel, creative, and often internally sound structurally logical expressions will you find anything about planetary resources, or the science of creating proper goods. Nowhere will you find anything about longevity, efficiency, of production in the sense of conservation, or creating that would reflect true economic efficiency. This (of course) is the intelligent management of all of our resources, and the methods of mining, culminating, producing and distributing those resources. ZERO.

Virtually all economic monitory models simply revolve around various notions of labour and value, which is an absolutely convoluted concept, savings, interest rates, and again a long string of aforementioned variables which are utterly decoupled from every kind of natural or tangible resource and processes on this planet. The processes, the economic matrixes are nonsensical and absolutely unrelated. They are abstractions of thought using classic linear equations too depict variables i closed finite systems that have numerous presumptions about what they represent when there is absolutely no linear direction, no linear referent to anything truly tangible at all.

If you go to the high priests of modern market theory, Ludwig VonMisis, Ethay Hyac, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith, you find some wonderfully articulate and perfectly sound reasoning, but that reasoning exists within a closed set of variables and a series of presumptions, these huge projections and speculations on human behaviour. Economists, when you break it down, all the individuals I have just mentioned, they are not scientists, they are not basing anything on acth al scientific evaluation, they are simply philosophers. That is all every monitory economic theorist has ever been – a philosopher of the means of production ad distribution. They are not scientists in the sense that they actually had a physical referent to balance and test their models. In fact if you look at the criticism that Hyac, Misis, Keynes, and all of the others when they are criticised, they tend to fall back on the same basic set of defences which are more or less comparison oriented. For example they will say (I have heard this countless times – when anything is brought up about problems with the market system, such as rampant poverty, abuse and slave labour), they say “you know what, say what you like about poverty, conflict, but history has proven that capitalism and the monitory structure has created more wealth and efficiency and high quality goods, and quality of life than any system that we have ever known – so there.”

No. The only thing that has created prosperity in the human population, the only thing that is responsible for human development in the growing population which has been growing exponentially, the only thing that has created a higher standard of living o this planet, are in fact two things: The advent of technology, and the discovery of cheap hydrocarbon energy. That is it. That is what ha s driven this seemingly advanced society, which is actually quite i reverse when you look at it. The quality of life for most human beings is actually in reverse right now because of this exact same system. For the exact same reasons that gave the illusion of prosperity to begin with. This system has in fact run its course. What you are seeing has been a cosmic delusion. It has been a complete coincidence that technological innovation coupled with the emergence of an abundance of energy that is cheap all over the planet has coupled with the advent of this economic system called the market system.

Now I know right now, all the monitory indoctrinated individuals that support this system will be chomping at the bit right now on the edge of their seats gioing “but wait a minute, the reason we have had progress in technology is because competition has motivated that progress”. Well – is that really true? Is there any evidence for that, really. Have any of the major contributions of technology come from people that have been outspoken about their interest to make money off of it? I don’t think so. If you research Daniel Pink and his work on motivation, which is basically a compilation of numerous psychological studies about what it means to be creative, verses to what it means to be mechanical, you tend to find that creativity and hence technological innovation is actually driven NOT by competition whatsoever. On the other side of the spectrum it is very very clear at this point that technological innovation is now currently being hindered by the market system and the values and the processes therin, with the need for scarcity, with the need to maintain establishments. We have such profound technology today sitting on the sideline, that it will not come to fruition because it will override existing establishments and it is simply not profitable to create the type of sustainability that these new technological advents create.

So three points:
1. The greatest contributor is the scientific innovation have to done it for money, and you can research that thoroughly
2. Psychologically motivation is not driven by competition for creative invention.
3. Right now we live in a state of social evolution within market theory that is actually hindering technological process because of the very dynamics of the system itself.

Monitory economics exists in the same form it has always existed as nothing but a religion. It is based on closed presuppositions which are essentially immutable in the eyes of those who practice it. Going back to Adam Smith and the “Invisible Hand”, what the hell is that? The Invisible Hand – that is it? You have to be kidding, is there any way to test this invisible hand, no, not at all. It is a presupposition of some sort of monitory god and it is absolutely insane. It operates wit circular reasoning in a closed mind lock just like any other type of religion. It is absolute blasphemy, of course, when you choose to articulate anything out of the presuppositions of that belief system. Now please note that I don’t mean to be insulting towards those minds that I have mentioned VonMisis, Hyac, Friedman, who were very brilliant individuals within the confines of the variables they chose to acknowledge. Just like there can be very brilliant individuals within any religion, within the confines of the philosophy that they choose to accept, while they blinker out everything else. But the bias is so transparent. I have a book by Ludwig VonMisis called the Anti-Capitalist Mentality. Now, just the name of that, just wreaks of outrageous presuppositions and arrogance, does it not? The very statement “the Anti-Capitalist Mentality” presupposes that anyone who is against the capitalist system, or the market system, must be of a particular form of preconditioned mentality, and therefore any objective intangible open conversation is immediately void, because it is just a “mentality”. If that isn’t religious stigma, I don’t know what is. Now I want to be clear here, because if you read the Misis work in the defence of the capitalist system by many works, by many different economists, they actually support it very well within the confines of the argument that they choose to recognise.

I want to clearly point out that the Zeitgeist Movement and The Resourced Based Economy, what our angles are, what our problems are, are in fact very very different from any other objection to the economic theories put forward. While certain there are overlaps, ours is explicitly different, and I have yet to hear any economic rebuke of anything we say that isn’t simply a projection of earlier arguments which they feel have have already debunked. It is nothing more than a religion and I want to make sure everyone thoroughly understands that. When you approach somebody that believes in these (market) ideas, you have to understand that very often you logic will be cut off because they will blinker out information in their in their own schemata wether they are even conscious of it or not. That is the power of belief, and unfortunately some people really will never understand rational associations because of their prior conditioning in life. (but that is for another conversation)

Once you understand the ground up approach of a Resourced Based Economy it immediately makes void all notions of prior economic theory, because it simply does not make any sense otherwise. The difference between monitory economic theory and a Resourced Based Economy is that we are actually taking account of what sustains life, we are actually taking account of raw materials. True economic theory can only manifest from the properties of all raw materials on this planet, coupled with the processes that organise and navigate the mining, production, distribution, updating, waste recycling, and all other attributes required to maintain stasis, abundance and hence sustainability.

Now for the sake of this discussion I am not going to talk about human values, or human wants, I am going to simply leave it under the arbitrary distinction of “demand”, and that is it. Demand as an abstraction. I want to point out very clearly that it doesn’t matter if we are talking about the human species or the species of cattle, of vegetation, every attribute of this model holds true in and of itself in the foundation of its logic. Obviously, though, within the human species, we have an advanced society with transportation, extensive energy requirements, so that will be taken into account under the guise of demand in a very general sense. But I want to reiterate the point that in order to understand this model yo have to remove yourself from the equation in he most direct sense. It does not matter what you want, if the earth can’t provide it then your needs are invalid. It is bad enough that everyone in this culture is conditioned to a value system that pushes forward a GDP driven economic structure that requires perpetual consumption to fuel employment and to hence fuel survival of people. Not only on the sustenance level (I don’t mean consumption so people can go eat, and they eat and consume) I mean that it requires material consumption rampantly to keep this idiotic machine going, so everyone can go to their stupid jobs and they can come home with their dollar bills, and then support themselves with the necessities of life. That is the driving factor that will lead to the demise of this system. (that is only one segment of that detrimental cancer attribute)

By the way, what I mean by stupid jobs (since I threw that in there) in case that is misinterpreted, I mean that any job that does not have a direct relationship to contribution for society, meaning it does not actually create something tangible that it will improve people’s lives. This would of course include advertising, Wall St., the entire monitory enterprise, not to mention the service industry, where I believe roughly 70% of all kiosk jobs waiting jobs, could easily be replaced by automation right now. Not to mention how it wastes people’s lives to be stuck in those positions, when they could be educated to actually create and to contribute to society. The majority of monitory based labour requirements are not based on production of anything tangible for social concern, they safe based merely on keeping people doing something so they can get purchasing power to keep the entire thing going, waste of life, waste of resources, lack of contribution.

The foundation of a Resourced Based Economy is the recognition of the life ground. The life ground is a gestural distinction to refer to the attributes of human survival that are without opinion, and are immutable, empirical and cannot be challenged by cultural relativism or any competing ideology or theology. The life ground is really simple and has multiple levels.

The first level (if we are to give it such a distinction) you have, clean oxygen rich air is required for us to survive. We have the need for clean water, the human body is about 60% water.
Human Nutrition, every human being needs an ideal amount of calories, proteins, minerals, vitamins, all of which can be quantitatively assessed on average to meet balanced and optimum health.

The next level of this life ground has to do with social functionality, not just the physical requirements needed to service, but what society needs to maintain itself in an optimum way. Human beings cannot survive alone we are intrinsically social organisms. I know we often talk about how there is no human nature, but we relate this to behaviour. There is a very real human nature on a physiological level. One thing that has become clear in out human studies is that humans are intrinsically social. If you were born into an environment but you never had any form of human contact you would die. This is an amazing realisation and it goes to show how we are not islands, we are social, which means we exist as a social organism. We cannot survive in a vacuum in the development of a human being.

So society itself reflects a collective social organism in the most complete scientific sense. The manifestation of that social organism occurs in our infrastructure. Transportation infrastructure, and of course what we know as industry today. The mining of materials, the process of putting them together into component attributes, the process of production, of needed goods, to the efficient distribution of those goods, to the assessment of periodic demand and the change of demand, replacement of goods and keeping things updated, to the recycling of broken down goods after their life cycle, and the reusing of those materials in the most i the most efficient and waste-less manner we can come up with. So the social life organism (if you will) requires that we intelligently manage every single resource on this planet in order to maintain society. We could live in a hut somewhere, under a tree and just pick berries but that is not really a social life, unless you had a small hunter gatherer tribe. Obviously that is not what we are doing. And obviously in that case you will still have to manage your resources in exactly the same philosophical model.

So the intelligent management of the earth’s resources is priority number one to maintaining a society that wants to sustain itself. If there is any goal that I hope we have is to sustain ourselves. I hope people do want to leave a good earth for their children, and their children’s children. To see the longevity of the species and the cold empirical goal for any organism is the survival of the species in reproduction.

So before I go on I want to summarise these two brief points. he single human organism requires food, air, water, and nutrition. The social organism requires the intelligent management of all resources. Put together very simply we have to manage our resources in the most efficient way we possibly can. That is the basis of survival, and that is the basis of a resource based economy at the very core, and as I will proceed to describe, everything is based explicitly on the preservation and intelligent management of those resources. Those two life ground issues taken into account, which is really one life ground, if you think about it clearly.

Lets now think about the Resourced Based Economy design. Yes, a Resourced Based Economy designed centrally planned just like an automobile is designed to work in a system, you don’t take a bunch of parts and shove them into an “automobile” and give them fee will and let them decide if they want to operate or not based on how much gain they are going to get from some other other component of the car. A true system has to emerge on this planet to govern human society, there is no other choice. There is no opinion or cultural relativism to that whatsoever.

Step one, a full survey of all planetary resources related to the life ground one and we that we just discussed. We cannot crate system of operation without understanding what we have to work with, and the limitations of those attributes. These would be considered the economic variables in our economic model. Or more specifically, the core economic variables, because there are other variables that are process orientated. And the matrixes that are created, are about the organisation of these variables and how they relate to production and distribution in the most exact numerical way, meaning for-shadowing possible scarcities, depletion, efficient use of materials in a strategic way which averages out the best possible application of specific raw materials for specific production processes.

In other words, and this brings me to my second point, it is the application of systems theory to the management of earthly resources. We are crating a system. It should be pretty obvious the necessity of this how any one could argue this I have no idea, but very simply again, it is a systems accounting, and a systems approach, to eventually production and distribution which I will cover next. We have out earthly survey, we have a system to govern it, which is easily doable through technology today and sensor systems. Modern corporations already have a great of this information, they simply hoard it. They don’t want people to understand corporate secrets, they are proprietary. I can assure yo that mining companies for example know the basic amount of diamonds or other materials they have at their disposal to a certain degree. So please don’t pawn this off that it can’t be done. Tracking earthly resources is being done, just not unified in any particular way and it is certainly not complete because there is no intent to do so. So there is no reason for people to do so outside of their own self interest for the corporation.

The next point: Production. This is also explicitly self evident and does not fall victim to cultural relativism or human opinion as well. Production operates in a preservation model just like anything else. because the very process of production is energy intensive and resource intensive. Naturally again preservation is key, except preservation and efficiency work on a few different levels when it comes to production. on the lowest level there is the science behind what it means to produce and culminate any given good. There is also taken into account the negative retroaction of the process itself. If you have a process that does something very well, but it produces a great deal of pollution, well that is something that needs to be dealt with in a quantitative model to figure out how it balances out as far as the variables. Naturally we want to limit pollution at all cost. Naturally anything that is produced, we also want to have the greatest longevity, that is also utterly rational in the system. Naturally we need to have an intellectual design attribute to anything that is made that can foreshadow a relevancy or obsolescence that might occur within the culmination of the component technology where rather than having to throw the entire item away when it is obsolete, you actually update the item. This is very critical to the sustainable design of future goods. Likewise, and this is another active dynamic variable of this economic model just a the ones that I have just expressed, is that you have to take into account depletion rates of material that you are using, and in the event that it is discovered that a particular component mineral is in depletion you would find substitutes. You would work to hybrid substitutes or to find other existing substitutes, and you would offset that possible decline before any type of problem emerges.

I think everyone can see where I am going here. There is a set of objective variables, given our goal to be sustainable, and as clean and as efficient as possible, that makes all of the actions self evident. Another level off this, to throw another attribute that is of a higher level beyond design and use of the resources themselves, is the locations of the physical factories, the physical centres that create these goods. It would be utterly irrational to have the core component attribute on one continent and the production facilities on another continent, and distribution and demand on another continent. Yo would have to find the most linear balance between those three attributes to limit the amount of energy required to move any of that stuff around. This is just basic fundamental preservation theory (if you will) and is self evident. So I am not going to go into a huge list of component attributes that would be taken into account, from negative retroactions to design protocols to efficiency to recycling (another very important one), we want things to have built into it the ability to break down, the ability to be reused. So those attributes are built directly into the item, and foreshadowed as such, so when the component is turned back in for recycling, whatever can be utilised again, it is done so as efficiently as possible to reduce the landfills that we see today that do to have to exist whatsoever.

That leads me to the next level, distribution itself. Production and distribution both relate of course to public demand. Demand is easy to assess through public consensus. And once demand is set in motion for any particular good, it is easily trackable within the system just as it is tracked today in any major department store, whenever inventory runs low, they are tracking it and they put in orders for more inventory. The exact same process is essentially at work here, with no need for the need for tracing of money sequences, or the use of money or the monitory system to track demand. Now it is important to point out that the concept of value in a Resourced Based Economy of any particular good can only relate to the possible scarcity of the resources that comprise that good coupled with the complexity of the production of that good. So their physical reference, not what yo see in the monitory system today, for value is specifically invented, based on a number of nonsensical attributes, often vanity oriented or falsely assumed scarcity of specific design or what have you.

Now I also want to point out that in Jacque Frescoe’s work, once the efficiency mechanisms put into place which governs a Resourced Based Economy, and the efficiency mechanism is throughout the entire thing, and I all elaborate not this in the distribution model more in a second. The abundance created by the efficient use of resources, which would reduce the production/consumption alone by a substantial percentage and would be enough alone to create what we call an abundance on this planet for all the worlds people. When we say abundance, sometimes people interpret that the wrong way. Obviously the planet is finite, obviously there is only so much copper. Nano technology offers some amazing prospects, but this is about resource management under the assumption that that we do have finite resources that are immaliable to a certain degree. Back to Frescoe’s awareness, if we simply intelligently manage everything all the worlds people can benefit and live in an abundance. (a respective abundance) excluding gold plated toilets and 70 room mansions on 700 acres for everybody. This irrational statement can be extrapolated to any movie star with two jet plains on his front lawn, or someone who owns 50 cars, to say that is “freedom”. No, it is irresponsibility.

So demand is assessed, goods are produced, the efficiency mechanism works throughout, Keep that term in mind to, the efficiency mechanism as an economic variable. That is a decent statement to refer to the general and overall approach to how every attribute of the economic system functions. When it comes to distribution, there are more or less three ways to (as I understand), you have delivery of the goods to your self, which can be done very efficiently without the use of humans driving trucks and delivery services, the U.S. Postal service or U.P.S., through vacuum systems that will sends goods directly to your home. We have sewerage systems attached to our homes and so such infrastructure in many varied possibilities on multiples of layers are just as possible. There was a great individual who described the sewerage system as the intestines of the city, or social system, a great metaphor to keep the collective feel going as a reference to an organism. So when you design the cities, you design mechanisms of transport right in, either above ground or below ground, to eliminate the red for human delivery services. That is a very basic logical thing. Everyone gets deliveries and everyone sends out waste.

There is another attribute of the city system (this is a bit beyond the RBE economic model in specifics) but waste would operate in exactly the same way. You wouldn’t have trucks driving in and lifting up dumpsters. Waste reduction would built right into the system. In early New York buildings they had incinerators, and people would take their trash (unhealthy practice) and they would dump and it would go to an incinerator. I the future you would have standardised packaging. Every box would be made of a particular decomposable material that would could probably be decomposed in your home. so you not only have a dishwasher, in your home you will have a decomposition machine that can decompose every form of packaging material used for transport right there. As such an outrageous amount of packaging has been reduced with such an organic compound which is decomposable in your home. This exists now, it is to mass produced because of various financial reasons. Building things into the system is called systems design, such as delivery, waste reduction, and when you have waste that can’t be decomposed it goes into a mechanism where it goes somewhere else. The city system design is a little bit different than the Resourced Based Economy economic so this has been a bit of a tangent.

That is one form of distribution, and you can have distribution centres, which can work in a few different ways. Using our efficiency mechanism is to have what you consider as a rental arrangement. Obviously if you have a television set you acquire the set and the demand is tracked and you keep the set, or the screen or whatever the advanced technology, (I doubt these will be necessary in the future – replaced by very malleable forms of screes or projector systems), whatever that good might be, if it needs longevity, if it is something you choose to have for extended period, then you do that. If it breaks you return it for recycling (which I will go through in a moment). Say you want something temporarily, maybe a high quality video camera, well you get the camera and use it as you need to, and then you return it. No sense in storing anything which has only very limited use. This is the efficiency mechanism, which is creating a world where everything made is utilised. Same with automobiles. Everyone having a car is insane in this American culture. There are references to the comparison of capitalism to communism saying that in capitalism everyone can have a car but not in communism, then those cars sit idle for most to their use. So the resulting pollution, noise pollution, traffic pollution, (reference to absurd traffic jams in New York and Los Angeles). So this efficiency mechanism can apply to every attribute of distribution. One thing I haven’t mentioned is regional access, for example you want to go to a lake to use a boat, for fishing etc., well (today people rent boats) you would book its use use it and bring it back, in a RBE they are for those who want to use them. The same for sports goods, you just use them on site. If every was to look the things that they store and then realise how little they use them, and all those items do not needy to be stored individually, but made available for collective use. Te best quality will the only available option for longevity and durability in such a way to provide for everyone who wanted to use them when they needy to use them. This then reduces tremendously the multiplicity in duplication of goods that are now created over and over again. The waste reduction itself of that practice alone will bring an accessible material abundance to so many more people on this planet.

Now very quickly before I go on I do want to bring up certain practices, that are associated with this model, even though they are not intrinsically built in, but they do have a relevance. For example food accessibility. Right now everyone has a kitchen in their home and they tend to eat in. In fact it is a staple of saving money to eat in. But you tend to find that the culture prefers, at least in many areas, to eat out. To eat out from a structural standpoint is much more efficient than to cook food yourself. To make food in mass is always more efficient, than to make food as an individual. So the restaurant going phenomenon will carry over except it all actually be an efficient practice and it all not cost money, it will save energy, and save food resources and eliminate waste for people to actually go to community oriented eating areas, or so-called restaurants.

So distribution, in summery is through a checkout system, a delivery system, or simply an acquisition system, and it is made available, it is tracked, the abundance is allocated, and (again) the basis is on the intelligent usage of these goods just like the intelligent management of the materials that the goods consist of, wether it is in the form of eating at a restaurant that is making food in mass, or it is in the form of not saving things that you actually use every day, and you return them to facilities where other people can have access to it. And by the way, when people hear stuff like that, they imaging going to a distribution centre and getting some beaten up broken thing, and they have to make do with it. No? Things are designed to last and things are designed to work, anything that doesn’t work is updated and fixed on a constant basis. It is a very different paradigm, we really have to remember that every attempt at any form of centralised system has always worked within the monitory system one way or another, and always had to cut corners to produce anything. Of course there are very few real centralised systems that have ever occurred in history. The best is all that is created. The highest efficient, best, most strategic, most strategic created products are all that are ever created, so keep that in ming when evaluating these ideas

I can’t reiterate this enough, it is through these preservation and strategic processes that will crete an abundance for all the worlds people. Thee is a lot of misinformation out there about the Zeitgeist Movement, the Venus Project, and a Resourced Based Economy regarding the promotion of abundance because they don’t understand what the mechanisms are that will alleviate the pressures in the current system to allow for an actual abundance. What we see today is only fragment of could occur if strategic management is put in place as far as accessibility, energy, and the advanced models for creating renewable systems approach energy which can reduce intermittency, which can harness super capacitors, there is a whole string of technological advents that can be talked about, but that is not the subject of this conversation. But suffice to say it is through preservation and strategic use that an accessible abundance will be created for the worlds people so everyone so everyone can live a healthy life at a high quality of living, reducing all kinds of conflict, mental neurosis, psychological neurosis, and all the structural violence of poverty and everything else.

The next level as I have already alluded to recycling protocols and updates when you buy a computer console, you don’t just throw the whole thing away when it becomes obsolete. If companies do not manufacture them so they are complicated enough so you take it in some where to get replacement parts. You have an interchangeable just like an automobile as Jacque would always reference, you would simply just pull out the engine and put a replacement engine lock and load. Things like this in the advent service is required you make it as efficient and easy as possible. You want interchangeable parts, you want universal components. Reciently they came up with a universal phone charger, why don’t we do this with everything. Of course the capitalists will argue that it reduces competition and innovation, but that is simply nonsense. As I have already denoted, if people want to be motivated to have the best they ail work to create it not for themselves but fro everyone else in society. So updating goods and recycling, everything is designed to break down correctly, with the least amount of extended breakdown and the least amounting polluting attributes. We move to decomposable material, not materials that are simply inexpensive to produce that sit in landfills for thousands of years because they can’t decompose. I think you get the train of thought. It becomes quite self evident on a per case basis.

With those general attributes described, and I hope that has been relatively clear, we can talk about labour and the replacement of labour with this economic system. In a certain sense isn’t related to the “economic model” at all, because the economic model is completely physical. Labour is (sot of) an assumption that is made which basically will be done intrinsically by automation because of the technical processes and the elimination of all of the excess jobs that don’t fulfil any type of social role. Does that mean that there isn’t a need for people to do something, obviously people will be doing lots of things. Most of them will be working to engineer, to create better efficiency, to create better goods. To take new technologies and apply them for the betterment of everyone, and this will happen. It is really sad to see the conditioning in this culture, where everyone just (literally) loose motivation when they don’t have monitory gain because what as been created. They become aborated, they get home rom work, and they don’t want to do anything, because they don’t gain anything from their work, they have a high stress level, they might loose their job, of the general temperament of the prop;e they work with are also in fear of loosing their jobs, you can see why the psychology is what it is, and why many people who hear of this (new) system will say “If I don’t get paid for something, I certainly not going to work”, well in many cases that is true for them because they have been aborated into that psychology. It don’t have to be that way. That is an unfortunate thing. We have to undo what the monitory system has done on that level, and it is a difficult value system attribute to overcome.

Contribution to this (new) system, once this type of efficiency mechanism is put in place (this economic systems variable component – needs to be repeated constantly) the amount of human labour required to maintain the system is actually very limited on a mechanical level. You will have oversight of the factories, that are producing things through robotics, and mechanisation, which we have vast capabilities of. Cyber-nation of the industrial complex is going to happen one way or another, and I am not going to talk about technological unemployment beyond the fact that it is very clear during this economic downturn, that every major sector is moving to technological mechanisation because they seer the efficiency of it. They see the need to downsize. Everyone is struggling in this system, (except Wall St. – all the none fro the bailouts all went to the wealthy elements of society, the investment community – the unemployment sliding up, efficiency continuing to slide down all the barometers of economic health sliding downward – and yet the stock market goes up – such an absurd illusion)

The RBE model is based on deliberate mechanisation of labour, and not only is that intrinsically important, from the standpoint of reducing human stress, and the basic human well-being, it is also provably more efficient than human labour. That is the thing that I have pointed out in numerous lectures, the more mechanisation has increased, the more efficiency has increased, the more unemployment ha increased the more efficiency has increased, meaning technological unemployment. The more employment drops, in a given sector the higher the efficiency is due to the application of technology. I am offering to technological unemployment most of all. So that again becomes self evident. It is literally illogical and impractical for us not to apply mechanisation to reach an optimum state of production. So that is a given as well. It is to an opinion and is what the trends have foreshadowed, and we should lock on to this and love it for the emergence of what it actually means to the change of human society, and what it means for an elevation of human beings.

It is just profound to think what could happen if we actually moved forward with this direction from just the quality of life. Technological unemployment is not going to stop, as have mentioned. Mechanisation is going to continue for the sake of profitability of corporations. However what isn’t discussed, as these corporations do this. is that they are displacing people, they are reducing purchasing power in every community. This means there is less money for people to go out and buy the goods they are making through the mechanisation. So it is a self destructing phenomenon. It is one of those things that occurs in entropy (if you will) that is unstoppable. It simply proves the false nature and the fact that this system has run its course. It is that simple, it is outdated by the advent of in development, of modern science, technology, and just the phenomenon of human evolution, and development itself.

I have gone through the basic attributes of this (new) economic model in a very logical way, I haven’t been too quantitative about it but when I do create the knowledge base entry I’ll try to be much more extensive. I was actually hoping to be more extensive in this presentation, but I am unfortunately strapped for time. Frankly I think really if you understand what I just expressed, which is really just the tip of the iceberg as far as the overall specifics, as you might imagine. I didn’t even go into the central computer data base, or the specific methods of assessment when it comes to evaluating (say) energy, and what to use. Then again, the efficiency mechanism, if applied, shows the self evident nature, based on the general goal of maintaining a sustainable world. It doesn’t take voting, opinion, or government of any accord to understand this. Human behaviour is of course a problem, as it is easy to see that we have become very distraut as a species and very suspicious of each other but that is an entirely different, cultural problem. It has nothing to do with the behaviour of the economic system from the standpoint of sustainability. So while this may seem like an abstraction to many people (they may say “what about the use of terrorism, or fear or security”) these are temporal cultural attributes. They are not real. What I have discussed is real in a sense that is the most longevity. The cultural problems that we have are secondary. We have a long ride to overcome the cultural issues (I absolutely agree with that). But that doesn’t change the way society should be governed in the most sustainable and efficient manner.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: