Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 21st, 2011, 6:06 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:The capitalist system has serious drawbacks, and I would welcome a step away from it, but how exactly are you going to fund large projects?... You can't just keep saying that we should have a resource-based economy instead of a monetary system, unless you can state how you'll run this economy.


Ok, heres a description of what an RBE is and how it works (Going to be hard to explain all in one post, i'll try keep it on topic for now). I must add, that TVP is not just about a moneyless society, it is a complete rehaul of society, the types of people society produces, and structure as we know it. My main concern is the problems faced when getting the ball rolling and transitioning to this. But when implemented, I've yet to see an issue in theory. I'm sure you'll be able to help me there. (There could be exceptions with smaller countries who might want to stay independent, but the "big players" would all have to agree - the logic being that once the ball gets rolling, the smaller countries would see the benefits and willingly join up too.)

First of all, every nation has to agree to declair: that all earth's resouces are now commen heritage to all human inhabitants. All nations must truely unite, the end of seperate nations - artificial bounderies. If there was something like a pledge of allegiance, it would be to the enviroment and all the people living in it. Anything less then this will end up creating the same problems over and over again.

Based on scientific method, here is how the logical reasoning for industrial production methods would unfold:

Step 1: Survey all planetary resources, in every shape or form.

With this information, industrial production is always adjusted to compensate for any scarcity, along with the most mathematically appropriate raw material distribution, based on availability and its most relevant application.

Any scarce resource is immediately addressed by seeking alternatives and substitutes.

This info can be obtained, by real-time electronic feedback coming from all resource "sectors" of the planet, fed into a central computer database that monitors any growing scarcity or problem. This idea of world resource monitoring is not far fetched: In fact, the US military and Pentagon already have satellites and ocean monitors for defense. These instruments could easily be re-oriented for the purpose of environmental monitoring, rather than human monitoring.

Step 2: Decide on what needs to be produced, depending on priority ranging from bare neccessities (such as food, water, shelter etc) to utility based production items (raw materials, automated machines, technological development etc) to production items used for non-utility based purposes.(Entertainment Media, Radios, Musical Instruments etc)

What do we need? This is a very tricky question, besides food, water and shelter, most on the planet today have no idea what they really want or need, because they have never been informed about the true state of technology. What we think we need, is a result of the state of society’s awareness of technological development.

For instance, a person 300 years ago might need a needle and thread to fix a torn shirt. Today, they would think they need an electronic sewing machine…but… more accurately, what they really need is a kind of shirt material that doesn't tear easily or at all. Someone who has dust in his or her home would think: "I need a vacuum cleaner". Are they sure? Perhaps what they really need is a household pressure system, that does not let dust to enter or is equipped with electrostatic air filters that removes what little dust there is and destroys air born bacteria, or something, it's just an example. In other words, if we critically look at what we think we need in a material sense, we can begin to see that needs are always changing.

Science and technology are like "barometers" of utilitarian human need, therefore all products that are created should be as advanced as technologicaly possible. Our current monetary system, which generates wasteful, outdated products constantly just to keep industry and the economy going, does not have the ability or the desire to produce the most advanced tools for our use. This is because the majority of the products produced would not even exist if industry focused on what would best serve the needs of society.

Step 3: Optimization of production methods - maximizing product lifespan.

If I was going to build a desk for myself, I would try to make sure that desk would last as long as possible. This makes sense, right? If the desk breaks, that means I would have to build another one, at the cost of more materials and more labor. It would seem logical that everything produced in society would have the longest possible life span that is technically possible.

Sadly, the exact opposite happens in our current system, because the monetary system thrives on multiplicity and planned obsolescence. Without it, the whole economy would collapse. This mechanism of the monetary system is so detrimental. In a saner world, we will make things that last.

The optimization of production methods is about using the most powerful materials and methods, while making the most long lasting and effective products. Human labor is not only currently being replaced by machines because it is cheaper within the profit system, but machine labor is also waay better than human labor, and output statistics have shown this - Industrial productivity increases when machine labor replaces human labor. This is ofcourse no surprise, a machine does not get tired and it is always more accurate and consistent than a
human, mechanically. Efficiant labor automation, coupled with scientifically managed resources will allow for a scarcity-less environment, which could even be operated by only a very small fraction of the population.

Step 4: Distribution methods for human access.

Distribution methods would also depend on the state of technology. For instance: production could eventually become so streamlined, that a product is only created when the request is made by a person in need. Anyway, warehouse like distribution centers (Kinda like a library), along with automated delivery would be the most simple way for now.

Also, since there is no money used in this system, there is little need for a person to hoard their items. There is also no reason for a person to steal something that is available to everyone… and they certainly couldn't sell it. :P

Realising that all goods in a RBE are designed to last as long as possible, the "consumer culture" values that exist today would also be outgrown. (Not to mention the outgrowth of all of the other value distortions imposed by advertising today, which make people feel greedy, inferior or inept due to what they do and don't own.)

Advertising would not exist in this new system, outside of general product information available to people who think they might need it. To get a product, a person would likely go online, search for the item's function, select the item and request it. It would be available for pickup or delivery soon after.

Step 5: Optimized recycling of those products that eventually become obsolete or inoperable.

This step starts at the production stage, as each product designed has had incorporated into it the consideration of recycling in advance. Ideally, everything produced would be sustainable and recyclable. This consideration would ensure that obsolete products would be reused, reducing waste, to the maximum extent possible.

Also, when you buy a new computer: how much of the new computer is physicaly updated compared to your last? Alot of it remains the same, there is no reason items of this nature could not just be updated, keeping their original casing, screen, keyboard etc. They could be designed to have slots for updating things that will likey be updated someday in the near future.

Well that covers alot for now, I would like to make a post about how education and infostructure would be handled tomorrow.

Any thoughts, comments so far?
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 21st, 2011, 7:22 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:The western power dams were largely the result of work done by Bechtel, working on Corps of Engineers projects, but still a private consortium. Without capital and profit there would have been no Bechtel. Without Bechtel, there would have been no Bonneville Dam or Hoover Dam. Without those dams, there would have been no electricity to produce the aluminum that wen into those 90, 000 aircraft each year.


I'm not saying money wasn't useful, I don't see it that way. I understand and appreaciate that.

I see it as social evolution. Money was the best way to do things up untill a cirtain point. Thanks to it, we now have the technological means to provide all basic needs for everyone and then some, not to mention how this situation would lead to an explosion of innovation like never before.

But the monetary system is now holding back this technology from providing what it is able too.

In the words of Albert Einstein:

"Ultimate automation…will make our modern industry as primitive and outdated as the stone age man looks to us today."

In the words of Thorstein Veblen:

"If the country’s productive industry were completely organized as a systematic whole, and was then managed by competent technicians…to maximize production of goods and services instead of, as now, being mishandled by ignorant businessmen…to maximize profits, the resulting output of goods and services would doubtless exceed the current output of goods and services by several hundred percent."

The next logical step is to phase out the monetary system, or we go down the same road time and time again, we already know where that leads.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 21st, 2011, 7:32 pm 

Whut wrote:
CanadysPeak wrote:The western power dams were largely the result of work done by Bechtel, working on Corps of Engineers projects, but still a private consortium. Without capital and profit there would have been no Bechtel. Without Bechtel, there would have been no Bonneville Dam or Hoover Dam. Without those dams, there would have been no electricity to produce the aluminum that wen into those 90, 000 aircraft each year.


I'm not saying money wasn't useful, I don't see it that way.

I see it as social evolution. Money was the best way to do things up untill a cirtain point. Thanks to it, we now have the technological means to provide all basic needs for everyone and then some, not to mention how this situation would lead to an explosion of innovation like never before.

But the monetary system is now holding back this technology from providing what it is able too.

In the words of Albert Einstein:
"Ultimate automation…will make our modern industry as primitive and outdated as the stone age man looks to us
today."

The next logical step is to phase out the monetary system, or go down the same road time and time again, we already know where that leads.


I don't mean to be confrontational, but you're simply repeating stuff from sites that repeated stuff from sites . . ., well, you see what I mean. Should you not be giving us your own ideas and thoughts rather than some canned spam? And, what is the source for the Einstein quote? Old Albert knew next to nothing about automation. If you want to know something about the possibilities of robotics and automation, I have provided a link to Raj Reddy's thought a few years back.

http://www.rr.cs.cmu.edu/IEEE%20paper%2 ... ociety.pdf
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 21st, 2011, 7:59 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote: I don't mean to be confrontational, but you're simply repeating stuff from sites that repeated stuff from sites . . ., well, you see what I mean. Should you not be giving us your own ideas and thoughts rather than some canned spam? And, what is the source for the Einstein quote?


Fresco and Keyes - Looking Forward - Barnes - 1969 - p. 43

Don't people simply repeat stuff from other people that repeated stuff from other people in their own little way becuase it makes sense or is logical to them. . .

...you know what I mean...

I have spent a long time looking into this and thinking about it. I already held many if not all of the same premises and reasoning that Jauqe Fresco and TVP do. I used to be wrapped up in conspiracy crap, but now i don't care, because it's so obviously there on such a huge scale, i've learned what i needed, i'd rather point people to causes and solutions not problems now. To so many fundamental* extents, the way things are is a complete joak, I hate to say it and I wish it wasn't, but it really is. I was gobsmacked after looking into TVP more and more how in line with my thinking it is, it helped me greatly in being able to communicate my thoughts about it (You have no idea how hard that is for me. Especialy when speaking to educated people like yourself.)

I'll check out the automation link.

But I'd like to know what you have to say about my post before that one... you know, the one with actual content, regaurding a comment you made.

I feel like alot of very key and un-avoidable points, if one is serious about this, are being over looked all over this thread - over trivial things.

Ofcourse I wont be suprised if your link concludes with something along the lines of "the capability is there to do these things, but the >>>COSTS<<<* prevent it."

...

We'll see.
Last edited by Whut on June 21st, 2011, 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 21st, 2011, 9:13 pm 

its Dr Einstein not 'old albert'.

he preferred to be called dr
granpa
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 21st, 2011, 9:23 pm 

granpa wrote:its Dr Einstein not 'old albert'.

he preferred to be called dr


I don't give a rat's patootie what he preferred; he's dead. Moreover, English is my native tongue, so I called him "Old Albert," not "old albert."
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Mossling on June 22nd, 2011, 11:22 pm 

newyear wrote:a lot of aid is pumped into third world countries, but nearly all of it ends up in the pockets of those ruling. So, perhaps a big obstacle would be to change all those polical systems that do not play your tune.

Beyond maintaining national security and defending oneself from invasion, I can't see how other political entities would be of a concern if all the basics were acquired domestically?


newyear wrote:if an individual is given something for nothing, like food and shelter, the initiative to find these basic needs will be lost. That is, when, for whatever reason, food and shelter cannot be supplied the individual will react against those doing the supplying.

Are we mere 'basic resource obtainers'? It seems you are making some assumptions about humans here which are a bit skewed. As if the 11 guys put out of their hole-digging job by the 12th guy with the JCB would be so inflexible in their social roles that they would just hang around causing chaos.

newyear wrote:What one must take into consideration is that labour is used as an exchange for food and shelter. If this point is lost, and there is a break in the supply chain, problems with security may be worse than it is today.

I agree - depending on the cultural climate. That doesn't mean it has to be that way. There is still a possibility that a society automated to the degree whereby basic necessary resources are highly abundant and free of charge can exist healthily, right?

Does anyone think that the UK, with it's Welfare State - free hospitals, job-seekers allowance, disability allowances, incapacity benefits, free schooling, etc., could step-up it's automation (if necessary) to the point whereby it would not have to rely on it's parasitic activities outside of it's borders in order to sustain a 'free existence' for all?

There is this idea that the UK could, at this moment in time, if they wanted to, turn their attentions away from military and capitalistic exploitation of less fortunate nations, and harness technology within their own borders to deliver the equivalent (and more) benefits for their population. It's just that there is a system in place which provides more potential gains at the expense of others to those who presently have the power to keep that system in place.

Is there presently a big perceivable resistance to automation in the West?

It's interesting to note that that robot farmer was exhibited in China.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 23rd, 2011, 7:26 pm 

Mossling wrote:It's interesting to note that that robot farmer was exhibited in China.


Mr. Woo doesn't build robots that farm, he is a farmer who builds robots.

We've had automated farming here in the US for some years now. It's very economical, but it damages the land. It leads to monoculture crops, heavy use of pesticides and herbicides, and soil compaction. From a sustainability point of view, we're probably wiser to move toward labor-intensive farming similar to what we had in, say the 1910s. Take a look at Wendell Berry's The Unsettling of America for a more cogent argument than I can make.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 23rd, 2011, 8:20 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:We've had automated farming here in the US for some years now. It's very economical, but it damages the land. It leads to monoculture crops, heavy use of pesticides and herbicides, and soil compaction. From a sustainability point of view, we're probably wiser to move toward labor-intensive farming similar to what we had in, say the 1910s. Take a look at Wendell Berry's The Unsettling of America for a more cogent argument than I can make.


Hydroponics: Less land. No soil. No monoculture.

This is how TVP will grow food.

Take a look at this video for an example of automated hydroponics being used today.



Catherine Mortimer is a vertical farmer at Paignton Zoo. The robotic system uses hydroponics to grow plants for the zoo's animals. It allows the huge number and variety of plants that the animals need to eat to be grown in a compact space.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 23rd, 2011, 9:07 pm 

Whut wrote:
CanadysPeak wrote:We've had automated farming here in the US for some years now. It's very economical, but it damages the land. It leads to monoculture crops, heavy use of pesticides and herbicides, and soil compaction. From a sustainability point of view, we're probably wiser to move toward labor-intensive farming similar to what we had in, say the 1910s. Take a look at Wendell Berry's The Unsettling of America for a more cogent argument than I can make.


Hydroponics: Less land. No soil. No monoculture.

This is how TVP will grow food.

Take a look at this video for an example of automated hydroponics being used today.



Catherine Mortimer is a vertical farmer at Paignton Zoo. The robotic system uses hydroponics to grow plants for the zoo's animals. It allows the huge number and variety of plants that the animals need to eat to be grown in a compact space.


Yes, you can deal with many problems by using hydroponics. I see two problems however: you need an external source for nutrients (no, the nutrients are NOT recyclable); and you can't grow a decent watermelon hydroponically. Without watermelon, I see no reason for continuing civilization and would advocate nuclear annihilation.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby subhendu on September 13th, 2011, 7:41 pm 

Isn't money less enough? Do we need resource management?

Where do we get the money? The money is originated by the central bank (CB). Only this bank can print money. It can print as much as it wants; whenever it wants, and give it to anybody it wants. It does not cost anything for the CB to print money. The CB prints money out of thin air. Thus money is free for the CB. We call it free money.

This bank controls economy by controlling the supply and distribution of free money. By controlling the economy the CB controls the government. If economy fails, people fail, and the government fails. The government of your country does not have any control over this CB. The CB is not accountable to anybody. It is a private bank, and therefore CB is the most powerful dictator.

Since money is free, we really have money-less economy (MLE) now in our world. However, the money is not free for all the people of the world, it is free only for the CB. We show how we can run the same economy without this money. Thus the idea of the MLE was originated by the capitalism and the CB.

In MLE we get all our products and services free. Therefore we also work free.
subhendu
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby edy420 on September 13th, 2011, 10:16 pm 

An entirely Resource-based economy seems a bit too much for today's society to handle.

Ok so the basic needs for man are plentiful, but restricted by the power and control of money...

But how do we deal with precious resources that aren't in large supply, like gold toilet seats and the fastest cars.

If I really wanted to, I could save up and buy a gold toilet seat and the fastest car, but in a resource based economy the chances of acquiring such items would be next to impossible from my small town in my small country.

Who would want to send a gold toilet seat to a Maori man in New Zealand, when they can sit on their own gold toilet seat in their big house in their big country... they'd probably just keep mine around as a spare instead of sending it to me.

(sorry about the ramble, if I find some time later, ill translate it into some kind of philosophical points that relate to the OP :P )
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby freeUsAll on February 20th, 2013, 3:03 pm 

Hello, this is my first post!

I want to take this oportunity to say hi to all who read this. I'll also see if there is somewhere to post a greet.

I signed up to this forum specifically after searching on this topic because I want to find a way to implement this.

My discussion is not weather it's possible, I'm certain it is, weather it's better or worse is a no-brainer for me. Yeah, there might be issues with it, as there is any system, but.. think about the guiding principles that shape decision making. I think the main objective is human survival and evolution, not natural preservation. Dont get me wrong, I love nature, because it is part of humanity, so, making sure humanity thrives would also protect nature.. I just dont want to see humans further de-prioritized. We are the first on the list, and this should be put to rest once and for all, to allow us all to now evolve.

Right, as I said, I want to get this moving... it's all very well to discuss and argue about weather it's possible or not but that wont get us anywhere, as mentioned above (and I'll probably get corrected), but, I reckon the general consensus when the Wright Brothers were investigating their flying machine as "it's impossible for man to fly". Also, they had whatever monetary support they could get ( I dont know the details).

This topic, if you ask me, and saying "it's not possible" is just like those flaming anything new and not "accepted as the norm". It is possible, and will happen, we can be a part of it and get it there quicker, or we can watch, laugh.. and then be proven wrong. It will take longer to get underway though.

The main priority of this system, or ideal, is not to be thwarted or destroyed. The powers that be do not want any such system as it removes control from the few. This IS the only reason it has not happened already.

I sugest those who are willing to put this in motion say so, please pm me, or post here, I have senior web programing experience, and to be honest the two most important aspects of this will be interface tools, along with comunication, idea sharing, project building, and then actual robotic system control programing, we could use say python as a start.

Before we keep saying "it can't be done", think of linux the OS, what that started out as? now, how many users does it have (remember, it's no exactly commercial), how many dedicated individuals?? not really gaining much except the code they produce and the cudos. How many diferent variaties? how many lines of code? hours of work put in. If something so advanced as an OS can exist, a community can for sure begin the foundations of the resource based economy society.

This can be done, we now need to path the way to get it done!
thanks!
freeUsAll
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby moranity on February 25th, 2013, 6:41 pm 

hi FreeUsAll,
indeed, it seems to me open sources software is a fine example of an anarchist economy.
moranity
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Mossling on February 25th, 2013, 11:14 pm 

I'm really glad this thread has been 'revived' because I had forgotten all about it. I had even forgotten what my stance had been about - probably because we all arrived at a kind of dead-end with regards to the human condition and what we understand humans all ultimately seek in order to satisfy themselves. In recent months, however, I have been 'enlightened', so to speak, by some social psychology studies which apparently clarify what the present situation is on our planet with regards to ideals, social striving, and material wealth.

The overarching issue appears to be one of irrational materialism vs alleged perverted idealism - I know that sounds like a headache just to digest when one reads it, but it can be explained very easily.

Dr Tal Ben-Shahar "received his PhD in Organizational Behavior from Harvard University... [and taught there also], where his classes on Positive Psychology and The Psychology of Leadership were among the most popular courses in the University's history". Here is an example of one of his lectures (his computer breaks at the beginning, lol, but go forward to 18:00 for the start of the proper lecture):



Ben-Shahar has written some pretty cheesy (in my opinion) self-help type books - no doubt to appeal to the widest possible audience, which is understandable, but the general theory and trajectory behind them - precisely the same as was taught in the Positive Psychology course within the last decade at Harvard - focused on rigorous studies regarding what makes people happy in the long-term, and how to acquire more happiness in our lives - illustrates a society hooked on an irrational materialist ideology. The idea that wealth above $10,000 a year brings more happiness has been refuted by scientific studies.

For example, in May 1996, Dr David G. Myers, at Hope College, Michigan, now a professor of psychology, and the psychologist, professor, and author Dr. Ed Diener (then at University of Illinois), published a paper in Scientific American titled: The Pursuit of Happiness (pp. 54-56). The article includes the following graph showing the average income of individuals in the United States against the recorded population's satisfaction over more than 30 years:

Image

So there is this myth that increased wealth (or any material gain) brings long-term happiness. Of course, like any gain, the novelty wears off - a new iphone, romantic partner, house, car, whatever - familiarity breeds contempt so to speak, and each new material gain sets the benchmark for the next one as our appetites adjust and we gain a 'tolerance' for lesser gains - it becomes an ever more difficult task to satisfy one's cravings as life goes on - ultimately ending in burn-out (Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, etc.?). For example, what evidence is there really to indicate to us all that Wall Street bankers are truly happy? A photo of them smiling? That's not enough of course, and even though we often swallow this as some kind of evidence that these people are the most 'successful' in our society, science is pointing out that their huge wealth has very little to do with any happiness they may be experiencing.

Happiness does not tend to increase as wealth increases as one moves above $10,000 dollars a year. So the issue is not necessarily material - it is ideological. This in itself is enough to rebalance the resource-distribution issues we see in modern societies - greed no longer becomes a rational behaviour or aspiration. People then look in a different direction to find what Ben-Shahar called the "ultimate currency" - beyond money - constantly increasing lifelong happiness as one gets closer to one's rational ideals.

Ben-Shahar talks of a cleaner in a hospital - a menial job with very low reward. The hospital cleaner can be miserable - undervalued and unsuccessful in life; not being able to enjoy the extravagances they see in movies and magazines and in shops all around them, even though they may earn, say $10,000 a year. However, not all hospital cleaners are like this - some are cheerful and talk with patients - if they drop the irrational materialist aspirations and consider themselves part of a system which cares for and heals people - contributing an essential and appreciated effort to something wholesome and deeply useful to society, then they can enjoy their job and have high self-esteem - especially if they find ways to meet that role more efficiently and effectively over time. It all depends on aspirations - materialist vs idealist.

The human condition is made much clearer by the social psychology studies - that there is something we all seek - this "ultimate currency" - happiness - and it does not lie outside of us beyond satisfying basic food and shelter needs and freedom to make choices about our family's future. The key lies within the ideals we choose for ourselves - the higher the better, and how we behave when we fall short of those ideals - how we accept failure as we seek to improve ourselves and our society (Ben-Shahar goes into all this in detail in his books and lectures).

There are deep repurcussions for political and economic situations - for example, Ben-Shahar says he is a staunch Capitalist - the issue so often made with Capitalism and Free Markets is that it benefits the greedy and wealthy too much, however with the scientific evidence that wealth and greed do not bring lifelong happiness comes a new kind of Capitalist society - free markets creating new, better products for a popoulation un-concerned with amassing ridiculously high amounts of wealth.

Returning to the main theme of this thread - appetites for product variety and unequal resource distribution vs social equality, it seems that with this narrowing down on what makes us humans 'tick' so to speak - constantly increasing happiness through getting closer to healthier social ideals - money is no longer seen as some kind of essential social concern. Indeed; if a resource-based economy, delivered by effective automation of all essential resource procurement, provided the equivalent of what the basic $10,000 a year in earnings covers, then humans would very likely be able to live harmoniously together in Capitalist Democracies while they pursue their worthy ideals.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Mossling on August 21st, 2013, 1:10 am 

*bump*

Any reflection on this?
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Previous

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests