12345...10...


About RBE | THE RESOURCE BASED abundance ECONOMY

The term resource based economy was coined by Jacque Fresco in The Venus Project as the name for what kind of economic system he envisions in the future. As there is a lot of talk about technology, design, architecture and the like this website tries to discuss the term resource based economy from a human perspective based on existing and possible future values on this planet. When this website was formed, one found almost nothing about a resource based economy online in spite of the websites of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement. This site was made to remedy that. Still, the term resource based economy can be replaced/overlapped by many other terms.

Resource Based Economy (RBE), Natural Resources Economy, Resource Economy, Moneyless Economy (MLE), Love Based Economy (LBE), Gift Economy (GE),Priceless Economic System (PES), Trust Economy (TE), Voluntary Collaborative Economy (VCE), Sharing Society, Resource Based Society, Moneyless Society, Love Based Society, Ubuntu, etc. etc. It is all the same thing. It doesnt really matter what we call it, as long as it has the basic notion of an economic system where no money is used, ownership and trade is abandoned and replaced with usership and giving and all resources (both human and planetary) are shared and managed properly. On this site we will mainly use the term Resource Based Economy. We could add Gift in the title (Resource Based Gift Economy), to emphasize that on a local micro level, we need to simply give and share our personal resources, while we at the same time, on a global macro level, manage global resources.

This site is dedicated to the development of a resource-based economy (RBE) on our planet. Here we can fantasize, visualize and imagine what RBE can be like in all aspects of life. From questions like Will there still be coffee shops, and who would work there? to How can RBE be implemented in the developing countries? and everything in between. RBE implies a million questions that needs to be answered before we can make this real. We need people in all categories to develop RBE. A main aim is to get this information out to people so the whole world can start to imagine and picture what a life in abundance without money can be like. This site can be used as a portal for initial introduction to the subject. We allow/encourage respectful duplication of this information.

What is a resource-based economy? Heres a quick definition:

A resource-based economy is a society without money, barter or trade, with the awareness that Humanity is One family and where technology, science and spirituality is used to its fullest to develop and manage the planets resources to provide abundance for everyone in the most sustainable way.

And heres an extended definition:

The continual emergence of a system of self imposed management of human and natural resources both locally and globally where money, trading and ownership is replaced by gratitude, sharing and usership in a way where everyones needs are met.

A resource-based economy uses the original meaning of the word economy, which used to bemanagement of material resources. In addition to material resources, we can put natural resources and human resources. It is a society without money with the earths resources shared where it is needed without any form of exchange, barter or payment. It is not a new communistic approach. Neither is it socialism or capitalism. Its beyond communism, socialism, feudalism, fascism, capitalism or any other ism. Its beyond any social system that has ever existed on this planet, at least in our awareness. In communism the state owns everything. In socialism the state owns something while the rest is privately owned. In capitalism everything is privately owned.

In a resource-based economy the worlds population doesnt own anything, but has access to everything. Anything ever needed, like food, clothing, housing, travel, etc. etc. is provided in abundance through the use of our updated knowledge, values and technology. Theres no state that is the owner of the resources, and nothing is privately owned. In RBE the worlds resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet, not just a select few. RBE is not a society where we will live in scarcity with few resources. It is not a society where a few control and distribute the resources. No, it is a totally new society where we let todays and tomorrows technology be developed to its fullest to work for us, and where we utilize knowledge about nature and technology to provide a life in abundance for everyone. It is a society where we truly have the option to take care of each other instead of struggling to survive.

It is a totally new way of life, unimaginable within todays value system, but still something most people truly long for in their hearts. It is a world where we can call ourselves Free and live with dignity and respect for each other, nature, the planet and the universe. It is a concept where value no longer is measured by money, but rather by the joy we feel, the contributions we make, and the development we take part in. It is a society where we utilize our minds and hearts in providing a healthy life for everyone, developing our knowledge about nature and technology, and using this in the most sustainable way.

Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange, where everything is provided for everyone, and everyone can pursue their own interests and dreams and live in the way they want. Be it moving closer to nature and grow your own garden of delicious vegetables, travel the globe and experience the wonders of the planet, make and perform your own music or collaborate with others to develop a new invention for the betterment of society. In a society where we dont have to think about money and profit, we can truly develop ourselves and the human race into something completely wonderful.

The monetary system doesnt work anymore and is obsolete. This is obvious when you look at todays world with increasing unemployment, financial crisis, endless consumption producing endless waste and pollution, not to speak of crime and wars. You could say money has outplayed its role on this planet. It produces greed and corruption through the profit motive we are all a slave to. The economy is falling apart, and everyone seems to be struggling to get richer and richer or just to make ends meet. The financial crisis has so far made over 200 million more people end up in poverty. Now, about 2 billion people in the world are considered poor. Poor countries that have received massive loans from the World Bank have become much poorer after receiving the loans, because of the interest. And they can only hope to pay it back. The collective external debt of all the governments in the world is now about 52 trillion dollars and this number doesnt include the massive amount of household debt in each country. How can we owe each other so much money??? Because we think we need it.

It turns out that its not money we need. We cannot eat money, or build houses with them. What we need is resources. Food, clothing, housing, etc. Money is just a hindrance in making the resources available for everyone. Imagine if there was no money. Right now. No money. Everything would still be there, wouldnt it? The trees, the mountains, the houses, cars, boats, air, grass, snow, rain, sun, animals, birds and bees and the people. Nothing has changed, really. Why? Because money doesnt really exist. Theres no money in nature. Its only an agreement between the worlds people, made up thousands of years ago as a means to control the world population. Instead of slavery, where one had to feed, house, nurse and guard the slaves, one invented money. With money everyone would have to fend for themselves, while the rulers created the currency, collected taxes and controlled the masses, like they do today.

It was a means of which people could trade stuff that they all needed. Labor, food, housing, etc. If it wasnt scarce, there was no need to charge for it. Like water and air. The rulers claimed ownership to land, and thus became the owners of this land. They could then charge others for using it and for stuff that was produced there, like it is today. And the property could be sold and inherited in the bloodline. Banks became invented, and eventually; loans. And now society has become addicted to it, like a drug. But, like a drug, money is something that we dont really need, we only think we do.

Where did the money come from in the first place? In the beginning it was based on rare metals, like gold and silver, and because of its scarcity it could be used as means of trading, instead of cows, hens, corn and other rather-impractical-to-carry-around stuff. Notice the word scarce. Common rock wouldnt have worked, because everyone would have had it. But today. where does the money come from? The answer is..: Nowhere. The money is not even printed anymore. Only 3% of the worlds money is in paper or metal currency, the rest 97% is electronic. New money today is made by the stroke of buttons on computer keyboards, like the one Im typing on now. And this is also how the banks make loans, and wants it payed back, with interest, which is not created in the system, makingbankruptcy inevitable for many companies, and now even countries.

In other words, debt is money. Its like taking a piece of paper, writing 1 million dollars on it, giving it to a poor bastard and say now you owe me 1 million dollars, and you have to pay it back with a yearly interest of 5%, thank you. This is how, in simplicity, it is done. The money today doesnt really exist. Its just an agreement that the whole world has bought into. And now were stuck in it in lack of a better system. Except, now we have a better option, a resource- based economy.

The economy goes up and down in booms and busts. People are getting rich out of nothing, or being struck bankrupt out of the same nothing. In a depression, shops can be full of what people need, but no one has the money to buy it. We are reduced to consumers, even though we are Human Beings. Governments try to control the economy by adjusting the general interest rate and by other means. We have to consume. Not too much, cause then we get inflation and a new economic bubble. But not to little either, then we get a recession because not enough people are buying the products that companies produce. So, its a fine balance. But really, a ridiculous balance. It leads to a lot of trouble for our selves. Overproduction in boom times, underproduction in recession times, pollution, war, corruption, crime, poverty, and withholding of technology because we have to squeeze what we can out of the oil, and other obsolete technology that gives us.money. Still, technology is advancing further and further and replacing jobs faster than we can say technological unemployment, which in itself is increasing year by year, replacing more and more workers by machines.

Machines are both helping us and taking our jobs. Jobs that are needed to get the money to buy things that the technology produces, so that the companies can get more money, to produce more things that you can buy, if you have the money You see? Its a scheme thats set to bust. But money is not what we really need. What we need is what we today believe only money can buy. We need the resources. We need quality of life. Not the money. The truth is that theres not enough money in the world to buy us out of this crisis, or if there was, the money would not be worth much. Since the world economy is based on scarcity, if there is too much money, they wont be worth enough to pay for what we need, the resources. If there is an abundance of money for everyone there would be no value in the money. Still, thats what the world leaders are trying to do today and has been doing for the last 40 years. Growing the economy and printing more money to pour into the system, so that banks can lend out more money, and companies can pay their debt, with more debt, with more money. Money, the thing that created the problem in the first place. The system is doomed for collapse. This is self evident.

Money and false scarcity makes us steal, lie, cheat, become greedy, corrupt and stingy. Actually, all of the worlds governments and people are corrupt, because corruption is a byproduct of money. Since with money, we are all doomed to think profit. Everyone from a single person to a big company. Everyone need to have some form of income. And the income has to come from someone else. Thus, we get greedy, and corrupt and separated from each other and nature, which is our true provider, not money. Its not people that are greedy and corrupt, it is not human nature, its the system that makes people this way. If there were no money, and we could get all we needed and wanted without from nature, technology and each other, there would be no greed, and no corruption. Human nature is by large a product of the environment. With abundance competition becomes obsolete. With abundance there wouldnt be any need to steal. With abundance we could focus on living our lives and develop society. It is about time we end the meaningless competition and start collaborating.

The real human nature is a collaborating one. Think about it. We naturally collaborate to build houses and bridges, develop software and businesses. Collaboration gives satisfaction while competition gives stress. Of course, we could still compete for fun, in games and sport. But when it comes to the development of society we see that competition only hinders progress. A lot of energy and resources is wasted in the pursuit of competing for market share. We dont need 100 different flat screens, we only need one, the best. In a resource-based economy the technological development will have come so far that we can produce anything specially requested by the individual, and in the highest quality, through the use of nanotechnology and computer based manufacturing. This is not science fiction, this technology is being developed now.

What about incentive? I hear you say. Why would people want to do anything, if it wasnt anything in it for them, like money? Well, I sit here now and write this, not because I earn any money on it, but because it gives me something else. The satisfaction of the feeling of helping people, helping society into a new world, that benefits all. And this is a feeling no money can buy. This, I think, is the reason for most of the worlds new inventions, like the radio, the light bulb, electricity, penicillin, etc. etc. Not money, but the need and urge to create and share with other people, and be a part of what is going on. Its no fun keeping all your creations for your self only. The fun lies in sharing with friends, family and the world.

Why do you do anything? I bet you want to do something in your life that you find interesting and fulfilling in some way, not just because you earn money on it. Most people have hobbies and interests that that they like to spend time on, and where no money is made. For many people, this is their reason for living. For many others, they keep their job because it is fulfilling.If it ONLY made you some bucks, or maybe, rich, you would feel really poor in the end. You would realize that money cant buy you happiness. Maybe for a while, but not permanent. So, its not really money that makes you do things, now is it. Its something else. Fulfillment. We all want to be fulfilled in our lives, and even today, money is only a small part of that.

What if you didnt need any money to get all you want today? What if you could get all you think you want today without any money? Travel anywhere you like, drive cool cars (non-polluting ones!), live in a nice place, have this and that new electronic device, go to concerts, eat good food, relax, study what ever you want for as long as you want, work with what you want, contribute to society, learn a new skill, teach a new skill. What would you do? No pursuit for money anymore But you dont need to own the car you drive, or the house you live in, or camera you use, as long as you have access to it as long as you need it.

Say you want to go on a boat trip. What if you could just book a seat on a boat, and go? Or, better yet, book a whole boat, a yacht, if you will, and sail away. It would be pretty boring alone, so you bring some friends along. Good. What about food? All the food you want is provided. So is clothing. And everything else. None of it is really yours, yet all of it is. Its everyones. It wont be like; hey, I need a pair of underwear, give me yours!. Of course not. There would be plenty of underwear, enough for everyone, in enough different colors and shapes. And boats. The beauty of it is that we dont need to own that boat. When were done with it, we return it, so someone else can use it. In a harbor on the opposite side of the globe, or where we picked it up. It doesnt matter. From there we have booked a car, or whatever vehicle we have in RBE, that will take us further on our trip.

Both the boat and the car is produced with the most ease of maintenance and use in mind. And they can maintain themselves in most ways, including taking themselves to a maintenance facility where other machines helps them with what they need. This way we dont need parking lots stuffed full of cars that are not in use, or harbors stuffed full of boats that are just lying there. There would be a good selection of cars and boats for everyone to choose from in many kinds of designs, fitting your taste and personality. And ALL of them would be yours to use! Not just one or two. They are ALL yours, orours.

There would be produced more than enough of all that people would demand, in fully automated factories and on personal 3D printers. And it would be produced to last. Not like today, where cars are actually produced to brake down, so that they can sell more cars, and keep a whole maintenance industry alive. No, in a resource-based economy there would be no point in making anything in poor quality. In a resource-based economy it would be most beneficial for everyone that every product is of the highest possible quality, and that all the planets resources are managed, developed and protected to the highest degree. And when we go by access rather than ownership, we wouldnt need more than a fraction of the amount of cars and boats and things we have today. Since non of the things are in use all the time, and we share the things we have, we, the environment and the planet will do with a lot less things, and a lot less waste, if any.

In the world today there are plenty of resources for everyone, if they are properly managed, that is. The monetary system makes us compete for the resources on the planet. A resource like oil is continually being pumped up because of the money it makes, instead of researching and developing new environmentally friendly energy, thus continuing to pollute the world. There is a lot of alternative development going on, though, but still, the oil is being pumped up to the last drop. And the green energy is also monetized. Streams, made from the rain, made from the evaporated water the sun is responsible for, are running down the mountain, and then the electricity it produces is charged for by the kilowatt-hour. So is the wind, and the tidal power, nuclear power and every other energy source on the planet today. Making the richer richer and the poorer poorer.

It cant go on like this forever. We have two choices. One is where globalization by corporations takes over, we are all chipped and controlled, and become the sheep that feed the never ending hunger of the few. Actually, this is not far from what it is like today. The interest you pay on your loans pays the interest the rich get on their money in the bank. I.e. they dont have to work, but you do.

The other choice is where money is abandoned and the worlds resources are distributed to where it is needed. This distribution is possible with todays technology. We can have a sensor and distribution system covering the whole planet, making it possible to monitor resources, supply and demand all over the world. We already have this system to a large degree, through satellites and other technology. We can also combine this with input from users.

In nature there is a natural abundance. Everything in nature is there for us to use and develop to the best for ourselves and humanity. It is only when the profit motive comes in everything is distorted. Then crops are thrown away because of profit, and land is overused. When we close the door on money and profit, we can easily produce more than enough food for everyone on the planet. When we take one seed from an apple and put it in the ground, we get a whole tree full of apples after a while. And with that we get more than enough seeds to plant more apple trees. And everything is provided for us by nature, all for free. No charge. And not much labour. We plant the seed at the right place and then it grows all by it selves. It only needs water, light, nurturing and time. And voila, we have apples. And this goes for every other plant on the planet as well. Its all there for us to utilize.

The day to day decision making can largely be computerized and be based on need and our input, with highly developed, self maintaining and self producing machines and robots combined with the loving care of humans. If there is a need and want for housing in a particular area, the houses will be built by machines in accordance to the specifications of the future inhabitants. If there is need for more of a particular food, that will be produced and provided. Already today cars can run by themselves only guided by GPS and sensors. Several hospitals use robots for inventory and logistics. Planes have had autopilots for years and can both take off, navigate and land by themselves. Factories produce all kinds of products faster and more efficient than any human being could ever do. Billions of big and small decisions are already taken for us every day by computers.

Still, politicians makes us believe that they know best what is best for us. Even though they havent got a clue about the science behind it, and what is measurable the best solution for society and the environment at any given time. Politics is not in our interest, it is only a smoke screen, made to distract us from what is really important. We can have a world of abundance for absolutely everyone as long as we skip the bickering of politics and really open our eyes for what we really need and how far technology and science has really come. The technological and scientific development has really passed societys values by far, and its time we catch up.

In a resource-based economy there would be no need to hold back on any new invention. No patents would be needed. Every new development that would be in the interest of humanity would be developed and shared as fast as possible. We wouldnt want or need to pollute the world more than absolutely necessary, if necessary at all. We would develop everything in a way that would maximize the quality of life for everyone. Humans, animals, insects, plants and the environment itself. Technology has come so far today that we can make it do almost anything. Technology is not to be feared. Technology is like a knife. It can be used to stab someone to death, or to cut bread. Technology itself is neutral. Its we who gives it its purpose and meaning. And theres no turning back.

Technology has come to stay. Imagine a life without cell phones, video, mp3 players, cameras, internet, satellites, electricity, modern hospitals, washing machines, cars, trains, planes, computers, lamps, running shoes, running water, loud speakers, windows, steel, dvd players, tooth brushes, dental floss, glasses, contact lenses and what have you. A car plant today is almost 100% automated. So are most other factories. Humans are only kept there to give the illusion that jobs are created and maintained. They are not really needed there. The machines can do all the work with todays technology. Humans are really only needed for some supervising. Technology could probably replace 99% of all human labor in a few years if we want that to happen.

This seems like a sad thing for many, but only if you need a job. In a resource-based economy automation is the liberating factor for people. It is so today as well, until the whole economy collapses, that is. Which it will, eventually. And now, imagine what tomorrows technology can do. Its we who creates it, and its we who will decide what it will do. Today, with the monetary system, technology is used for a lot of destructive development, like weapons. The weapons are largely produced to defend or conquer borders and property, two things that will not exist in a resource-based economy. Weapons are the byproduct of money, the monetary system. War is one of the most profitable activities on this planet. The monetary system produces war, and makes technology to be used destructively. In a resource-based economy with no money, barter, exchange, borders or passports, there would be no reason to produce weapons to defend borders and kill people for property and profit.

We are foreseeing a new worldwide social system where the worlds resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet. A new moneyless society with a resource-based macro economy and a gift micro economy. Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange of any kind, where everything is provided for and shared by everyone. Not uniformity, but individual freedom and expression will be its credo. True unity through diversity, and abundance for all would be its goal. And for ever openness to change and development its reality. Its not utopia, its just a new possible direction for society. No debt, loans,taxes, money, bills, accounting, laws, war, borders, passports, scarcity, stocks, financial crisis, poverty, corruption or hunger. But rather freedom, ingenuity, creativity, positive development, peace, love & understanding (yeah, yeah, cliche, but its true!), personal individual expression, abundance, prosperity, sharing and giving and true Unity for all the worlds people. Call it a dream, call it utopia, call it wonderland, or call it Evolution. This might just be the next step in the development of society.

Yes, the resource-based economy poses a million new questions, its not an easy fix. But its better than what we have. For the first time in history we have the possibility to communicate and collaborate across the planet and develop something that can really change the world. We could actually have a resource based gift economytoday, if everyone simply stopped using money.

We need all kinds of people from all over the world to help imagine and develop this new direction for Humanity together. Everyone from artists to scientists, executives to politicians, organizations to corporations and from citizens to governments. We need EVERYONE onboard on this flight. There is no us and them anymore. We are all in this boat together.

RBE was first brought up by Jacque Fresco with The Venus Project, started in Venus, Florida, USA. It was taken further by Peter Joseph through the Zeitgeist Movement. Zeitgeist means the spirit of the times. The Zeitgeist Movement is not a political or religious movement, but rather a grassroots movement for applied spirituality. Meaning that we seek to implement on this planet the core values of all the worlds religions and spiritual movements, like Oneness, unity, equality and freedom for all people. True freedom can only come when we see all people on this planet as the righteous, equal members of humanity, with equal access to all the planets resources. For this world to exist we have to update our values and views on life and how it can be.

Read and find out more here:

UBUNTU Contributionism

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

http://www.thevenusproject.com

Check also all the links the links page.

We need everyone to know about this new possibility for Humanity.

Heres a list of suggestions to what you can do:

Tell your friends. Send them to this page for an initial introduction. You can use the save/share button below to post on Facebook etc.

Write in blogs and forums.

Write articles and send to media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television, internet) in all countries. Feel free to copy and use as much as the above article as you like. Get celebrities to support the movement.

Get the support of investors, companies and corporations. Dont rule this out, we all work with or for someone, and we are all trapped and want to get out, even corporate executives. There are also many investors that actually want to create betterment for Humanity.

Get the support of politicians. Give them a chance, some might get it.

Start more websites about the resource-based economy. The more we populate the web with it, the faster the message will get out.

Involve yourself in the Zeitgeist movement.

We allow and encourage respectful duplication of this information. Respectful means referencing this source. Thank you.

Link:

About RBE | THE RESOURCE BASED abundance ECONOMY

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems.There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities.Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Read more:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Adopting circular-economy principles could not only benefit Europe environmentally and socially but could also generate a net economic benefit of 1.8 trillion by 2030.

Europes economy has generated unprecedented wealth over the past century. Part of the success is attributable to continuous improvements in resource productivitya trend that has started to reduce Europes resource exposure. At the same time, resource productivity remains hugely underexploited as a source of wealth, competitiveness, and renewal. Our new study, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe, provides new evidence that a circular economy, enabled by the technology revolution, would allow Europe to grow resource productivity by up to 3 percent annually. This would generate a primary-resource benefit of as much as 0.6 trillion per year by 2030 to Europes economies. In addition, it would generate 1.2 trillion in nonresource and externality benefits, bringing the annual total benefits to around 1.8 trillion compared with today.

This would translate into a GDP increase of as much as seven percentage points relative to the current development scenario, with an additional positive impact on employment. Looking at the systems for three human needs (mobility, food, and the built environment), our study concludes that rapid technology adoption is necessary but not sufficient to capture the circular opportunity. Instead, circular principles must guide the transition differently from those that govern todays economy. Pursued consistently, the economic promise is significant and the circular economy could qualify as the next major European political-economy project.

Europes economy remains very resource dependent. Views differ on how to address this against an economic backdrop of low and jobless growth as well as the struggle to reinvigorate competitiveness and absorb massive technological change.

Proponents of a circular economy argue that it offers Europe a major opportunity to increase resource productivity, decrease resource dependence and waste, and increase employment and growth. They maintain that a circular system would improve competitiveness and unleash innovation, and they see abundant circular opportunities that are inherently profitable but remain uncaptured.

Others argue that European companies are already capturing most of the economically attractive opportunities to recycle, remanufacture, and reuse. They maintain that reaching higher levels of circularity would involve an economic cost that Europe cannot afford when companies are already struggling with high resource prices. They further point out the high economic and political cost of the transition.

We looked at the issues to provide a fact base for decision makers contemplating the transition to a more circular economy. The insights of our report rest on extensive desk research, more than 150 interviews, economic modeling, the largest comparative study to date of the employment effects of a circular-economy transition, and deep analysis of three human needs that together account for 60 percent of European household spend and 80 percent of resource usemobility, food, and housing. The research and analysis yielded nine major conclusions.

In 2012, the average European used 16 metric tons of materials. Sixty percent of discarded materials were either put in a landfill or incinerated, while only 40 percent were recycled or reused. In value terms, Europe lost 95 percent of the material and energy value, while material recycling and waste-based energy recovery captured only 5 percent of the original raw-material value. Even recycling success stories like steel, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and paper lose 30 to 75 percent of the material value in the first-use cycle. On average, Europe uses materials only once.

The sector analysis also found significant waste in sectors that many would consider mature and optimized. For example, the average European car remains parked 92 percent of the time, 31 percent of food is wasted along the value chain, and the average European office is used only 35 to 50 percent of the time, even during working hours. And use cycles are short. The average manufactured asset lasts only nine years (excluding buildings).

In total, this way of producing and using products and resources costs Europe 7.2 trillion every year for the three sectors analyzed at depth in this report (mobility, food, and the built environment). Out of this total, actual resource costs are 1.8 trillion; other related cash costs, which include all other household and government expenditures on the three sectors, are 3.4 trillion; and externalities, such as traffic congestion, carbon, pollution, and noise, are 2.0 trillion (exhibit).

Exhibit

In the next decades, the digital and broader technology revolution could have the same disruptive impact on elements of the three sectors we studied as it has already had on many information sectors. The average cost per car-kilometer could drop as much as 75 percent, thanks to car-sharing schemes, autonomous and driverless driving, electric vehicles, and better materials. In food, precision agriculture could improve input efficiency of water and fertilizers by at least 20 to 30 percent, and combined with no-tillage farming, it could reduce machinery and input costs by as much as 75 percent. In buildings, industrial and modular processes could lower construction costs by 50 percent compared with on-site traditional construction. Passive houses could reduce energy consumption by 90 percent.

If these new technologies and business models are so promising, shouldnt Europe just let this development run its course? Probably not, for two reasons. First, the public sector and policy makers strongly influence these sectors todayfor example, through infrastructure investments, public transport, zoning laws, building standards, and agricultural subsidies. If technology deeply changed these sectors, current public interventions might not optimally steer future outcomes at a system level. Europe faces a real risk that urban planning, mobility systems, and food systems wouldnt be able to integrate the new technologies effectively, with much structural waste remaining.

Second, rebound effects will be significant. Resource-productivity increases in the sectors in our study have historically met an elastic demand response. When relative prices decrease, consumers use more individualized transport, floor space, and food. This volume effect for the three study sectors could be 5 to 20 percent by 2030, which would increase prosperity, but, if not managed well, could exacerbate externalities and resource challenges.

With these drawbacks, the study finds, the current development path could decrease the total cost in the three sectors by 0.9 trillion annually by 2030 versus todayor a reduction of 12 percent, from 7.2 trillion to 6.3 trillion.

When well integrated, the new technologies and business models could address much of the structural waste in mobility, food, and buildings and create new consumer choices. Increasing utilization and longevity would have significant economic upside and would go far toward avoiding negative system effects.

The report calls this notion growth within because it focuses on getting much more value from the existing stock of products and materials. Growth within could be an important source of additional consumer utility and growth for Europe. This circular economy would provide multiple value-creation mechanisms decoupled from the consumption of finite resources. The concept rests on three principles: preserve and enhance natural capital, optimize yields from resources in use, and foster system effectiveness (minimize negative externalities).

Pursuing this opportunity in an ambitious way would represent a big shift in Europes economic priorities. Today, Europe has no established metrics for the utilization of key infrastructure and products, for their longevity, or for success in preserving material and ecosystem value. Articles, policy seminars, statements, and targets for these topics are rare, compared with the pervasive focus on improving flows, as measured by GDP.

This report includes indicative benefit curves to suggest how much various circular-economy levers could reduce European resource use and what the economic effects could be. While the results of such modeling are indicative, rely on multiple assumptions, and call for more research, pursuing opportunities that are already profitable or will likely be profitable within the next five years could reduce annual net European resource spend in 2030 as much as 32 percent, or 0.6 trillion versus today.

These resource benefits also come with a significant economic multiplier effect. Benefits in other related cash costs could be as much as 0.7 trillion. Externality costs could decrease as much as 0.5 trillion. This makes the total annual benefit 1.8 trillion by 2030, twice the benefit of the current development path. The current total costs of 7.2 trillion would be decreased to 5.4 trillion.

The modeling also suggests that benefits would continue to grow rapidly as we approach 2050. Regenerating, sharing, optimizing, looping, virtualizing, and exchanging for new and better technologies seems especially powerful.

The modeling for 2030 suggests that the disposable income of European households could be as much as 11 percentage points higher in the circular scenario relative to the current development path, or 7 percentage points more in GDP terms.

The increased GDP results arise from increasing consumption and from correcting market and regulatory lock-ins that prevent many inherently profitable circular opportunities from materializing fully. The results are higher than those reported from most other recent studies on the economic impacts of a circular and resource-efficient economy. For instance, the recent report Study on modelling of the economic and environmental impacts of raw material consumption, conducted by Cambridge Econometrics and BIO Intelligence Service, concluded on a slightly positive GDP impact. The main reason for the difference is that the report assumes a substantially higher pace of technology change in the big product and resource sectors going forward compared with what has been observed in the pastor with the reasons explained abovewhereas most other reports assume a similar pace as witnessed historically.

This project included the largest academic metastudy to date on the relationship between employment and the circular economy. The review of 65 academic studies indicates that, while more research is needed, existing studies point to the positive employment effects occurring in the case that a circular economy is implemented. This impact on employment is largely attributable to increased spending fueled by the lower prices expected across sectors and to the labor intensity of recycling activities and higher-skilled jobs in remanufacturing. But not all would benefit from the economy-wide impact of the circular model on growth and employment. Some companies, sectors, and employment segments are likely to not act quickly enough and would lose out. If European leaders decided to shift toward a more circular economy, managing the transition would have to be a top priority.

A circular economy would decouple economic growth from resource use. Across the three study sectors, carbon emissions would drop as much as 48 percent by 2030 (31 percent on the current development path) and 83 percent by 2050 (61 percent on the current development path), compared with 2012 levels. Electric, shared, and autonomous vehicles, food-waste reduction, regenerative and healthy food chains, passive houses, urban planning, and renewable energy would be the principal sources of emission reduction across the three sectors.

Today, materials and components constitute 40 to 60 percent of the total cost base of manufacturing firms in Europe and often create a competitive cost disadvantage. Europe imports 60 percent of its fossil fuels and metal resources, and the EU has listed 20 materials as critical with respect to security of supply. In the circular scenario, primary-material consumption measured by car and construction materials, synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, agricultural water and land use, fuels and nonrenewable electricity, and land for real estate could drop as much as 32 percent by 2030 and 53 percent by 2050.

The transition would involve considerable costs, such as R&D and asset investments, stranded investments, subsidy payments to promote market penetration of new products, and public expenditure for digital infrastructure. While it is hard to find an appropriate cost comparable for such an economy-wide project, some examples could shed light on parts of the needed transition. For example, the British government has estimated that creating a fully efficient reuse and recycling system would cost around 14 billion, which would translate into 108 billion scaled to a Europe-wide level. The renewables transition in Germany cost 123 billion in feed-in tariffs to renewable plant operators from 2000 to 2013. It remains to be assessed to what extent these costs are additional relative to other development scenarios and to what extent they could act as a stimulus. For instance, the European Commissions agenda for establishing a digital single market and an energy union could create the core infrastructure for a regenerative and virtualized system.

Shifting to the circular model could contribute significantly to achieving Europes growth, employment, and environmental objectives, as shown above. It also offers an opportunity for renewal, with many previously underleveraged opportunities coming into focus. This means Europe could simplify governance and achieve structural reform. In its most ambitious form, making the transition to a circular economy could even become the second major European political economy project, after creating the internal market.

Shifting to the new model starts with acknowledging the systemic nature of the change. All sectors and policy domains will be affected, and aligned action is required. Such a shared agenda could contain four building blocks:

Essential enabling technologies are maturing and scaling fast. Investments in transitioning to a circular economy could deliver a stimulus to the European economy. Europe is in the midst of a pervasive shift in consumer behavior. Business leaders are implementing product-to-service strategies and innovative business models. At least for now, resource prices are easing, paving the way for correcting market and regulatory distortions.

Building a circular economy would require a large and complex effort to address the hurdles and transition costs associated with all of the major opportunities. The effort would require action at the local, national, regional, and global level. The extensive analysis conducted for this report remains indicative and requires further work, but it does suggest that a circular economy could produce significant societal, economic, and environmental outcomes, while acknowledging the transition cost.

Download the full report on which this article is based, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe (PDF2.5MB).

View original post here:

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

About RBE | THE RESOURCE BASED abundance ECONOMY

The term resource based economy was coined by Jacque Fresco in The Venus Project as the name for what kind of economic system he envisions in the future. As there is a lot of talk about technology, design, architecture and the like this website tries to discuss the term resource based economy from a human perspective based on existing and possible future values on this planet. When this website was formed, one found almost nothing about a resource based economy online in spite of the websites of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement. This site was made to remedy that. Still, the term resource based economy can be replaced/overlapped by many other terms.

Resource Based Economy (RBE), Natural Resources Economy, Resource Economy, Moneyless Economy (MLE), Love Based Economy (LBE), Gift Economy (GE),Priceless Economic System (PES), Trust Economy (TE), Voluntary Collaborative Economy (VCE), Sharing Society, Resource Based Society, Moneyless Society, Love Based Society, Ubuntu, etc. etc. It is all the same thing. It doesnt really matter what we call it, as long as it has the basic notion of an economic system where no money is used, ownership and trade is abandoned and replaced with usership and giving and all resources (both human and planetary) are shared and managed properly. On this site we will mainly use the term Resource Based Economy. We could add Gift in the title (Resource Based Gift Economy), to emphasize that on a local micro level, we need to simply give and share our personal resources, while we at the same time, on a global macro level, manage global resources.

This site is dedicated to the development of a resource-based economy (RBE) on our planet. Here we can fantasize, visualize and imagine what RBE can be like in all aspects of life. From questions like Will there still be coffee shops, and who would work there? to How can RBE be implemented in the developing countries? and everything in between. RBE implies a million questions that needs to be answered before we can make this real. We need people in all categories to develop RBE. A main aim is to get this information out to people so the whole world can start to imagine and picture what a life in abundance without money can be like. This site can be used as a portal for initial introduction to the subject. We allow/encourage respectful duplication of this information.

What is a resource-based economy? Heres a quick definition:

A resource-based economy is a society without money, barter or trade, with the awareness that Humanity is One family and where technology, science and spirituality is used to its fullest to develop and manage the planets resources to provide abundance for everyone in the most sustainable way.

And heres an extended definition:

The continual emergence of a system of self imposed management of human and natural resources both locally and globally where money, trading and ownership is replaced by gratitude, sharing and usership in a way where everyones needs are met.

A resource-based economy uses the original meaning of the word economy, which used to bemanagement of material resources. In addition to material resources, we can put natural resources and human resources. It is a society without money with the earths resources shared where it is needed without any form of exchange, barter or payment. It is not a new communistic approach. Neither is it socialism or capitalism. Its beyond communism, socialism, feudalism, fascism, capitalism or any other ism. Its beyond any social system that has ever existed on this planet, at least in our awareness. In communism the state owns everything. In socialism the state owns something while the rest is privately owned. In capitalism everything is privately owned.

In a resource-based economy the worlds population doesnt own anything, but has access to everything. Anything ever needed, like food, clothing, housing, travel, etc. etc. is provided in abundance through the use of our updated knowledge, values and technology. Theres no state that is the owner of the resources, and nothing is privately owned. In RBE the worlds resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet, not just a select few. RBE is not a society where we will live in scarcity with few resources. It is not a society where a few control and distribute the resources. No, it is a totally new society where we let todays and tomorrows technology be developed to its fullest to work for us, and where we utilize knowledge about nature and technology to provide a life in abundance for everyone. It is a society where we truly have the option to take care of each other instead of struggling to survive.

It is a totally new way of life, unimaginable within todays value system, but still something most people truly long for in their hearts. It is a world where we can call ourselves Free and live with dignity and respect for each other, nature, the planet and the universe. It is a concept where value no longer is measured by money, but rather by the joy we feel, the contributions we make, and the development we take part in. It is a society where we utilize our minds and hearts in providing a healthy life for everyone, developing our knowledge about nature and technology, and using this in the most sustainable way.

Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange, where everything is provided for everyone, and everyone can pursue their own interests and dreams and live in the way they want. Be it moving closer to nature and grow your own garden of delicious vegetables, travel the globe and experience the wonders of the planet, make and perform your own music or collaborate with others to develop a new invention for the betterment of society. In a society where we dont have to think about money and profit, we can truly develop ourselves and the human race into something completely wonderful.

The monetary system doesnt work anymore and is obsolete. This is obvious when you look at todays world with increasing unemployment, financial crisis, endless consumption producing endless waste and pollution, not to speak of crime and wars. You could say money has outplayed its role on this planet. It produces greed and corruption through the profit motive we are all a slave to. The economy is falling apart, and everyone seems to be struggling to get richer and richer or just to make ends meet. The financial crisis has so far made over 200 million more people end up in poverty. Now, about 2 billion people in the world are considered poor. Poor countries that have received massive loans from the World Bank have become much poorer after receiving the loans, because of the interest. And they can only hope to pay it back. The collective external debt of all the governments in the world is now about 52 trillion dollars and this number doesnt include the massive amount of household debt in each country. How can we owe each other so much money??? Because we think we need it.

It turns out that its not money we need. We cannot eat money, or build houses with them. What we need is resources. Food, clothing, housing, etc. Money is just a hindrance in making the resources available for everyone. Imagine if there was no money. Right now. No money. Everything would still be there, wouldnt it? The trees, the mountains, the houses, cars, boats, air, grass, snow, rain, sun, animals, birds and bees and the people. Nothing has changed, really. Why? Because money doesnt really exist. Theres no money in nature. Its only an agreement between the worlds people, made up thousands of years ago as a means to control the world population. Instead of slavery, where one had to feed, house, nurse and guard the slaves, one invented money. With money everyone would have to fend for themselves, while the rulers created the currency, collected taxes and controlled the masses, like they do today.

It was a means of which people could trade stuff that they all needed. Labor, food, housing, etc. If it wasnt scarce, there was no need to charge for it. Like water and air. The rulers claimed ownership to land, and thus became the owners of this land. They could then charge others for using it and for stuff that was produced there, like it is today. And the property could be sold and inherited in the bloodline. Banks became invented, and eventually; loans. And now society has become addicted to it, like a drug. But, like a drug, money is something that we dont really need, we only think we do.

Where did the money come from in the first place? In the beginning it was based on rare metals, like gold and silver, and because of its scarcity it could be used as means of trading, instead of cows, hens, corn and other rather-impractical-to-carry-around stuff. Notice the word scarce. Common rock wouldnt have worked, because everyone would have had it. But today. where does the money come from? The answer is..: Nowhere. The money is not even printed anymore. Only 3% of the worlds money is in paper or metal currency, the rest 97% is electronic. New money today is made by the stroke of buttons on computer keyboards, like the one Im typing on now. And this is also how the banks make loans, and wants it payed back, with interest, which is not created in the system, makingbankruptcy inevitable for many companies, and now even countries.

In other words, debt is money. Its like taking a piece of paper, writing 1 million dollars on it, giving it to a poor bastard and say now you owe me 1 million dollars, and you have to pay it back with a yearly interest of 5%, thank you. This is how, in simplicity, it is done. The money today doesnt really exist. Its just an agreement that the whole world has bought into. And now were stuck in it in lack of a better system. Except, now we have a better option, a resource- based economy.

The economy goes up and down in booms and busts. People are getting rich out of nothing, or being struck bankrupt out of the same nothing. In a depression, shops can be full of what people need, but no one has the money to buy it. We are reduced to consumers, even though we are Human Beings. Governments try to control the economy by adjusting the general interest rate and by other means. We have to consume. Not too much, cause then we get inflation and a new economic bubble. But not to little either, then we get a recession because not enough people are buying the products that companies produce. So, its a fine balance. But really, a ridiculous balance. It leads to a lot of trouble for our selves. Overproduction in boom times, underproduction in recession times, pollution, war, corruption, crime, poverty, and withholding of technology because we have to squeeze what we can out of the oil, and other obsolete technology that gives us.money. Still, technology is advancing further and further and replacing jobs faster than we can say technological unemployment, which in itself is increasing year by year, replacing more and more workers by machines.

Machines are both helping us and taking our jobs. Jobs that are needed to get the money to buy things that the technology produces, so that the companies can get more money, to produce more things that you can buy, if you have the money You see? Its a scheme thats set to bust. But money is not what we really need. What we need is what we today believe only money can buy. We need the resources. We need quality of life. Not the money. The truth is that theres not enough money in the world to buy us out of this crisis, or if there was, the money would not be worth much. Since the world economy is based on scarcity, if there is too much money, they wont be worth enough to pay for what we need, the resources. If there is an abundance of money for everyone there would be no value in the money. Still, thats what the world leaders are trying to do today and has been doing for the last 40 years. Growing the economy and printing more money to pour into the system, so that banks can lend out more money, and companies can pay their debt, with more debt, with more money. Money, the thing that created the problem in the first place. The system is doomed for collapse. This is self evident.

Money and false scarcity makes us steal, lie, cheat, become greedy, corrupt and stingy. Actually, all of the worlds governments and people are corrupt, because corruption is a byproduct of money. Since with money, we are all doomed to think profit. Everyone from a single person to a big company. Everyone need to have some form of income. And the income has to come from someone else. Thus, we get greedy, and corrupt and separated from each other and nature, which is our true provider, not money. Its not people that are greedy and corrupt, it is not human nature, its the system that makes people this way. If there were no money, and we could get all we needed and wanted without from nature, technology and each other, there would be no greed, and no corruption. Human nature is by large a product of the environment. With abundance competition becomes obsolete. With abundance there wouldnt be any need to steal. With abundance we could focus on living our lives and develop society. It is about time we end the meaningless competition and start collaborating.

The real human nature is a collaborating one. Think about it. We naturally collaborate to build houses and bridges, develop software and businesses. Collaboration gives satisfaction while competition gives stress. Of course, we could still compete for fun, in games and sport. But when it comes to the development of society we see that competition only hinders progress. A lot of energy and resources is wasted in the pursuit of competing for market share. We dont need 100 different flat screens, we only need one, the best. In a resource-based economy the technological development will have come so far that we can produce anything specially requested by the individual, and in the highest quality, through the use of nanotechnology and computer based manufacturing. This is not science fiction, this technology is being developed now.

What about incentive? I hear you say. Why would people want to do anything, if it wasnt anything in it for them, like money? Well, I sit here now and write this, not because I earn any money on it, but because it gives me something else. The satisfaction of the feeling of helping people, helping society into a new world, that benefits all. And this is a feeling no money can buy. This, I think, is the reason for most of the worlds new inventions, like the radio, the light bulb, electricity, penicillin, etc. etc. Not money, but the need and urge to create and share with other people, and be a part of what is going on. Its no fun keeping all your creations for your self only. The fun lies in sharing with friends, family and the world.

Why do you do anything? I bet you want to do something in your life that you find interesting and fulfilling in some way, not just because you earn money on it. Most people have hobbies and interests that that they like to spend time on, and where no money is made. For many people, this is their reason for living. For many others, they keep their job because it is fulfilling.If it ONLY made you some bucks, or maybe, rich, you would feel really poor in the end. You would realize that money cant buy you happiness. Maybe for a while, but not permanent. So, its not really money that makes you do things, now is it. Its something else. Fulfillment. We all want to be fulfilled in our lives, and even today, money is only a small part of that.

What if you didnt need any money to get all you want today? What if you could get all you think you want today without any money? Travel anywhere you like, drive cool cars (non-polluting ones!), live in a nice place, have this and that new electronic device, go to concerts, eat good food, relax, study what ever you want for as long as you want, work with what you want, contribute to society, learn a new skill, teach a new skill. What would you do? No pursuit for money anymore But you dont need to own the car you drive, or the house you live in, or camera you use, as long as you have access to it as long as you need it.

Say you want to go on a boat trip. What if you could just book a seat on a boat, and go? Or, better yet, book a whole boat, a yacht, if you will, and sail away. It would be pretty boring alone, so you bring some friends along. Good. What about food? All the food you want is provided. So is clothing. And everything else. None of it is really yours, yet all of it is. Its everyones. It wont be like; hey, I need a pair of underwear, give me yours!. Of course not. There would be plenty of underwear, enough for everyone, in enough different colors and shapes. And boats. The beauty of it is that we dont need to own that boat. When were done with it, we return it, so someone else can use it. In a harbor on the opposite side of the globe, or where we picked it up. It doesnt matter. From there we have booked a car, or whatever vehicle we have in RBE, that will take us further on our trip.

Both the boat and the car is produced with the most ease of maintenance and use in mind. And they can maintain themselves in most ways, including taking themselves to a maintenance facility where other machines helps them with what they need. This way we dont need parking lots stuffed full of cars that are not in use, or harbors stuffed full of boats that are just lying there. There would be a good selection of cars and boats for everyone to choose from in many kinds of designs, fitting your taste and personality. And ALL of them would be yours to use! Not just one or two. They are ALL yours, orours.

There would be produced more than enough of all that people would demand, in fully automated factories and on personal 3D printers. And it would be produced to last. Not like today, where cars are actually produced to brake down, so that they can sell more cars, and keep a whole maintenance industry alive. No, in a resource-based economy there would be no point in making anything in poor quality. In a resource-based economy it would be most beneficial for everyone that every product is of the highest possible quality, and that all the planets resources are managed, developed and protected to the highest degree. And when we go by access rather than ownership, we wouldnt need more than a fraction of the amount of cars and boats and things we have today. Since non of the things are in use all the time, and we share the things we have, we, the environment and the planet will do with a lot less things, and a lot less waste, if any.

In the world today there are plenty of resources for everyone, if they are properly managed, that is. The monetary system makes us compete for the resources on the planet. A resource like oil is continually being pumped up because of the money it makes, instead of researching and developing new environmentally friendly energy, thus continuing to pollute the world. There is a lot of alternative development going on, though, but still, the oil is being pumped up to the last drop. And the green energy is also monetized. Streams, made from the rain, made from the evaporated water the sun is responsible for, are running down the mountain, and then the electricity it produces is charged for by the kilowatt-hour. So is the wind, and the tidal power, nuclear power and every other energy source on the planet today. Making the richer richer and the poorer poorer.

It cant go on like this forever. We have two choices. One is where globalization by corporations takes over, we are all chipped and controlled, and become the sheep that feed the never ending hunger of the few. Actually, this is not far from what it is like today. The interest you pay on your loans pays the interest the rich get on their money in the bank. I.e. they dont have to work, but you do.

The other choice is where money is abandoned and the worlds resources are distributed to where it is needed. This distribution is possible with todays technology. We can have a sensor and distribution system covering the whole planet, making it possible to monitor resources, supply and demand all over the world. We already have this system to a large degree, through satellites and other technology. We can also combine this with input from users.

In nature there is a natural abundance. Everything in nature is there for us to use and develop to the best for ourselves and humanity. It is only when the profit motive comes in everything is distorted. Then crops are thrown away because of profit, and land is overused. When we close the door on money and profit, we can easily produce more than enough food for everyone on the planet. When we take one seed from an apple and put it in the ground, we get a whole tree full of apples after a while. And with that we get more than enough seeds to plant more apple trees. And everything is provided for us by nature, all for free. No charge. And not much labour. We plant the seed at the right place and then it grows all by it selves. It only needs water, light, nurturing and time. And voila, we have apples. And this goes for every other plant on the planet as well. Its all there for us to utilize.

The day to day decision making can largely be computerized and be based on need and our input, with highly developed, self maintaining and self producing machines and robots combined with the loving care of humans. If there is a need and want for housing in a particular area, the houses will be built by machines in accordance to the specifications of the future inhabitants. If there is need for more of a particular food, that will be produced and provided. Already today cars can run by themselves only guided by GPS and sensors. Several hospitals use robots for inventory and logistics. Planes have had autopilots for years and can both take off, navigate and land by themselves. Factories produce all kinds of products faster and more efficient than any human being could ever do. Billions of big and small decisions are already taken for us every day by computers.

Still, politicians makes us believe that they know best what is best for us. Even though they havent got a clue about the science behind it, and what is measurable the best solution for society and the environment at any given time. Politics is not in our interest, it is only a smoke screen, made to distract us from what is really important. We can have a world of abundance for absolutely everyone as long as we skip the bickering of politics and really open our eyes for what we really need and how far technology and science has really come. The technological and scientific development has really passed societys values by far, and its time we catch up.

In a resource-based economy there would be no need to hold back on any new invention. No patents would be needed. Every new development that would be in the interest of humanity would be developed and shared as fast as possible. We wouldnt want or need to pollute the world more than absolutely necessary, if necessary at all. We would develop everything in a way that would maximize the quality of life for everyone. Humans, animals, insects, plants and the environment itself. Technology has come so far today that we can make it do almost anything. Technology is not to be feared. Technology is like a knife. It can be used to stab someone to death, or to cut bread. Technology itself is neutral. Its we who gives it its purpose and meaning. And theres no turning back.

Technology has come to stay. Imagine a life without cell phones, video, mp3 players, cameras, internet, satellites, electricity, modern hospitals, washing machines, cars, trains, planes, computers, lamps, running shoes, running water, loud speakers, windows, steel, dvd players, tooth brushes, dental floss, glasses, contact lenses and what have you. A car plant today is almost 100% automated. So are most other factories. Humans are only kept there to give the illusion that jobs are created and maintained. They are not really needed there. The machines can do all the work with todays technology. Humans are really only needed for some supervising. Technology could probably replace 99% of all human labor in a few years if we want that to happen.

This seems like a sad thing for many, but only if you need a job. In a resource-based economy automation is the liberating factor for people. It is so today as well, until the whole economy collapses, that is. Which it will, eventually. And now, imagine what tomorrows technology can do. Its we who creates it, and its we who will decide what it will do. Today, with the monetary system, technology is used for a lot of destructive development, like weapons. The weapons are largely produced to defend or conquer borders and property, two things that will not exist in a resource-based economy. Weapons are the byproduct of money, the monetary system. War is one of the most profitable activities on this planet. The monetary system produces war, and makes technology to be used destructively. In a resource-based economy with no money, barter, exchange, borders or passports, there would be no reason to produce weapons to defend borders and kill people for property and profit.

We are foreseeing a new worldwide social system where the worlds resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet. A new moneyless society with a resource-based macro economy and a gift micro economy. Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange of any kind, where everything is provided for and shared by everyone. Not uniformity, but individual freedom and expression will be its credo. True unity through diversity, and abundance for all would be its goal. And for ever openness to change and development its reality. Its not utopia, its just a new possible direction for society. No debt, loans,taxes, money, bills, accounting, laws, war, borders, passports, scarcity, stocks, financial crisis, poverty, corruption or hunger. But rather freedom, ingenuity, creativity, positive development, peace, love & understanding (yeah, yeah, cliche, but its true!), personal individual expression, abundance, prosperity, sharing and giving and true Unity for all the worlds people. Call it a dream, call it utopia, call it wonderland, or call it Evolution. This might just be the next step in the development of society.

Yes, the resource-based economy poses a million new questions, its not an easy fix. But its better than what we have. For the first time in history we have the possibility to communicate and collaborate across the planet and develop something that can really change the world. We could actually have a resource based gift economytoday, if everyone simply stopped using money.

We need all kinds of people from all over the world to help imagine and develop this new direction for Humanity together. Everyone from artists to scientists, executives to politicians, organizations to corporations and from citizens to governments. We need EVERYONE onboard on this flight. There is no us and them anymore. We are all in this boat together.

RBE was first brought up by Jacque Fresco with The Venus Project, started in Venus, Florida, USA. It was taken further by Peter Joseph through the Zeitgeist Movement. Zeitgeist means the spirit of the times. The Zeitgeist Movement is not a political or religious movement, but rather a grassroots movement for applied spirituality. Meaning that we seek to implement on this planet the core values of all the worlds religions and spiritual movements, like Oneness, unity, equality and freedom for all people. True freedom can only come when we see all people on this planet as the righteous, equal members of humanity, with equal access to all the planets resources. For this world to exist we have to update our values and views on life and how it can be.

Read and find out more here:

UBUNTU Contributionism

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

http://www.thevenusproject.com

Check also all the links the links page.

We need everyone to know about this new possibility for Humanity.

Heres a list of suggestions to what you can do:

Tell your friends. Send them to this page for an initial introduction. You can use the save/share button below to post on Facebook etc.

Write in blogs and forums.

Write articles and send to media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television, internet) in all countries. Feel free to copy and use as much as the above article as you like. Get celebrities to support the movement.

Get the support of investors, companies and corporations. Dont rule this out, we all work with or for someone, and we are all trapped and want to get out, even corporate executives. There are also many investors that actually want to create betterment for Humanity.

Get the support of politicians. Give them a chance, some might get it.

Start more websites about the resource-based economy. The more we populate the web with it, the faster the message will get out.

Involve yourself in the Zeitgeist movement.

We allow and encourage respectful duplication of this information. Respectful means referencing this source. Thank you.

Go here to read the rest:

About RBE | THE RESOURCE BASED abundance ECONOMY

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems.There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities.Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Read more here:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Attention economy – Wikipedia

Attention economics is an approach to the management of information that treats human attention as a scarce commodity, and applies economic theory to solve various information management problems. Put simply by Matthew Crawford, “Attention is a resourcea person has only so much of it.”[1]

In this perspective Thomas H. Davenport and J. C. Beck define the concept of attention as:

Attention is focused mental engagement on a particular item of information. Items come into our awareness, we attend to a particular item, and then we decide whether to act. (Davenport & Beck 2001, p.20)

As content has grown increasingly abundant and immediately available, attention becomes the limiting factor in the consumption of information.[2]A strong trigger of this effect is that the mental capability of humans is limited and the receptiveness of information is hence limited as well. Attention is used to filter out the most important information by the human brain from a large pool of information surrounding the human in the digital age. [3] A number of software applications either explicitly or implicitly take attention economy into consideration in their user interface design, based on the realization that if it takes the user too long to locate something, they will find it through another application. This is done, for instance, by creating filters to make sure the first content a viewer sees is relevant, of interest, or with the approval of demographics.[4] An attention-based advertising scheme may say they are measuring the number of “eyeballs” by which their content is seen.[5]

Herbert A. Simon was perhaps the first person to articulate the concept of attention economics when he wrote:

“…in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it” (Simon 1971, pp.4041).

He noted that many designers of information systems incorrectly represented their design problem as information scarcity rather than attention scarcity, and as a result they built systems that excelled at providing more and more information to people, when what was really needed were systems that excelled at filtering out unimportant or irrelevant information (Simon 1996, pp.143144).

In recent years, Simon’s characterization of the problem of information overload as an economic one has become more popular. Business strategists such as Thomas H. Davenport or Michael H. Goldhaber have adopted the term “attention economy” (Davenport & Beck 2001).

Some writers have even speculated that “attention transactions” will replace financial transactions as the focus of our economic system (Goldhaber 1997, Franck 1999). Information systems researchers have also adopted the idea, and are beginning to investigate mechanism designs which build on the idea of creating property rights in attention (see Applications).

According to digital culture expert Kevin Kelly, the modern attention economy is increasingly one where the consumer product costs nothing to reproduce and the problem facing the supplier of the product lies in adding valuable intangibles that cannot be reproduced at any cost. He identifies these intangibles as:[6]

Attention economy is also relevant to the social sphere. More specifically, long term attention can also be considered according to the attention that a person dedicates managing its interactions with others. Dedicating too much attention to these interactions can lead to “social interaction overload”, i.e. when people are overwhelmed in managing their relationships with others, for instance in the context of social network services in which people are the subject of a high level of social solicitations. Digital media and the internet facilitate participation in this economy, by creating new channels for distributing attention. Ordinary people are now empowered to reach a wide audience by publishing their own content and commenting on the content of others.[7]

Social attention can also be associated to collective attention, i.e. how “attention to novel items propagates and eventually fades among large populations.” (Wu & Huberman 2007)

“Attention economics” treats a potential consumer’s attention as a resource.[8] Traditional media advertisers followed a model that suggested consumers went through a linear process they called AIDA – Attention, Interest, Desire and Action. Attention is therefore a major and the first stage in the process of converting non-consumers. Since the cost to transmit advertising to consumers is now sufficiently low that more ads can be transmitted to a consumer (e.g. via online advertising) than the consumer can process, the consumer’s attention becomes the scarce resource to be allocated. Dolgin also states that a superfluidity of information may hinder the decision making of an individual who keeps searching and comparing products as long as it promises to provide more than it is using up.[9]

One application treats various forms of information (spam, advertising) as a form of pollution or ‘detrimental externality’. In economics an externality is a by-product of a production process that imposes burdens (or supplies benefits), to parties other than the intended consumer of a commodity. For example; air and water pollution are negative externalities which impose burdens on society and the environment.

A market-based approach to controlling externalities was outlined in Ronald Coase’s The Problem of Social Cost (Coase 1960). This evolved from an article on the Federal Communications Commission (Coase 1959), in which Coase claimed that radio frequency interference is a negative externality that could be controlled by the creation of property rights.

Coase’s approach to the management of externalities requires the careful specification of property rights and a set of rules for the initial allocation of the rights. Once this has been achieved, a market mechanism can theoretically manage the externality problem. The solution is not necessarily simple in its application to media content (Hay 1996).

Sending huge numbers of e-mail messages costs spammers very little, since the costs of e-mail messages are spread out over the internet service providers that distribute them (and the recipients who must spend attention dealing with them). Thus sending out as much spam as possible is a rational strategy: even if only 0.001% of recipients (1 in 100,000) is converted into a sale, a spam campaign can be profitable (Mangalindan 2002). Spammers are demanding valuable attention from potential customers, but they are avoiding paying a fair price for this attention due to the current architecture of e-mail systems.

One way this might be implemented is by charging senders a small fee per e-mail sent, often referred to as a “Sender Bond.” It might be close to free for an advertiser to send a single e-mail message to a single recipient, but sending that same e-mail to 1000 recipients would cost him 1000 times as much. A 2002 experiment with this kind of usage-based e-mail pricing found that it caused senders to spend more effort targeting their messages to recipients who would find them relevant, thus shifting the cost of deciding whether a given e-mail message is relevant from the recipient to the sender (Kraut 2002).

Closely related is the idea of selling “interrupt rights,” or small fees for the right to demand one’s attention (Fahlman 2002). The cost of these rights could vary according to the interruptee: interrupt rights for the CEO of a Fortune 500 company would presumably be extraordinarily expensive, while those of a high school student might be lower. Costs could also vary for an individual depending on context, perhaps rising during the busy holiday season and falling during the dog days of summer. Interruptees could decline to collect their fees from friends, family, and other welcome interrupters.

Another idea in this vein is the creation of “attention bonds,” small warranties that some information will not be a waste of the recipient’s time, placed into escrow at the time of sending (Loder, Van Alstyne & Wash 2004). Like the granters of interrupt rights, receivers could cash in their bonds to signal to the sender that a given communication was a waste of their time or elect not to cash them in to signal that more communication would be welcome.

Supporters of attention markets for controlling spam claim that their solutions are superior to the alternatives for managing uses of information systems on which there is no consensus on the question of whether it is pollution or not. For example, the use of e-mail or text messages for rallying political support or by non-profit charitable organizations may be considered spam by some users but legitimate use by others. Laws against spam put the power to make this decision in the hands of government, while technological solutions like filtering technologies put it in the hands of private companies or technologically savvy users. A market-based solution, on the other hand, allows the possibility of individual negotiation over the worth of a given message rather than a unilateral decision by a controlling party (Loder, Van Alstyne & Wash 2004, p.10). Such negotiation itself consumes attention and carries with it an attention cost, though.

As search engines have become the primary means for finding and accessing information on the web, high rankings in the results for certain queries have become valuable commodities, due to the ability of search engines to focus searchers’ attention. Like other information systems, web search is vulnerable to pollution: “Because the Web environment contains profit seeking ventures, attention getting strategies evolve in response to search engine algorithms” (Page 1998). It is estimated that successful exploitation of such strategies, known as web spam, is a potential $4.5 billion per year business (Singhal 2004, p.16).

Since most major search engines now rely on some form of PageRank (recursive counting of hyperlinks to a site) to determine search result rankings, a gray market in the creation and trading of hyperlinks has emerged. Participants in this market engage in a variety of practices known as link spamming, link farming, and reciprocal linking.

However, as opponents of the “nofollow” attribute point out, while this solution may make it incrementally easier for search engines to detect link spam, it does not appreciably change the incentive structure for link spammers unless 100% of existing systems are upgraded to support the standard: as long as some critical mass of spammable sites exists, link spam will continue. Furthermore, the “nofollow” attribute does nothing to combat link farming or reciprocal linking. There is also a philosophical question of whether the links of site commentators (as opposed to site owners) should be treated as “second-class,” leading to the claim that the attribute “heists commentators’ earned attention” (NoNoFollow.net 2005).

Another issue, similar to the issue discussed above of whether or not to consider political e-mail campaigns as spam, is what to do about politically motivated link campaigns or Google bombs (Tatum 2005). Currently the major search engines do not treat these as web spam, but this is a decision made unilaterally by private companies. There is no opportunity for negotiation over the question of what is an appropriate use of attention expressed through hyperlinking. It remains to be seen[vague] whether a market-based approach might provide more flexible handling of these gray areas.

The paid inclusion model, as well as more pervasive advertising networks like Yahoo! Publisher Network and Google’s AdSense, work by treating consumer attention as the property of the search engine (in the case of paid inclusion) or the publisher (in the case of advertising networks). This is somewhat different from the anti-spam uses of property rights in attention, which treat an individual’s attention as his or her own property.

Read more here:

Attention economy – Wikipedia

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Adopting circular-economy principles could not only benefit Europe environmentally and socially but could also generate a net economic benefit of 1.8 trillion by 2030.

Europes economy has generated unprecedented wealth over the past century. Part of the success is attributable to continuous improvements in resource productivitya trend that has started to reduce Europes resource exposure. At the same time, resource productivity remains hugely underexploited as a source of wealth, competitiveness, and renewal. Our new study, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe, provides new evidence that a circular economy, enabled by the technology revolution, would allow Europe to grow resource productivity by up to 3 percent annually. This would generate a primary-resource benefit of as much as 0.6 trillion per year by 2030 to Europes economies. In addition, it would generate 1.2 trillion in nonresource and externality benefits, bringing the annual total benefits to around 1.8 trillion compared with today.

This would translate into a GDP increase of as much as seven percentage points relative to the current development scenario, with an additional positive impact on employment. Looking at the systems for three human needs (mobility, food, and the built environment), our study concludes that rapid technology adoption is necessary but not sufficient to capture the circular opportunity. Instead, circular principles must guide the transition differently from those that govern todays economy. Pursued consistently, the economic promise is significant and the circular economy could qualify as the next major European political-economy project.

Europes economy remains very resource dependent. Views differ on how to address this against an economic backdrop of low and jobless growth as well as the struggle to reinvigorate competitiveness and absorb massive technological change.

Proponents of a circular economy argue that it offers Europe a major opportunity to increase resource productivity, decrease resource dependence and waste, and increase employment and growth. They maintain that a circular system would improve competitiveness and unleash innovation, and they see abundant circular opportunities that are inherently profitable but remain uncaptured.

Others argue that European companies are already capturing most of the economically attractive opportunities to recycle, remanufacture, and reuse. They maintain that reaching higher levels of circularity would involve an economic cost that Europe cannot afford when companies are already struggling with high resource prices. They further point out the high economic and political cost of the transition.

We looked at the issues to provide a fact base for decision makers contemplating the transition to a more circular economy. The insights of our report rest on extensive desk research, more than 150 interviews, economic modeling, the largest comparative study to date of the employment effects of a circular-economy transition, and deep analysis of three human needs that together account for 60 percent of European household spend and 80 percent of resource usemobility, food, and housing. The research and analysis yielded nine major conclusions.

In 2012, the average European used 16 metric tons of materials. Sixty percent of discarded materials were either put in a landfill or incinerated, while only 40 percent were recycled or reused. In value terms, Europe lost 95 percent of the material and energy value, while material recycling and waste-based energy recovery captured only 5 percent of the original raw-material value. Even recycling success stories like steel, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and paper lose 30 to 75 percent of the material value in the first-use cycle. On average, Europe uses materials only once.

The sector analysis also found significant waste in sectors that many would consider mature and optimized. For example, the average European car remains parked 92 percent of the time, 31 percent of food is wasted along the value chain, and the average European office is used only 35 to 50 percent of the time, even during working hours. And use cycles are short. The average manufactured asset lasts only nine years (excluding buildings).

In total, this way of producing and using products and resources costs Europe 7.2 trillion every year for the three sectors analyzed at depth in this report (mobility, food, and the built environment). Out of this total, actual resource costs are 1.8 trillion; other related cash costs, which include all other household and government expenditures on the three sectors, are 3.4 trillion; and externalities, such as traffic congestion, carbon, pollution, and noise, are 2.0 trillion (exhibit).

Exhibit

In the next decades, the digital and broader technology revolution could have the same disruptive impact on elements of the three sectors we studied as it has already had on many information sectors. The average cost per car-kilometer could drop as much as 75 percent, thanks to car-sharing schemes, autonomous and driverless driving, electric vehicles, and better materials. In food, precision agriculture could improve input efficiency of water and fertilizers by at least 20 to 30 percent, and combined with no-tillage farming, it could reduce machinery and input costs by as much as 75 percent. In buildings, industrial and modular processes could lower construction costs by 50 percent compared with on-site traditional construction. Passive houses could reduce energy consumption by 90 percent.

If these new technologies and business models are so promising, shouldnt Europe just let this development run its course? Probably not, for two reasons. First, the public sector and policy makers strongly influence these sectors todayfor example, through infrastructure investments, public transport, zoning laws, building standards, and agricultural subsidies. If technology deeply changed these sectors, current public interventions might not optimally steer future outcomes at a system level. Europe faces a real risk that urban planning, mobility systems, and food systems wouldnt be able to integrate the new technologies effectively, with much structural waste remaining.

Second, rebound effects will be significant. Resource-productivity increases in the sectors in our study have historically met an elastic demand response. When relative prices decrease, consumers use more individualized transport, floor space, and food. This volume effect for the three study sectors could be 5 to 20 percent by 2030, which would increase prosperity, but, if not managed well, could exacerbate externalities and resource challenges.

With these drawbacks, the study finds, the current development path could decrease the total cost in the three sectors by 0.9 trillion annually by 2030 versus todayor a reduction of 12 percent, from 7.2 trillion to 6.3 trillion.

When well integrated, the new technologies and business models could address much of the structural waste in mobility, food, and buildings and create new consumer choices. Increasing utilization and longevity would have significant economic upside and would go far toward avoiding negative system effects.

The report calls this notion growth within because it focuses on getting much more value from the existing stock of products and materials. Growth within could be an important source of additional consumer utility and growth for Europe. This circular economy would provide multiple value-creation mechanisms decoupled from the consumption of finite resources. The concept rests on three principles: preserve and enhance natural capital, optimize yields from resources in use, and foster system effectiveness (minimize negative externalities).

Pursuing this opportunity in an ambitious way would represent a big shift in Europes economic priorities. Today, Europe has no established metrics for the utilization of key infrastructure and products, for their longevity, or for success in preserving material and ecosystem value. Articles, policy seminars, statements, and targets for these topics are rare, compared with the pervasive focus on improving flows, as measured by GDP.

This report includes indicative benefit curves to suggest how much various circular-economy levers could reduce European resource use and what the economic effects could be. While the results of such modeling are indicative, rely on multiple assumptions, and call for more research, pursuing opportunities that are already profitable or will likely be profitable within the next five years could reduce annual net European resource spend in 2030 as much as 32 percent, or 0.6 trillion versus today.

These resource benefits also come with a significant economic multiplier effect. Benefits in other related cash costs could be as much as 0.7 trillion. Externality costs could decrease as much as 0.5 trillion. This makes the total annual benefit 1.8 trillion by 2030, twice the benefit of the current development path. The current total costs of 7.2 trillion would be decreased to 5.4 trillion.

The modeling also suggests that benefits would continue to grow rapidly as we approach 2050. Regenerating, sharing, optimizing, looping, virtualizing, and exchanging for new and better technologies seems especially powerful.

The modeling for 2030 suggests that the disposable income of European households could be as much as 11 percentage points higher in the circular scenario relative to the current development path, or 7 percentage points more in GDP terms.

The increased GDP results arise from increasing consumption and from correcting market and regulatory lock-ins that prevent many inherently profitable circular opportunities from materializing fully. The results are higher than those reported from most other recent studies on the economic impacts of a circular and resource-efficient economy. For instance, the recent report Study on modelling of the economic and environmental impacts of raw material consumption, conducted by Cambridge Econometrics and BIO Intelligence Service, concluded on a slightly positive GDP impact. The main reason for the difference is that the report assumes a substantially higher pace of technology change in the big product and resource sectors going forward compared with what has been observed in the pastor with the reasons explained abovewhereas most other reports assume a similar pace as witnessed historically.

This project included the largest academic metastudy to date on the relationship between employment and the circular economy. The review of 65 academic studies indicates that, while more research is needed, existing studies point to the positive employment effects occurring in the case that a circular economy is implemented. This impact on employment is largely attributable to increased spending fueled by the lower prices expected across sectors and to the labor intensity of recycling activities and higher-skilled jobs in remanufacturing. But not all would benefit from the economy-wide impact of the circular model on growth and employment. Some companies, sectors, and employment segments are likely to not act quickly enough and would lose out. If European leaders decided to shift toward a more circular economy, managing the transition would have to be a top priority.

A circular economy would decouple economic growth from resource use. Across the three study sectors, carbon emissions would drop as much as 48 percent by 2030 (31 percent on the current development path) and 83 percent by 2050 (61 percent on the current development path), compared with 2012 levels. Electric, shared, and autonomous vehicles, food-waste reduction, regenerative and healthy food chains, passive houses, urban planning, and renewable energy would be the principal sources of emission reduction across the three sectors.

Today, materials and components constitute 40 to 60 percent of the total cost base of manufacturing firms in Europe and often create a competitive cost disadvantage. Europe imports 60 percent of its fossil fuels and metal resources, and the EU has listed 20 materials as critical with respect to security of supply. In the circular scenario, primary-material consumption measured by car and construction materials, synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, agricultural water and land use, fuels and nonrenewable electricity, and land for real estate could drop as much as 32 percent by 2030 and 53 percent by 2050.

The transition would involve considerable costs, such as R&D and asset investments, stranded investments, subsidy payments to promote market penetration of new products, and public expenditure for digital infrastructure. While it is hard to find an appropriate cost comparable for such an economy-wide project, some examples could shed light on parts of the needed transition. For example, the British government has estimated that creating a fully efficient reuse and recycling system would cost around 14 billion, which would translate into 108 billion scaled to a Europe-wide level. The renewables transition in Germany cost 123 billion in feed-in tariffs to renewable plant operators from 2000 to 2013. It remains to be assessed to what extent these costs are additional relative to other development scenarios and to what extent they could act as a stimulus. For instance, the European Commissions agenda for establishing a digital single market and an energy union could create the core infrastructure for a regenerative and virtualized system.

Shifting to the circular model could contribute significantly to achieving Europes growth, employment, and environmental objectives, as shown above. It also offers an opportunity for renewal, with many previously underleveraged opportunities coming into focus. This means Europe could simplify governance and achieve structural reform. In its most ambitious form, making the transition to a circular economy could even become the second major European political economy project, after creating the internal market.

Shifting to the new model starts with acknowledging the systemic nature of the change. All sectors and policy domains will be affected, and aligned action is required. Such a shared agenda could contain four building blocks:

Essential enabling technologies are maturing and scaling fast. Investments in transitioning to a circular economy could deliver a stimulus to the European economy. Europe is in the midst of a pervasive shift in consumer behavior. Business leaders are implementing product-to-service strategies and innovative business models. At least for now, resource prices are easing, paving the way for correcting market and regulatory distortions.

Building a circular economy would require a large and complex effort to address the hurdles and transition costs associated with all of the major opportunities. The effort would require action at the local, national, regional, and global level. The extensive analysis conducted for this report remains indicative and requires further work, but it does suggest that a circular economy could produce significant societal, economic, and environmental outcomes, while acknowledging the transition cost.

Download the full report on which this article is based, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe (PDF2.5MB).

Continue reading here:

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems.There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities.Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Continue reading here:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Adopting circular-economy principles could not only benefit Europe environmentally and socially but could also generate a net economic benefit of 1.8 trillion by 2030.

Europes economy has generated unprecedented wealth over the past century. Part of the success is attributable to continuous improvements in resource productivitya trend that has started to reduce Europes resource exposure. At the same time, resource productivity remains hugely underexploited as a source of wealth, competitiveness, and renewal. Our new study, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe, provides new evidence that a circular economy, enabled by the technology revolution, would allow Europe to grow resource productivity by up to 3 percent annually. This would generate a primary-resource benefit of as much as 0.6 trillion per year by 2030 to Europes economies. In addition, it would generate 1.2 trillion in nonresource and externality benefits, bringing the annual total benefits to around 1.8 trillion compared with today.

This would translate into a GDP increase of as much as seven percentage points relative to the current development scenario, with an additional positive impact on employment. Looking at the systems for three human needs (mobility, food, and the built environment), our study concludes that rapid technology adoption is necessary but not sufficient to capture the circular opportunity. Instead, circular principles must guide the transition differently from those that govern todays economy. Pursued consistently, the economic promise is significant and the circular economy could qualify as the next major European political-economy project.

Europes economy remains very resource dependent. Views differ on how to address this against an economic backdrop of low and jobless growth as well as the struggle to reinvigorate competitiveness and absorb massive technological change.

Proponents of a circular economy argue that it offers Europe a major opportunity to increase resource productivity, decrease resource dependence and waste, and increase employment and growth. They maintain that a circular system would improve competitiveness and unleash innovation, and they see abundant circular opportunities that are inherently profitable but remain uncaptured.

Others argue that European companies are already capturing most of the economically attractive opportunities to recycle, remanufacture, and reuse. They maintain that reaching higher levels of circularity would involve an economic cost that Europe cannot afford when companies are already struggling with high resource prices. They further point out the high economic and political cost of the transition.

We looked at the issues to provide a fact base for decision makers contemplating the transition to a more circular economy. The insights of our report rest on extensive desk research, more than 150 interviews, economic modeling, the largest comparative study to date of the employment effects of a circular-economy transition, and deep analysis of three human needs that together account for 60 percent of European household spend and 80 percent of resource usemobility, food, and housing. The research and analysis yielded nine major conclusions.

In 2012, the average European used 16 metric tons of materials. Sixty percent of discarded materials were either put in a landfill or incinerated, while only 40 percent were recycled or reused. In value terms, Europe lost 95 percent of the material and energy value, while material recycling and waste-based energy recovery captured only 5 percent of the original raw-material value. Even recycling success stories like steel, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and paper lose 30 to 75 percent of the material value in the first-use cycle. On average, Europe uses materials only once.

The sector analysis also found significant waste in sectors that many would consider mature and optimized. For example, the average European car remains parked 92 percent of the time, 31 percent of food is wasted along the value chain, and the average European office is used only 35 to 50 percent of the time, even during working hours. And use cycles are short. The average manufactured asset lasts only nine years (excluding buildings).

In total, this way of producing and using products and resources costs Europe 7.2 trillion every year for the three sectors analyzed at depth in this report (mobility, food, and the built environment). Out of this total, actual resource costs are 1.8 trillion; other related cash costs, which include all other household and government expenditures on the three sectors, are 3.4 trillion; and externalities, such as traffic congestion, carbon, pollution, and noise, are 2.0 trillion (exhibit).

Exhibit

In the next decades, the digital and broader technology revolution could have the same disruptive impact on elements of the three sectors we studied as it has already had on many information sectors. The average cost per car-kilometer could drop as much as 75 percent, thanks to car-sharing schemes, autonomous and driverless driving, electric vehicles, and better materials. In food, precision agriculture could improve input efficiency of water and fertilizers by at least 20 to 30 percent, and combined with no-tillage farming, it could reduce machinery and input costs by as much as 75 percent. In buildings, industrial and modular processes could lower construction costs by 50 percent compared with on-site traditional construction. Passive houses could reduce energy consumption by 90 percent.

If these new technologies and business models are so promising, shouldnt Europe just let this development run its course? Probably not, for two reasons. First, the public sector and policy makers strongly influence these sectors todayfor example, through infrastructure investments, public transport, zoning laws, building standards, and agricultural subsidies. If technology deeply changed these sectors, current public interventions might not optimally steer future outcomes at a system level. Europe faces a real risk that urban planning, mobility systems, and food systems wouldnt be able to integrate the new technologies effectively, with much structural waste remaining.

Second, rebound effects will be significant. Resource-productivity increases in the sectors in our study have historically met an elastic demand response. When relative prices decrease, consumers use more individualized transport, floor space, and food. This volume effect for the three study sectors could be 5 to 20 percent by 2030, which would increase prosperity, but, if not managed well, could exacerbate externalities and resource challenges.

With these drawbacks, the study finds, the current development path could decrease the total cost in the three sectors by 0.9 trillion annually by 2030 versus todayor a reduction of 12 percent, from 7.2 trillion to 6.3 trillion.

When well integrated, the new technologies and business models could address much of the structural waste in mobility, food, and buildings and create new consumer choices. Increasing utilization and longevity would have significant economic upside and would go far toward avoiding negative system effects.

The report calls this notion growth within because it focuses on getting much more value from the existing stock of products and materials. Growth within could be an important source of additional consumer utility and growth for Europe. This circular economy would provide multiple value-creation mechanisms decoupled from the consumption of finite resources. The concept rests on three principles: preserve and enhance natural capital, optimize yields from resources in use, and foster system effectiveness (minimize negative externalities).

Pursuing this opportunity in an ambitious way would represent a big shift in Europes economic priorities. Today, Europe has no established metrics for the utilization of key infrastructure and products, for their longevity, or for success in preserving material and ecosystem value. Articles, policy seminars, statements, and targets for these topics are rare, compared with the pervasive focus on improving flows, as measured by GDP.

This report includes indicative benefit curves to suggest how much various circular-economy levers could reduce European resource use and what the economic effects could be. While the results of such modeling are indicative, rely on multiple assumptions, and call for more research, pursuing opportunities that are already profitable or will likely be profitable within the next five years could reduce annual net European resource spend in 2030 as much as 32 percent, or 0.6 trillion versus today.

These resource benefits also come with a significant economic multiplier effect. Benefits in other related cash costs could be as much as 0.7 trillion. Externality costs could decrease as much as 0.5 trillion. This makes the total annual benefit 1.8 trillion by 2030, twice the benefit of the current development path. The current total costs of 7.2 trillion would be decreased to 5.4 trillion.

The modeling also suggests that benefits would continue to grow rapidly as we approach 2050. Regenerating, sharing, optimizing, looping, virtualizing, and exchanging for new and better technologies seems especially powerful.

The modeling for 2030 suggests that the disposable income of European households could be as much as 11 percentage points higher in the circular scenario relative to the current development path, or 7 percentage points more in GDP terms.

The increased GDP results arise from increasing consumption and from correcting market and regulatory lock-ins that prevent many inherently profitable circular opportunities from materializing fully. The results are higher than those reported from most other recent studies on the economic impacts of a circular and resource-efficient economy. For instance, the recent report Study on modelling of the economic and environmental impacts of raw material consumption, conducted by Cambridge Econometrics and BIO Intelligence Service, concluded on a slightly positive GDP impact. The main reason for the difference is that the report assumes a substantially higher pace of technology change in the big product and resource sectors going forward compared with what has been observed in the pastor with the reasons explained abovewhereas most other reports assume a similar pace as witnessed historically.

This project included the largest academic metastudy to date on the relationship between employment and the circular economy. The review of 65 academic studies indicates that, while more research is needed, existing studies point to the positive employment effects occurring in the case that a circular economy is implemented. This impact on employment is largely attributable to increased spending fueled by the lower prices expected across sectors and to the labor intensity of recycling activities and higher-skilled jobs in remanufacturing. But not all would benefit from the economy-wide impact of the circular model on growth and employment. Some companies, sectors, and employment segments are likely to not act quickly enough and would lose out. If European leaders decided to shift toward a more circular economy, managing the transition would have to be a top priority.

A circular economy would decouple economic growth from resource use. Across the three study sectors, carbon emissions would drop as much as 48 percent by 2030 (31 percent on the current development path) and 83 percent by 2050 (61 percent on the current development path), compared with 2012 levels. Electric, shared, and autonomous vehicles, food-waste reduction, regenerative and healthy food chains, passive houses, urban planning, and renewable energy would be the principal sources of emission reduction across the three sectors.

Today, materials and components constitute 40 to 60 percent of the total cost base of manufacturing firms in Europe and often create a competitive cost disadvantage. Europe imports 60 percent of its fossil fuels and metal resources, and the EU has listed 20 materials as critical with respect to security of supply. In the circular scenario, primary-material consumption measured by car and construction materials, synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, agricultural water and land use, fuels and nonrenewable electricity, and land for real estate could drop as much as 32 percent by 2030 and 53 percent by 2050.

The transition would involve considerable costs, such as R&D and asset investments, stranded investments, subsidy payments to promote market penetration of new products, and public expenditure for digital infrastructure. While it is hard to find an appropriate cost comparable for such an economy-wide project, some examples could shed light on parts of the needed transition. For example, the British government has estimated that creating a fully efficient reuse and recycling system would cost around 14 billion, which would translate into 108 billion scaled to a Europe-wide level. The renewables transition in Germany cost 123 billion in feed-in tariffs to renewable plant operators from 2000 to 2013. It remains to be assessed to what extent these costs are additional relative to other development scenarios and to what extent they could act as a stimulus. For instance, the European Commissions agenda for establishing a digital single market and an energy union could create the core infrastructure for a regenerative and virtualized system.

Shifting to the circular model could contribute significantly to achieving Europes growth, employment, and environmental objectives, as shown above. It also offers an opportunity for renewal, with many previously underleveraged opportunities coming into focus. This means Europe could simplify governance and achieve structural reform. In its most ambitious form, making the transition to a circular economy could even become the second major European political economy project, after creating the internal market.

Shifting to the new model starts with acknowledging the systemic nature of the change. All sectors and policy domains will be affected, and aligned action is required. Such a shared agenda could contain four building blocks:

Essential enabling technologies are maturing and scaling fast. Investments in transitioning to a circular economy could deliver a stimulus to the European economy. Europe is in the midst of a pervasive shift in consumer behavior. Business leaders are implementing product-to-service strategies and innovative business models. At least for now, resource prices are easing, paving the way for correcting market and regulatory distortions.

Building a circular economy would require a large and complex effort to address the hurdles and transition costs associated with all of the major opportunities. The effort would require action at the local, national, regional, and global level. The extensive analysis conducted for this report remains indicative and requires further work, but it does suggest that a circular economy could produce significant societal, economic, and environmental outcomes, while acknowledging the transition cost.

Download the full report on which this article is based, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe (PDF2.5MB).

Follow this link:

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Economy – Wikipedia

An economy (from Greek “household” and o “manage”) is an area of the production, distribution, or trade[1], and consumption of goods and services by different agents. Understood in its broadest sense, ‘The economy is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the production, use, and management of resources’.[2] Economic agents can be individuals, businesses, organizations, or governments. Economic transactions occur when two parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. Monetary transactions only account for a small part of the economic domain.

Economic activity is spurred by production which uses natural resources, labor, and capital. It has changed over time due to technology (automation, accelerator of process, reduction of cost functions), innovation (new products, services, processes, new markets, expands markets, diversification of markets, niche markets, increases revenue functions) such as, that which produces intellectual property and changes in industrial relations (for example, child labor being replaced in some parts of the world with universal access to education).

A given economy is the result of a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure and legal systems, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. In other words, the economic domain is a social domain of human practices and transactions. It does not stand alone.

A market-based economy is where goods and services are produced and exchanged according to demand and supply between participants (economic agents) by barter or a medium of exchange with a credit or debit value accepted within the network, such as a unit of currency.

A command-based economy is where political agents directly control what is produced and how it is sold and distributed.

A green economy is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive. In a green economy, growth in income and employment are driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.[3]

Today the range of fields of the study examining the economy revolve around the social science of economics, but may include sociology (economic sociology), history (economic history), anthropology (economic anthropology), and geography (economic geography). Practical fields directly related to the human activities involving production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services as a whole, are engineering, management, business administration, applied science, and finance.

All professions, occupations, economic agents or economic activities, contribute to the economy. Consumption, saving, and investment are variable components in the economy that determine macroeconomic equilibrium. There are three main sectors of economic activity: primary, secondary, and tertiary.

Due to the growing importance of the economical sector in modern times,[4] the term real economy is used by analysts[5][6] as well as politicians[7] to denote the part of the economy that is concerned with the actual production of goods and services,[8] as ostensibly contrasted with the paper economy, or the financial side of the economy,[9] which is concerned with buying and selling on the financial markets. Alternate and long-standing terminology distinguishes measures of an economy expressed in real values (adjusted for inflation), such as real GDP, or in nominal values (unadjusted for inflation).[10]

The English words “economy” and “economics” can be traced back to the Greek word (i.e. “household management”), a composite word derived from (“house;household;home”) and (“manage; distribute;to deal out;dispense”) by way of (“household management”).

The first recorded sense of the word “economy” is in the phrase “the management of conomic affairs”, found in a work possibly composed in a monastery in 1440. “Economy” is later recorded in more general senses, including “thrift” and “administration”.

The most frequently used current sense, denoting “the economic system of a country or an area”, seems not to have developed until the 19th or 20th century.[11]

As long as someone has been making, supplying and distributing goods or services, there has been some sort of economy; economies grew larger as societies grew and became more complex. Sumer developed a large-scale economy based on commodity money, while the Babylonians and their neighboring city states later developed the earliest system of economics as we think of, in terms of rules/laws on debt, legal contracts and law codes relating to business practices, and private property.[12]

The Babylonians and their city state neighbors developed forms of economics comparable to currently used civil society (law) concepts.[13] They developed the first known codified legal and administrative systems, complete with courts, jails, and government records.

The ancient economy was mainly based on subsistence farming. The Shekel referred to an ancient unit of weight and currency. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC., and referred to a specific mass of barley which related other values in a metric such as silver, bronze, copper etc. A barley/shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight, just as the British Pound was originally a unit denominating a one-pound mass of silver.

For most people, the exchange of goods occurred through social relationships. There were also traders who bartered in the marketplaces. In Ancient Greece, where the present English word ‘economy’ originated, many people were bond slaves of the freeholders. The economic discussion was driven by scarcity.

In Medieval times, what we now call economy was not far from the subsistence level. Most exchange occurred within social groups. On top of this, the great conquerors raised venture capital (from ventura, ital.; risk) to finance their captures. The capital should be refunded by the goods they would bring up in the New World. Merchants such as Jakob Fugger (14591525) and Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici (13601428) founded the first banks.[citation needed] The discoveries of Marco Polo (12541324), Christopher Columbus (14511506) and Vasco da Gama (14691524) led to a first global economy. The first enterprises were trading establishments. In 1513, the first stock exchange was founded in Antwerpen. Economy at the time meant primarily trade.

The European captures became branches of the European states, the so-called colonies. The rising nation-states Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain and the Netherlands tried to control the trade through custom duties and (from mercator, lat.: merchant) was a first approach to intermediate between private wealth and public interest. The secularization in Europe allowed states to use the immense property of the church for the development of towns. The influence of the nobles decreased. The first Secretaries of State for economy started their work. Bankers like Amschel Mayer Rothschild (17731855) started to finance national projects such as wars and infrastructure. Economy from then on meant national economy as a topic for the economic activities of the citizens of a state.

The first economist in the true modern meaning of the word was the Scotsman Adam Smith (17231790) who was inspired partly by the ideas of physiocracy, a reaction to mercantilism and also later Economics student, Adam Mari.[14] He defined the elements of a national economy: products are offered at a natural price generated by the use of competition – supply and demand – and the division of labor. He maintained that the basic motive for free trade is human self-interest. The so-called self-interest hypothesis became the anthropological basis for economics. Thomas Malthus (17661834) transferred the idea of supply and demand to the problem of overpopulation.

The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 18th to the 19th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transport had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions starting in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spreading throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world. The onset of the Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was eventually influenced in some way. In Europe wild capitalism started to replace the system of mercantilism (today: protectionism) and led to economic growth. The period today is called industrial revolution because the system of Production, production and division of labor enabled the mass production of goods.

The contemporary concept of “the economy” wasn’t popularly known until the American Great Depression in the 1930s.[15]

After the chaos of two World Wars and the devastating Great Depression, policymakers searched for new ways of controlling the course of the economy. This was explored and discussed by Friedrich August von Hayek (18991992) and Milton Friedman (19122006) who pleaded for a global free trade and are supposed to be the fathers of the so-called neoliberalism. However, the prevailing view was that held by John Maynard Keynes (18831946), who argued for a stronger control of the markets by the state. The theory that the state can alleviate economic problems and instigate economic growth through state manipulation of aggregate demand is called Keynesianism in his honor. In the late 1950s, the economic growth in America and Europeoften called Wirtschaftswunder (ger: economic miracle) brought up a new form of economy: mass consumption economy. In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith (19082006) was the first to speak of an affluent society. In most of the countries the economic system is called a social market economy.

With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the transition of the countries of the Eastern Block towards democratic government and market economies, the idea of the post-industrial society is brought into importance as its role is to mark together the significance that the service sector receives at the place of the industrialization, as well the first usage of this term, some relate it to Daniel Bell’s 1973 book, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, while other – to social philosopher Ivan Illich’s book, Tools for Conviviality. The term is also applied in philosophy to designate the fading of postmodernism in the late 90s and especially in the beginning of the 21st century.

With the spread of Internet as a mass media and communication medium especially after 2000-2001, the idea for the Internet and information economy is given place because of the growing importance of ecommerce and electronic businesses, also the term for a global information society as understanding of a new type of “all-connected” society is created. In the late 00s, the new type of economies and economic expansions of countries like China, Brazil, and India bring attention and interest to different from the usually dominating Western type economies and economic models.

The economy may be considered as having developed through the following Phases or Degrees of Precedence.

In modern economies, these phase precedences are somewhat differently expressed by the three-sector theory.[citation needed]

Other sectors of the developed community include:

There are a number of ways to measure economic activity of a nation. These methods of measuring economic activity include:

The GDP – Gross domestic product of a country is a measure of the size of its economy. The most conventional economic analysis of a country relies heavily on economic indicators like the GDP and GDP per capita. While often useful, GDP only includes economic activity for which money is exchanged.

An informal economy is economic activity that is neither taxed nor monitored by a government, contrasted with a formal economy. The informal economy is thus not included in that government’s gross national product (GNP). Although the informal economy is often associated with developing countries, all economic systems contain an informal economy in some proportion.

Informal economic activity is a dynamic process which includes many aspects of economic and social theory including exchange, regulation, and enforcement. By its nature, it is necessarily difficult to observe, study, define, and measure. No single source readily or authoritatively defines informal economy as a unit of study.

The terms “under the table” and “off the books” typically refer to this type of economy. The term black market refers to a specific subset of the informal economy. The term “informal sector” was used in many earlier studies, and has been mostly replaced in more recent studies which use the newer term.

The informal sector makes up a significant portion of the economies in developing countries but it is often stigmatized as troublesome and unmanageable. However the informal sector provides critical economic opportunities for the poor and has been expanding rapidly since the 1960s. As such, integrating the informal economy into the formal sector is an important policy challenge.

Economic research is conducted in fields as different as Economics, Economic sociology, Economic anthropology, or Economic history.

See the rest here:

Economy – Wikipedia

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems.There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities.Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Go here to see the original:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Adopting circular-economy principles could not only benefit Europe environmentally and socially but could also generate a net economic benefit of 1.8 trillion by 2030.

Europes economy has generated unprecedented wealth over the past century. Part of the success is attributable to continuous improvements in resource productivitya trend that has started to reduce Europes resource exposure. At the same time, resource productivity remains hugely underexploited as a source of wealth, competitiveness, and renewal. Our new study, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe, provides new evidence that a circular economy, enabled by the technology revolution, would allow Europe to grow resource productivity by up to 3 percent annually. This would generate a primary-resource benefit of as much as 0.6 trillion per year by 2030 to Europes economies. In addition, it would generate 1.2 trillion in nonresource and externality benefits, bringing the annual total benefits to around 1.8 trillion compared with today.

This would translate into a GDP increase of as much as seven percentage points relative to the current development scenario, with an additional positive impact on employment. Looking at the systems for three human needs (mobility, food, and the built environment), our study concludes that rapid technology adoption is necessary but not sufficient to capture the circular opportunity. Instead, circular principles must guide the transition differently from those that govern todays economy. Pursued consistently, the economic promise is significant and the circular economy could qualify as the next major European political-economy project.

Europes economy remains very resource dependent. Views differ on how to address this against an economic backdrop of low and jobless growth as well as the struggle to reinvigorate competitiveness and absorb massive technological change.

Proponents of a circular economy argue that it offers Europe a major opportunity to increase resource productivity, decrease resource dependence and waste, and increase employment and growth. They maintain that a circular system would improve competitiveness and unleash innovation, and they see abundant circular opportunities that are inherently profitable but remain uncaptured.

Others argue that European companies are already capturing most of the economically attractive opportunities to recycle, remanufacture, and reuse. They maintain that reaching higher levels of circularity would involve an economic cost that Europe cannot afford when companies are already struggling with high resource prices. They further point out the high economic and political cost of the transition.

We looked at the issues to provide a fact base for decision makers contemplating the transition to a more circular economy. The insights of our report rest on extensive desk research, more than 150 interviews, economic modeling, the largest comparative study to date of the employment effects of a circular-economy transition, and deep analysis of three human needs that together account for 60 percent of European household spend and 80 percent of resource usemobility, food, and housing. The research and analysis yielded nine major conclusions.

In 2012, the average European used 16 metric tons of materials. Sixty percent of discarded materials were either put in a landfill or incinerated, while only 40 percent were recycled or reused. In value terms, Europe lost 95 percent of the material and energy value, while material recycling and waste-based energy recovery captured only 5 percent of the original raw-material value. Even recycling success stories like steel, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and paper lose 30 to 75 percent of the material value in the first-use cycle. On average, Europe uses materials only once.

The sector analysis also found significant waste in sectors that many would consider mature and optimized. For example, the average European car remains parked 92 percent of the time, 31 percent of food is wasted along the value chain, and the average European office is used only 35 to 50 percent of the time, even during working hours. And use cycles are short. The average manufactured asset lasts only nine years (excluding buildings).

In total, this way of producing and using products and resources costs Europe 7.2 trillion every year for the three sectors analyzed at depth in this report (mobility, food, and the built environment). Out of this total, actual resource costs are 1.8 trillion; other related cash costs, which include all other household and government expenditures on the three sectors, are 3.4 trillion; and externalities, such as traffic congestion, carbon, pollution, and noise, are 2.0 trillion (exhibit).

Exhibit

In the next decades, the digital and broader technology revolution could have the same disruptive impact on elements of the three sectors we studied as it has already had on many information sectors. The average cost per car-kilometer could drop as much as 75 percent, thanks to car-sharing schemes, autonomous and driverless driving, electric vehicles, and better materials. In food, precision agriculture could improve input efficiency of water and fertilizers by at least 20 to 30 percent, and combined with no-tillage farming, it could reduce machinery and input costs by as much as 75 percent. In buildings, industrial and modular processes could lower construction costs by 50 percent compared with on-site traditional construction. Passive houses could reduce energy consumption by 90 percent.

If these new technologies and business models are so promising, shouldnt Europe just let this development run its course? Probably not, for two reasons. First, the public sector and policy makers strongly influence these sectors todayfor example, through infrastructure investments, public transport, zoning laws, building standards, and agricultural subsidies. If technology deeply changed these sectors, current public interventions might not optimally steer future outcomes at a system level. Europe faces a real risk that urban planning, mobility systems, and food systems wouldnt be able to integrate the new technologies effectively, with much structural waste remaining.

Second, rebound effects will be significant. Resource-productivity increases in the sectors in our study have historically met an elastic demand response. When relative prices decrease, consumers use more individualized transport, floor space, and food. This volume effect for the three study sectors could be 5 to 20 percent by 2030, which would increase prosperity, but, if not managed well, could exacerbate externalities and resource challenges.

With these drawbacks, the study finds, the current development path could decrease the total cost in the three sectors by 0.9 trillion annually by 2030 versus todayor a reduction of 12 percent, from 7.2 trillion to 6.3 trillion.

When well integrated, the new technologies and business models could address much of the structural waste in mobility, food, and buildings and create new consumer choices. Increasing utilization and longevity would have significant economic upside and would go far toward avoiding negative system effects.

The report calls this notion growth within because it focuses on getting much more value from the existing stock of products and materials. Growth within could be an important source of additional consumer utility and growth for Europe. This circular economy would provide multiple value-creation mechanisms decoupled from the consumption of finite resources. The concept rests on three principles: preserve and enhance natural capital, optimize yields from resources in use, and foster system effectiveness (minimize negative externalities).

Pursuing this opportunity in an ambitious way would represent a big shift in Europes economic priorities. Today, Europe has no established metrics for the utilization of key infrastructure and products, for their longevity, or for success in preserving material and ecosystem value. Articles, policy seminars, statements, and targets for these topics are rare, compared with the pervasive focus on improving flows, as measured by GDP.

This report includes indicative benefit curves to suggest how much various circular-economy levers could reduce European resource use and what the economic effects could be. While the results of such modeling are indicative, rely on multiple assumptions, and call for more research, pursuing opportunities that are already profitable or will likely be profitable within the next five years could reduce annual net European resource spend in 2030 as much as 32 percent, or 0.6 trillion versus today.

These resource benefits also come with a significant economic multiplier effect. Benefits in other related cash costs could be as much as 0.7 trillion. Externality costs could decrease as much as 0.5 trillion. This makes the total annual benefit 1.8 trillion by 2030, twice the benefit of the current development path. The current total costs of 7.2 trillion would be decreased to 5.4 trillion.

The modeling also suggests that benefits would continue to grow rapidly as we approach 2050. Regenerating, sharing, optimizing, looping, virtualizing, and exchanging for new and better technologies seems especially powerful.

The modeling for 2030 suggests that the disposable income of European households could be as much as 11 percentage points higher in the circular scenario relative to the current development path, or 7 percentage points more in GDP terms.

The increased GDP results arise from increasing consumption and from correcting market and regulatory lock-ins that prevent many inherently profitable circular opportunities from materializing fully. The results are higher than those reported from most other recent studies on the economic impacts of a circular and resource-efficient economy. For instance, the recent report Study on modelling of the economic and environmental impacts of raw material consumption, conducted by Cambridge Econometrics and BIO Intelligence Service, concluded on a slightly positive GDP impact. The main reason for the difference is that the report assumes a substantially higher pace of technology change in the big product and resource sectors going forward compared with what has been observed in the pastor with the reasons explained abovewhereas most other reports assume a similar pace as witnessed historically.

This project included the largest academic metastudy to date on the relationship between employment and the circular economy. The review of 65 academic studies indicates that, while more research is needed, existing studies point to the positive employment effects occurring in the case that a circular economy is implemented. This impact on employment is largely attributable to increased spending fueled by the lower prices expected across sectors and to the labor intensity of recycling activities and higher-skilled jobs in remanufacturing. But not all would benefit from the economy-wide impact of the circular model on growth and employment. Some companies, sectors, and employment segments are likely to not act quickly enough and would lose out. If European leaders decided to shift toward a more circular economy, managing the transition would have to be a top priority.

A circular economy would decouple economic growth from resource use. Across the three study sectors, carbon emissions would drop as much as 48 percent by 2030 (31 percent on the current development path) and 83 percent by 2050 (61 percent on the current development path), compared with 2012 levels. Electric, shared, and autonomous vehicles, food-waste reduction, regenerative and healthy food chains, passive houses, urban planning, and renewable energy would be the principal sources of emission reduction across the three sectors.

Today, materials and components constitute 40 to 60 percent of the total cost base of manufacturing firms in Europe and often create a competitive cost disadvantage. Europe imports 60 percent of its fossil fuels and metal resources, and the EU has listed 20 materials as critical with respect to security of supply. In the circular scenario, primary-material consumption measured by car and construction materials, synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, agricultural water and land use, fuels and nonrenewable electricity, and land for real estate could drop as much as 32 percent by 2030 and 53 percent by 2050.

The transition would involve considerable costs, such as R&D and asset investments, stranded investments, subsidy payments to promote market penetration of new products, and public expenditure for digital infrastructure. While it is hard to find an appropriate cost comparable for such an economy-wide project, some examples could shed light on parts of the needed transition. For example, the British government has estimated that creating a fully efficient reuse and recycling system would cost around 14 billion, which would translate into 108 billion scaled to a Europe-wide level. The renewables transition in Germany cost 123 billion in feed-in tariffs to renewable plant operators from 2000 to 2013. It remains to be assessed to what extent these costs are additional relative to other development scenarios and to what extent they could act as a stimulus. For instance, the European Commissions agenda for establishing a digital single market and an energy union could create the core infrastructure for a regenerative and virtualized system.

Shifting to the circular model could contribute significantly to achieving Europes growth, employment, and environmental objectives, as shown above. It also offers an opportunity for renewal, with many previously underleveraged opportunities coming into focus. This means Europe could simplify governance and achieve structural reform. In its most ambitious form, making the transition to a circular economy could even become the second major European political economy project, after creating the internal market.

Shifting to the new model starts with acknowledging the systemic nature of the change. All sectors and policy domains will be affected, and aligned action is required. Such a shared agenda could contain four building blocks:

Essential enabling technologies are maturing and scaling fast. Investments in transitioning to a circular economy could deliver a stimulus to the European economy. Europe is in the midst of a pervasive shift in consumer behavior. Business leaders are implementing product-to-service strategies and innovative business models. At least for now, resource prices are easing, paving the way for correcting market and regulatory distortions.

Building a circular economy would require a large and complex effort to address the hurdles and transition costs associated with all of the major opportunities. The effort would require action at the local, national, regional, and global level. The extensive analysis conducted for this report remains indicative and requires further work, but it does suggest that a circular economy could produce significant societal, economic, and environmental outcomes, while acknowledging the transition cost.

Download the full report on which this article is based, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe (PDF2.5MB).

More here:

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Economy – Wikipedia

An economy (from Greek “household” and o “manage”) is an area of the production, distribution, or trade[1], and consumption of goods and services by different agents. Understood in its broadest sense, ‘The economy is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the production, use, and management of resources’.[2] Economic agents can be individuals, businesses, organizations, or governments. Economic transactions occur when two parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. Monetary transactions only account for a small part of the economic domain.

Economic activity is spurred by production which uses natural resources, labor, and capital. It has changed over time due to technology (automation, accelerator of process, reduction of cost functions), innovation (new products, services, processes, new markets, expands markets, diversification of markets, niche markets, increases revenue functions) such as, that which produces intellectual property and changes in industrial relations (for example, child labor being replaced in some parts of the world with universal access to education).

A given economy is the result of a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure and legal systems, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. In other words, the economic domain is a social domain of human practices and transactions. It does not stand alone.

A market-based economy is where goods and services are produced and exchanged according to demand and supply between participants (economic agents) by barter or a medium of exchange with a credit or debit value accepted within the network, such as a unit of currency.

A command-based economy is where political agents directly control what is produced and how it is sold and distributed.

A green economy is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive. In a green economy, growth in income and employment are driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.[3]

Today the range of fields of the study examining the economy revolve around the social science of economics, but may include sociology (economic sociology), history (economic history), anthropology (economic anthropology), and geography (economic geography). Practical fields directly related to the human activities involving production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services as a whole, are engineering, management, business administration, applied science, and finance.

All professions, occupations, economic agents or economic activities, contribute to the economy. Consumption, saving, and investment are variable components in the economy that determine macroeconomic equilibrium. There are three main sectors of economic activity: primary, secondary, and tertiary.

Due to the growing importance of the economical sector in modern times,[4] the term real economy is used by analysts[5][6] as well as politicians[7] to denote the part of the economy that is concerned with the actual production of goods and services,[8] as ostensibly contrasted with the paper economy, or the financial side of the economy,[9] which is concerned with buying and selling on the financial markets. Alternate and long-standing terminology distinguishes measures of an economy expressed in real values (adjusted for inflation), such as real GDP, or in nominal values (unadjusted for inflation).[10]

The English words “economy” and “economics” can be traced back to the Greek word (i.e. “household management”), a composite word derived from (“house;household;home”) and (“manage; distribute;to deal out;dispense”) by way of (“household management”).

The first recorded sense of the word “economy” is in the phrase “the management of conomic affairs”, found in a work possibly composed in a monastery in 1440. “Economy” is later recorded in more general senses, including “thrift” and “administration”.

The most frequently used current sense, denoting “the economic system of a country or an area”, seems not to have developed until the 19th or 20th century.[11]

As long as someone has been making, supplying and distributing goods or services, there has been some sort of economy; economies grew larger as societies grew and became more complex. Sumer developed a large-scale economy based on commodity money, while the Babylonians and their neighboring city states later developed the earliest system of economics as we think of, in terms of rules/laws on debt, legal contracts and law codes relating to business practices, and private property.[12]

The Babylonians and their city state neighbors developed forms of economics comparable to currently used civil society (law) concepts.[13] They developed the first known codified legal and administrative systems, complete with courts, jails, and government records.

The ancient economy was mainly based on subsistence farming. The Shekel referred to an ancient unit of weight and currency. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC., and referred to a specific mass of barley which related other values in a metric such as silver, bronze, copper etc. A barley/shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight, just as the British Pound was originally a unit denominating a one-pound mass of silver.

For most people, the exchange of goods occurred through social relationships. There were also traders who bartered in the marketplaces. In Ancient Greece, where the present English word ‘economy’ originated, many people were bond slaves of the freeholders. The economic discussion was driven by scarcity.

In Medieval times, what we now call economy was not far from the subsistence level. Most exchange occurred within social groups. On top of this, the great conquerors raised venture capital (from ventura, ital.; risk) to finance their captures. The capital should be refunded by the goods they would bring up in the New World. Merchants such as Jakob Fugger (14591525) and Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici (13601428) founded the first banks.[citation needed] The discoveries of Marco Polo (12541324), Christopher Columbus (14511506) and Vasco da Gama (14691524) led to a first global economy. The first enterprises were trading establishments. In 1513, the first stock exchange was founded in Antwerpen. Economy at the time meant primarily trade.

The European captures became branches of the European states, the so-called colonies. The rising nation-states Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain and the Netherlands tried to control the trade through custom duties and (from mercator, lat.: merchant) was a first approach to intermediate between private wealth and public interest. The secularization in Europe allowed states to use the immense property of the church for the development of towns. The influence of the nobles decreased. The first Secretaries of State for economy started their work. Bankers like Amschel Mayer Rothschild (17731855) started to finance national projects such as wars and infrastructure. Economy from then on meant national economy as a topic for the economic activities of the citizens of a state.

The first economist in the true modern meaning of the word was the Scotsman Adam Smith (17231790) who was inspired partly by the ideas of physiocracy, a reaction to mercantilism and also later Economics student, Adam Mari.[14] He defined the elements of a national economy: products are offered at a natural price generated by the use of competition – supply and demand – and the division of labor. He maintained that the basic motive for free trade is human self-interest. The so-called self-interest hypothesis became the anthropological basis for economics. Thomas Malthus (17661834) transferred the idea of supply and demand to the problem of overpopulation.

The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 18th to the 19th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transport had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions starting in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spreading throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world. The onset of the Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was eventually influenced in some way. In Europe wild capitalism started to replace the system of mercantilism (today: protectionism) and led to economic growth. The period today is called industrial revolution because the system of Production, production and division of labor enabled the mass production of goods.

The contemporary concept of “the economy” wasn’t popularly known until the American Great Depression in the 1930s.[15]

After the chaos of two World Wars and the devastating Great Depression, policymakers searched for new ways of controlling the course of the economy. This was explored and discussed by Friedrich August von Hayek (18991992) and Milton Friedman (19122006) who pleaded for a global free trade and are supposed to be the fathers of the so-called neoliberalism. However, the prevailing view was that held by John Maynard Keynes (18831946), who argued for a stronger control of the markets by the state. The theory that the state can alleviate economic problems and instigate economic growth through state manipulation of aggregate demand is called Keynesianism in his honor. In the late 1950s, the economic growth in America and Europeoften called Wirtschaftswunder (ger: economic miracle) brought up a new form of economy: mass consumption economy. In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith (19082006) was the first to speak of an affluent society. In most of the countries the economic system is called a social market economy.

With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the transition of the countries of the Eastern Block towards democratic government and market economies, the idea of the post-industrial society is brought into importance as its role is to mark together the significance that the service sector receives at the place of the industrialization, as well the first usage of this term, some relate it to Daniel Bell’s 1973 book, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, while other – to social philosopher Ivan Illich’s book, Tools for Conviviality. The term is also applied in philosophy to designate the fading of postmodernism in the late 90s and especially in the beginning of the 21st century.

With the spread of Internet as a mass media and communication medium especially after 2000-2001, the idea for the Internet and information economy is given place because of the growing importance of ecommerce and electronic businesses, also the term for a global information society as understanding of a new type of “all-connected” society is created. In the late 00s, the new type of economies and economic expansions of countries like China, Brazil, and India bring attention and interest to different from the usually dominating Western type economies and economic models.

The economy may be considered as having developed through the following Phases or Degrees of Precedence.

In modern economies, these phase precedences are somewhat differently expressed by the three-sector theory.[citation needed]

Other sectors of the developed community include:

There are a number of ways to measure economic activity of a nation. These methods of measuring economic activity include:

The GDP – Gross domestic product of a country is a measure of the size of its economy. The most conventional economic analysis of a country relies heavily on economic indicators like the GDP and GDP per capita. While often useful, GDP only includes economic activity for which money is exchanged.

An informal economy is economic activity that is neither taxed nor monitored by a government, contrasted with a formal economy. The informal economy is thus not included in that government’s gross national product (GNP). Although the informal economy is often associated with developing countries, all economic systems contain an informal economy in some proportion.

Informal economic activity is a dynamic process which includes many aspects of economic and social theory including exchange, regulation, and enforcement. By its nature, it is necessarily difficult to observe, study, define, and measure. No single source readily or authoritatively defines informal economy as a unit of study.

The terms “under the table” and “off the books” typically refer to this type of economy. The term black market refers to a specific subset of the informal economy. The term “informal sector” was used in many earlier studies, and has been mostly replaced in more recent studies which use the newer term.

The informal sector makes up a significant portion of the economies in developing countries but it is often stigmatized as troublesome and unmanageable. However the informal sector provides critical economic opportunities for the poor and has been expanding rapidly since the 1960s. As such, integrating the informal economy into the formal sector is an important policy challenge.

Economic research is conducted in fields as different as Economics, Economic sociology, Economic anthropology, or Economic history.

More here:

Economy – Wikipedia

About RBE | THE RESOURCE BASED abundance ECONOMY

The term resource based economy was coined by Jacque Fresco in The Venus Project as the name for what kind of economic system he envisions in the future. As there is a lot of talk about technology, design, architecture and the like this website tries to discuss the term resource based economy from a human perspective based on existing and possible future values on this planet. When this website was formed, one found almost nothing about a resource based economy online in spite of the websites of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement. This site was made to remedy that. Still, the term resource based economy can be replaced/overlapped by many other terms.

Resource Based Economy (RBE), Natural Resources Economy, Resource Economy, Moneyless Economy (MLE), Love Based Economy (LBE), Gift Economy (GE),Priceless Economic System (PES), Trust Economy (TE), Voluntary Collaborative Economy (VCE), Sharing Society, Resource Based Society, Moneyless Society, Love Based Society, Ubuntu, etc. etc. It is all the same thing. It doesnt really matter what we call it, as long as it has the basic notion of an economic system where no money is used, ownership and trade is abandoned and replaced with usership and giving and all resources (both human and planetary) are shared and managed properly. On this site we will mainly use the term Resource Based Economy. We could add Gift in the title (Resource Based Gift Economy), to emphasize that on a local micro level, we need to simply give and share our personal resources, while we at the same time, on a global macro level, manage global resources.

This site is dedicated to the development of a resource-based economy (RBE) on our planet. Here we can fantasize, visualize and imagine what RBE can be like in all aspects of life. From questions like Will there still be coffee shops, and who would work there? to How can RBE be implemented in the developing countries? and everything in between. RBE implies a million questions that needs to be answered before we can make this real. We need people in all categories to develop RBE. A main aim is to get this information out to people so the whole world can start to imagine and picture what a life in abundance without money can be like. This site can be used as a portal for initial introduction to the subject. We allow/encourage respectful duplication of this information.

What is a resource-based economy? Heres a quick definition:

A resource-based economy is a society without money, barter or trade, with the awareness that Humanity is One family and where technology, science and spirituality is used to its fullest to develop and manage the planets resources to provide abundance for everyone in the most sustainable way.

And heres an extended definition:

The continual emergence of a system of self imposed management of human and natural resources both locally and globally where money, trading and ownership is replaced by gratitude, sharing and usership in a way where everyones needs are met.

A resource-based economy uses the original meaning of the word economy, which used to bemanagement of material resources. In addition to material resources, we can put natural resources and human resources. It is a society without money with the earths resources shared where it is needed without any form of exchange, barter or payment. It is not a new communistic approach. Neither is it socialism or capitalism. Its beyond communism, socialism, feudalism, fascism, capitalism or any other ism. Its beyond any social system that has ever existed on this planet, at least in our awareness. In communism the state owns everything. In socialism the state owns something while the rest is privately owned. In capitalism everything is privately owned.

In a resource-based economy the worlds population doesnt own anything, but has access to everything. Anything ever needed, like food, clothing, housing, travel, etc. etc. is provided in abundance through the use of our updated knowledge, values and technology. Theres no state that is the owner of the resources, and nothing is privately owned. In RBE the worlds resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet, not just a select few. RBE is not a society where we will live in scarcity with few resources. It is not a society where a few control and distribute the resources. No, it is a totally new society where we let todays and tomorrows technology be developed to its fullest to work for us, and where we utilize knowledge about nature and technology to provide a life in abundance for everyone. It is a society where we truly have the option to take care of each other instead of struggling to survive.

It is a totally new way of life, unimaginable within todays value system, but still something most people truly long for in their hearts. It is a world where we can call ourselves Free and live with dignity and respect for each other, nature, the planet and the universe. It is a concept where value no longer is measured by money, but rather by the joy we feel, the contributions we make, and the development we take part in. It is a society where we utilize our minds and hearts in providing a healthy life for everyone, developing our knowledge about nature and technology, and using this in the most sustainable way.

Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange, where everything is provided for everyone, and everyone can pursue their own interests and dreams and live in the way they want. Be it moving closer to nature and grow your own garden of delicious vegetables, travel the globe and experience the wonders of the planet, make and perform your own music or collaborate with others to develop a new invention for the betterment of society. In a society where we dont have to think about money and profit, we can truly develop ourselves and the human race into something completely wonderful.

The monetary system doesnt work anymore and is obsolete. This is obvious when you look at todays world with increasing unemployment, financial crisis, endless consumption producing endless waste and pollution, not to speak of crime and wars. You could say money has outplayed its role on this planet. It produces greed and corruption through the profit motive we are all a slave to. The economy is falling apart, and everyone seems to be struggling to get richer and richer or just to make ends meet. The financial crisis has so far made over 200 million more people end up in poverty. Now, about 2 billion people in the world are considered poor. Poor countries that have received massive loans from the World Bank have become much poorer after receiving the loans, because of the interest. And they can only hope to pay it back. The collective external debt of all the governments in the world is now about 52 trillion dollars and this number doesnt include the massive amount of household debt in each country. How can we owe each other so much money??? Because we think we need it.

It turns out that its not money we need. We cannot eat money, or build houses with them. What we need is resources. Food, clothing, housing, etc. Money is just a hindrance in making the resources available for everyone. Imagine if there was no money. Right now. No money. Everything would still be there, wouldnt it? The trees, the mountains, the houses, cars, boats, air, grass, snow, rain, sun, animals, birds and bees and the people. Nothing has changed, really. Why? Because money doesnt really exist. Theres no money in nature. Its only an agreement between the worlds people, made up thousands of years ago as a means to control the world population. Instead of slavery, where one had to feed, house, nurse and guard the slaves, one invented money. With money everyone would have to fend for themselves, while the rulers created the currency, collected taxes and controlled the masses, like they do today.

It was a means of which people could trade stuff that they all needed. Labor, food, housing, etc. If it wasnt scarce, there was no need to charge for it. Like water and air. The rulers claimed ownership to land, and thus became the owners of this land. They could then charge others for using it and for stuff that was produced there, like it is today. And the property could be sold and inherited in the bloodline. Banks became invented, and eventually; loans. And now society has become addicted to it, like a drug. But, like a drug, money is something that we dont really need, we only think we do.

Where did the money come from in the first place? In the beginning it was based on rare metals, like gold and silver, and because of its scarcity it could be used as means of trading, instead of cows, hens, corn and other rather-impractical-to-carry-around stuff. Notice the word scarce. Common rock wouldnt have worked, because everyone would have had it. But today. where does the money come from? The answer is..: Nowhere. The money is not even printed anymore. Only 3% of the worlds money is in paper or metal currency, the rest 97% is electronic. New money today is made by the stroke of buttons on computer keyboards, like the one Im typing on now. And this is also how the banks make loans, and wants it payed back, with interest, which is not created in the system, makingbankruptcy inevitable for many companies, and now even countries.

In other words, debt is money. Its like taking a piece of paper, writing 1 million dollars on it, giving it to a poor bastard and say now you owe me 1 million dollars, and you have to pay it back with a yearly interest of 5%, thank you. This is how, in simplicity, it is done. The money today doesnt really exist. Its just an agreement that the whole world has bought into. And now were stuck in it in lack of a better system. Except, now we have a better option, a resource- based economy.

The economy goes up and down in booms and busts. People are getting rich out of nothing, or being struck bankrupt out of the same nothing. In a depression, shops can be full of what people need, but no one has the money to buy it. We are reduced to consumers, even though we are Human Beings. Governments try to control the economy by adjusting the general interest rate and by other means. We have to consume. Not too much, cause then we get inflation and a new economic bubble. But not to little either, then we get a recession because not enough people are buying the products that companies produce. So, its a fine balance. But really, a ridiculous balance. It leads to a lot of trouble for our selves. Overproduction in boom times, underproduction in recession times, pollution, war, corruption, crime, poverty, and withholding of technology because we have to squeeze what we can out of the oil, and other obsolete technology that gives us.money. Still, technology is advancing further and further and replacing jobs faster than we can say technological unemployment, which in itself is increasing year by year, replacing more and more workers by machines.

Machines are both helping us and taking our jobs. Jobs that are needed to get the money to buy things that the technology produces, so that the companies can get more money, to produce more things that you can buy, if you have the money You see? Its a scheme thats set to bust. But money is not what we really need. What we need is what we today believe only money can buy. We need the resources. We need quality of life. Not the money. The truth is that theres not enough money in the world to buy us out of this crisis, or if there was, the money would not be worth much. Since the world economy is based on scarcity, if there is too much money, they wont be worth enough to pay for what we need, the resources. If there is an abundance of money for everyone there would be no value in the money. Still, thats what the world leaders are trying to do today and has been doing for the last 40 years. Growing the economy and printing more money to pour into the system, so that banks can lend out more money, and companies can pay their debt, with more debt, with more money. Money, the thing that created the problem in the first place. The system is doomed for collapse. This is self evident.

Money and false scarcity makes us steal, lie, cheat, become greedy, corrupt and stingy. Actually, all of the worlds governments and people are corrupt, because corruption is a byproduct of money. Since with money, we are all doomed to think profit. Everyone from a single person to a big company. Everyone need to have some form of income. And the income has to come from someone else. Thus, we get greedy, and corrupt and separated from each other and nature, which is our true provider, not money. Its not people that are greedy and corrupt, it is not human nature, its the system that makes people this way. If there were no money, and we could get all we needed and wanted without from nature, technology and each other, there would be no greed, and no corruption. Human nature is by large a product of the environment. With abundance competition becomes obsolete. With abundance there wouldnt be any need to steal. With abundance we could focus on living our lives and develop society. It is about time we end the meaningless competition and start collaborating.

The real human nature is a collaborating one. Think about it. We naturally collaborate to build houses and bridges, develop software and businesses. Collaboration gives satisfaction while competition gives stress. Of course, we could still compete for fun, in games and sport. But when it comes to the development of society we see that competition only hinders progress. A lot of energy and resources is wasted in the pursuit of competing for market share. We dont need 100 different flat screens, we only need one, the best. In a resource-based economy the technological development will have come so far that we can produce anything specially requested by the individual, and in the highest quality, through the use of nanotechnology and computer based manufacturing. This is not science fiction, this technology is being developed now.

What about incentive? I hear you say. Why would people want to do anything, if it wasnt anything in it for them, like money? Well, I sit here now and write this, not because I earn any money on it, but because it gives me something else. The satisfaction of the feeling of helping people, helping society into a new world, that benefits all. And this is a feeling no money can buy. This, I think, is the reason for most of the worlds new inventions, like the radio, the light bulb, electricity, penicillin, etc. etc. Not money, but the need and urge to create and share with other people, and be a part of what is going on. Its no fun keeping all your creations for your self only. The fun lies in sharing with friends, family and the world.

Why do you do anything? I bet you want to do something in your life that you find interesting and fulfilling in some way, not just because you earn money on it. Most people have hobbies and interests that that they like to spend time on, and where no money is made. For many people, this is their reason for living. For many others, they keep their job because it is fulfilling.If it ONLY made you some bucks, or maybe, rich, you would feel really poor in the end. You would realize that money cant buy you happiness. Maybe for a while, but not permanent. So, its not really money that makes you do things, now is it. Its something else. Fulfillment. We all want to be fulfilled in our lives, and even today, money is only a small part of that.

What if you didnt need any money to get all you want today? What if you could get all you think you want today without any money? Travel anywhere you like, drive cool cars (non-polluting ones!), live in a nice place, have this and that new electronic device, go to concerts, eat good food, relax, study what ever you want for as long as you want, work with what you want, contribute to society, learn a new skill, teach a new skill. What would you do? No pursuit for money anymore But you dont need to own the car you drive, or the house you live in, or camera you use, as long as you have access to it as long as you need it.

Say you want to go on a boat trip. What if you could just book a seat on a boat, and go? Or, better yet, book a whole boat, a yacht, if you will, and sail away. It would be pretty boring alone, so you bring some friends along. Good. What about food? All the food you want is provided. So is clothing. And everything else. None of it is really yours, yet all of it is. Its everyones. It wont be like; hey, I need a pair of underwear, give me yours!. Of course not. There would be plenty of underwear, enough for everyone, in enough different colors and shapes. And boats. The beauty of it is that we dont need to own that boat. When were done with it, we return it, so someone else can use it. In a harbor on the opposite side of the globe, or where we picked it up. It doesnt matter. From there we have booked a car, or whatever vehicle we have in RBE, that will take us further on our trip.

Both the boat and the car is produced with the most ease of maintenance and use in mind. And they can maintain themselves in most ways, including taking themselves to a maintenance facility where other machines helps them with what they need. This way we dont need parking lots stuffed full of cars that are not in use, or harbors stuffed full of boats that are just lying there. There would be a good selection of cars and boats for everyone to choose from in many kinds of designs, fitting your taste and personality. And ALL of them would be yours to use! Not just one or two. They are ALL yours, orours.

There would be produced more than enough of all that people would demand, in fully automated factories and on personal 3D printers. And it would be produced to last. Not like today, where cars are actually produced to brake down, so that they can sell more cars, and keep a whole maintenance industry alive. No, in a resource-based economy there would be no point in making anything in poor quality. In a resource-based economy it would be most beneficial for everyone that every product is of the highest possible quality, and that all the planets resources are managed, developed and protected to the highest degree. And when we go by access rather than ownership, we wouldnt need more than a fraction of the amount of cars and boats and things we have today. Since non of the things are in use all the time, and we share the things we have, we, the environment and the planet will do with a lot less things, and a lot less waste, if any.

In the world today there are plenty of resources for everyone, if they are properly managed, that is. The monetary system makes us compete for the resources on the planet. A resource like oil is continually being pumped up because of the money it makes, instead of researching and developing new environmentally friendly energy, thus continuing to pollute the world. There is a lot of alternative development going on, though, but still, the oil is being pumped up to the last drop. And the green energy is also monetized. Streams, made from the rain, made from the evaporated water the sun is responsible for, are running down the mountain, and then the electricity it produces is charged for by the kilowatt-hour. So is the wind, and the tidal power, nuclear power and every other energy source on the planet today. Making the richer richer and the poorer poorer.

It cant go on like this forever. We have two choices. One is where globalization by corporations takes over, we are all chipped and controlled, and become the sheep that feed the never ending hunger of the few. Actually, this is not far from what it is like today. The interest you pay on your loans pays the interest the rich get on their money in the bank. I.e. they dont have to work, but you do.

The other choice is where money is abandoned and the worlds resources are distributed to where it is needed. This distribution is possible with todays technology. We can have a sensor and distribution system covering the whole planet, making it possible to monitor resources, supply and demand all over the world. We already have this system to a large degree, through satellites and other technology. We can also combine this with input from users.

In nature there is a natural abundance. Everything in nature is there for us to use and develop to the best for ourselves and humanity. It is only when the profit motive comes in everything is distorted. Then crops are thrown away because of profit, and land is overused. When we close the door on money and profit, we can easily produce more than enough food for everyone on the planet. When we take one seed from an apple and put it in the ground, we get a whole tree full of apples after a while. And with that we get more than enough seeds to plant more apple trees. And everything is provided for us by nature, all for free. No charge. And not much labour. We plant the seed at the right place and then it grows all by it selves. It only needs water, light, nurturing and time. And voila, we have apples. And this goes for every other plant on the planet as well. Its all there for us to utilize.

The day to day decision making can largely be computerized and be based on need and our input, with highly developed, self maintaining and self producing machines and robots combined with the loving care of humans. If there is a need and want for housing in a particular area, the houses will be built by machines in accordance to the specifications of the future inhabitants. If there is need for more of a particular food, that will be produced and provided. Already today cars can run by themselves only guided by GPS and sensors. Several hospitals use robots for inventory and logistics. Planes have had autopilots for years and can both take off, navigate and land by themselves. Factories produce all kinds of products faster and more efficient than any human being could ever do. Billions of big and small decisions are already taken for us every day by computers.

Still, politicians makes us believe that they know best what is best for us. Even though they havent got a clue about the science behind it, and what is measurable the best solution for society and the environment at any given time. Politics is not in our interest, it is only a smoke screen, made to distract us from what is really important. We can have a world of abundance for absolutely everyone as long as we skip the bickering of politics and really open our eyes for what we really need and how far technology and science has really come. The technological and scientific development has really passed societys values by far, and its time we catch up.

In a resource-based economy there would be no need to hold back on any new invention. No patents would be needed. Every new development that would be in the interest of humanity would be developed and shared as fast as possible. We wouldnt want or need to pollute the world more than absolutely necessary, if necessary at all. We would develop everything in a way that would maximize the quality of life for everyone. Humans, animals, insects, plants and the environment itself. Technology has come so far today that we can make it do almost anything. Technology is not to be feared. Technology is like a knife. It can be used to stab someone to death, or to cut bread. Technology itself is neutral. Its we who gives it its purpose and meaning. And theres no turning back.

Technology has come to stay. Imagine a life without cell phones, video, mp3 players, cameras, internet, satellites, electricity, modern hospitals, washing machines, cars, trains, planes, computers, lamps, running shoes, running water, loud speakers, windows, steel, dvd players, tooth brushes, dental floss, glasses, contact lenses and what have you. A car plant today is almost 100% automated. So are most other factories. Humans are only kept there to give the illusion that jobs are created and maintained. They are not really needed there. The machines can do all the work with todays technology. Humans are really only needed for some supervising. Technology could probably replace 99% of all human labor in a few years if we want that to happen.

This seems like a sad thing for many, but only if you need a job. In a resource-based economy automation is the liberating factor for people. It is so today as well, until the whole economy collapses, that is. Which it will, eventually. And now, imagine what tomorrows technology can do. Its we who creates it, and its we who will decide what it will do. Today, with the monetary system, technology is used for a lot of destructive development, like weapons. The weapons are largely produced to defend or conquer borders and property, two things that will not exist in a resource-based economy. Weapons are the byproduct of money, the monetary system. War is one of the most profitable activities on this planet. The monetary system produces war, and makes technology to be used destructively. In a resource-based economy with no money, barter, exchange, borders or passports, there would be no reason to produce weapons to defend borders and kill people for property and profit.

We are foreseeing a new worldwide social system where the worlds resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet. A new moneyless society with a resource-based macro economy and a gift micro economy. Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange of any kind, where everything is provided for and shared by everyone. Not uniformity, but individual freedom and expression will be its credo. True unity through diversity, and abundance for all would be its goal. And for ever openness to change and development its reality. Its not utopia, its just a new possible direction for society. No debt, loans,taxes, money, bills, accounting, laws, war, borders, passports, scarcity, stocks, financial crisis, poverty, corruption or hunger. But rather freedom, ingenuity, creativity, positive development, peace, love & understanding (yeah, yeah, cliche, but its true!), personal individual expression, abundance, prosperity, sharing and giving and true Unity for all the worlds people. Call it a dream, call it utopia, call it wonderland, or call it Evolution. This might just be the next step in the development of society.

Yes, the resource-based economy poses a million new questions, its not an easy fix. But its better than what we have. For the first time in history we have the possibility to communicate and collaborate across the planet and develop something that can really change the world. We could actually have a resource based gift economytoday, if everyone simply stopped using money.

We need all kinds of people from all over the world to help imagine and develop this new direction for Humanity together. Everyone from artists to scientists, executives to politicians, organizations to corporations and from citizens to governments. We need EVERYONE onboard on this flight. There is no us and them anymore. We are all in this boat together.

RBE was first brought up by Jacque Fresco with The Venus Project, started in Venus, Florida, USA. It was taken further by Peter Joseph through the Zeitgeist Movement. Zeitgeist means the spirit of the times. The Zeitgeist Movement is not a political or religious movement, but rather a grassroots movement for applied spirituality. Meaning that we seek to implement on this planet the core values of all the worlds religions and spiritual movements, like Oneness, unity, equality and freedom for all people. True freedom can only come when we see all people on this planet as the righteous, equal members of humanity, with equal access to all the planets resources. For this world to exist we have to update our values and views on life and how it can be.

Read and find out more here:

UBUNTU Contributionism

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

http://www.thevenusproject.com

Check also all the links the links page.

We need everyone to know about this new possibility for Humanity.

Heres a list of suggestions to what you can do:

Tell your friends. Send them to this page for an initial introduction. You can use the save/share button below to post on Facebook etc.

Write in blogs and forums.

Write articles and send to media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television, internet) in all countries. Feel free to copy and use as much as the above article as you like. Get celebrities to support the movement.

Get the support of investors, companies and corporations. Dont rule this out, we all work with or for someone, and we are all trapped and want to get out, even corporate executives. There are also many investors that actually want to create betterment for Humanity.

Get the support of politicians. Give them a chance, some might get it.

Start more websites about the resource-based economy. The more we populate the web with it, the faster the message will get out.

Involve yourself in the Zeitgeist movement.

We allow and encourage respectful duplication of this information. Respectful means referencing this source. Thank you.

Originally posted here:

About RBE | THE RESOURCE BASED abundance ECONOMY

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems.There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities.Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Read more here:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Adopting circular-economy principles could not only benefit Europe environmentally and socially but could also generate a net economic benefit of 1.8 trillion by 2030.

Europes economy has generated unprecedented wealth over the past century. Part of the success is attributable to continuous improvements in resource productivitya trend that has started to reduce Europes resource exposure. At the same time, resource productivity remains hugely underexploited as a source of wealth, competitiveness, and renewal. Our new study, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe, provides new evidence that a circular economy, enabled by the technology revolution, would allow Europe to grow resource productivity by up to 3 percent annually. This would generate a primary-resource benefit of as much as 0.6 trillion per year by 2030 to Europes economies. In addition, it would generate 1.2 trillion in nonresource and externality benefits, bringing the annual total benefits to around 1.8 trillion compared with today.

This would translate into a GDP increase of as much as seven percentage points relative to the current development scenario, with an additional positive impact on employment. Looking at the systems for three human needs (mobility, food, and the built environment), our study concludes that rapid technology adoption is necessary but not sufficient to capture the circular opportunity. Instead, circular principles must guide the transition differently from those that govern todays economy. Pursued consistently, the economic promise is significant and the circular economy could qualify as the next major European political-economy project.

Europes economy remains very resource dependent. Views differ on how to address this against an economic backdrop of low and jobless growth as well as the struggle to reinvigorate competitiveness and absorb massive technological change.

Proponents of a circular economy argue that it offers Europe a major opportunity to increase resource productivity, decrease resource dependence and waste, and increase employment and growth. They maintain that a circular system would improve competitiveness and unleash innovation, and they see abundant circular opportunities that are inherently profitable but remain uncaptured.

Others argue that European companies are already capturing most of the economically attractive opportunities to recycle, remanufacture, and reuse. They maintain that reaching higher levels of circularity would involve an economic cost that Europe cannot afford when companies are already struggling with high resource prices. They further point out the high economic and political cost of the transition.

We looked at the issues to provide a fact base for decision makers contemplating the transition to a more circular economy. The insights of our report rest on extensive desk research, more than 150 interviews, economic modeling, the largest comparative study to date of the employment effects of a circular-economy transition, and deep analysis of three human needs that together account for 60 percent of European household spend and 80 percent of resource usemobility, food, and housing. The research and analysis yielded nine major conclusions.

In 2012, the average European used 16 metric tons of materials. Sixty percent of discarded materials were either put in a landfill or incinerated, while only 40 percent were recycled or reused. In value terms, Europe lost 95 percent of the material and energy value, while material recycling and waste-based energy recovery captured only 5 percent of the original raw-material value. Even recycling success stories like steel, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and paper lose 30 to 75 percent of the material value in the first-use cycle. On average, Europe uses materials only once.

The sector analysis also found significant waste in sectors that many would consider mature and optimized. For example, the average European car remains parked 92 percent of the time, 31 percent of food is wasted along the value chain, and the average European office is used only 35 to 50 percent of the time, even during working hours. And use cycles are short. The average manufactured asset lasts only nine years (excluding buildings).

In total, this way of producing and using products and resources costs Europe 7.2 trillion every year for the three sectors analyzed at depth in this report (mobility, food, and the built environment). Out of this total, actual resource costs are 1.8 trillion; other related cash costs, which include all other household and government expenditures on the three sectors, are 3.4 trillion; and externalities, such as traffic congestion, carbon, pollution, and noise, are 2.0 trillion (exhibit).

Exhibit

In the next decades, the digital and broader technology revolution could have the same disruptive impact on elements of the three sectors we studied as it has already had on many information sectors. The average cost per car-kilometer could drop as much as 75 percent, thanks to car-sharing schemes, autonomous and driverless driving, electric vehicles, and better materials. In food, precision agriculture could improve input efficiency of water and fertilizers by at least 20 to 30 percent, and combined with no-tillage farming, it could reduce machinery and input costs by as much as 75 percent. In buildings, industrial and modular processes could lower construction costs by 50 percent compared with on-site traditional construction. Passive houses could reduce energy consumption by 90 percent.

If these new technologies and business models are so promising, shouldnt Europe just let this development run its course? Probably not, for two reasons. First, the public sector and policy makers strongly influence these sectors todayfor example, through infrastructure investments, public transport, zoning laws, building standards, and agricultural subsidies. If technology deeply changed these sectors, current public interventions might not optimally steer future outcomes at a system level. Europe faces a real risk that urban planning, mobility systems, and food systems wouldnt be able to integrate the new technologies effectively, with much structural waste remaining.

Second, rebound effects will be significant. Resource-productivity increases in the sectors in our study have historically met an elastic demand response. When relative prices decrease, consumers use more individualized transport, floor space, and food. This volume effect for the three study sectors could be 5 to 20 percent by 2030, which would increase prosperity, but, if not managed well, could exacerbate externalities and resource challenges.

With these drawbacks, the study finds, the current development path could decrease the total cost in the three sectors by 0.9 trillion annually by 2030 versus todayor a reduction of 12 percent, from 7.2 trillion to 6.3 trillion.

When well integrated, the new technologies and business models could address much of the structural waste in mobility, food, and buildings and create new consumer choices. Increasing utilization and longevity would have significant economic upside and would go far toward avoiding negative system effects.

The report calls this notion growth within because it focuses on getting much more value from the existing stock of products and materials. Growth within could be an important source of additional consumer utility and growth for Europe. This circular economy would provide multiple value-creation mechanisms decoupled from the consumption of finite resources. The concept rests on three principles: preserve and enhance natural capital, optimize yields from resources in use, and foster system effectiveness (minimize negative externalities).

Pursuing this opportunity in an ambitious way would represent a big shift in Europes economic priorities. Today, Europe has no established metrics for the utilization of key infrastructure and products, for their longevity, or for success in preserving material and ecosystem value. Articles, policy seminars, statements, and targets for these topics are rare, compared with the pervasive focus on improving flows, as measured by GDP.

This report includes indicative benefit curves to suggest how much various circular-economy levers could reduce European resource use and what the economic effects could be. While the results of such modeling are indicative, rely on multiple assumptions, and call for more research, pursuing opportunities that are already profitable or will likely be profitable within the next five years could reduce annual net European resource spend in 2030 as much as 32 percent, or 0.6 trillion versus today.

These resource benefits also come with a significant economic multiplier effect. Benefits in other related cash costs could be as much as 0.7 trillion. Externality costs could decrease as much as 0.5 trillion. This makes the total annual benefit 1.8 trillion by 2030, twice the benefit of the current development path. The current total costs of 7.2 trillion would be decreased to 5.4 trillion.

The modeling also suggests that benefits would continue to grow rapidly as we approach 2050. Regenerating, sharing, optimizing, looping, virtualizing, and exchanging for new and better technologies seems especially powerful.

The modeling for 2030 suggests that the disposable income of European households could be as much as 11 percentage points higher in the circular scenario relative to the current development path, or 7 percentage points more in GDP terms.

The increased GDP results arise from increasing consumption and from correcting market and regulatory lock-ins that prevent many inherently profitable circular opportunities from materializing fully. The results are higher than those reported from most other recent studies on the economic impacts of a circular and resource-efficient economy. For instance, the recent report Study on modelling of the economic and environmental impacts of raw material consumption, conducted by Cambridge Econometrics and BIO Intelligence Service, concluded on a slightly positive GDP impact. The main reason for the difference is that the report assumes a substantially higher pace of technology change in the big product and resource sectors going forward compared with what has been observed in the pastor with the reasons explained abovewhereas most other reports assume a similar pace as witnessed historically.

This project included the largest academic metastudy to date on the relationship between employment and the circular economy. The review of 65 academic studies indicates that, while more research is needed, existing studies point to the positive employment effects occurring in the case that a circular economy is implemented. This impact on employment is largely attributable to increased spending fueled by the lower prices expected across sectors and to the labor intensity of recycling activities and higher-skilled jobs in remanufacturing. But not all would benefit from the economy-wide impact of the circular model on growth and employment. Some companies, sectors, and employment segments are likely to not act quickly enough and would lose out. If European leaders decided to shift toward a more circular economy, managing the transition would have to be a top priority.

A circular economy would decouple economic growth from resource use. Across the three study sectors, carbon emissions would drop as much as 48 percent by 2030 (31 percent on the current development path) and 83 percent by 2050 (61 percent on the current development path), compared with 2012 levels. Electric, shared, and autonomous vehicles, food-waste reduction, regenerative and healthy food chains, passive houses, urban planning, and renewable energy would be the principal sources of emission reduction across the three sectors.

Today, materials and components constitute 40 to 60 percent of the total cost base of manufacturing firms in Europe and often create a competitive cost disadvantage. Europe imports 60 percent of its fossil fuels and metal resources, and the EU has listed 20 materials as critical with respect to security of supply. In the circular scenario, primary-material consumption measured by car and construction materials, synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, agricultural water and land use, fuels and nonrenewable electricity, and land for real estate could drop as much as 32 percent by 2030 and 53 percent by 2050.

The transition would involve considerable costs, such as R&D and asset investments, stranded investments, subsidy payments to promote market penetration of new products, and public expenditure for digital infrastructure. While it is hard to find an appropriate cost comparable for such an economy-wide project, some examples could shed light on parts of the needed transition. For example, the British government has estimated that creating a fully efficient reuse and recycling system would cost around 14 billion, which would translate into 108 billion scaled to a Europe-wide level. The renewables transition in Germany cost 123 billion in feed-in tariffs to renewable plant operators from 2000 to 2013. It remains to be assessed to what extent these costs are additional relative to other development scenarios and to what extent they could act as a stimulus. For instance, the European Commissions agenda for establishing a digital single market and an energy union could create the core infrastructure for a regenerative and virtualized system.

Shifting to the circular model could contribute significantly to achieving Europes growth, employment, and environmental objectives, as shown above. It also offers an opportunity for renewal, with many previously underleveraged opportunities coming into focus. This means Europe could simplify governance and achieve structural reform. In its most ambitious form, making the transition to a circular economy could even become the second major European political economy project, after creating the internal market.

Shifting to the new model starts with acknowledging the systemic nature of the change. All sectors and policy domains will be affected, and aligned action is required. Such a shared agenda could contain four building blocks:

Essential enabling technologies are maturing and scaling fast. Investments in transitioning to a circular economy could deliver a stimulus to the European economy. Europe is in the midst of a pervasive shift in consumer behavior. Business leaders are implementing product-to-service strategies and innovative business models. At least for now, resource prices are easing, paving the way for correcting market and regulatory distortions.

Building a circular economy would require a large and complex effort to address the hurdles and transition costs associated with all of the major opportunities. The effort would require action at the local, national, regional, and global level. The extensive analysis conducted for this report remains indicative and requires further work, but it does suggest that a circular economy could produce significant societal, economic, and environmental outcomes, while acknowledging the transition cost.

Download the full report on which this article is based, Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe (PDF2.5MB).

See the rest here:

Europes circular-economy opportunity | McKinsey & Company

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems.There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities.Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

More:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems. There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities. Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Read more:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Resource Based Economy | The Economic Truth

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing ones job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money troubles you, consider this: if a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air, and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource, nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Are we ready to start up a resource based economy?

Can we convince everyone to start a resource based economy?

We believe that a resource based economy can be an amazing change for humanity, but can we convince everyone that we can have a society without the want to become rich or motivated?

We guess as with other systems we talk about its not for everyone. You have to be a highly aware human in order to live in a resource based economy as it is created for you to be your very best and to live a life of full human expression.

A resource based economy sees what is best for humanity and takes that direction. It is very opposite to todays system where corporate interest and profit chooses the road that humanity takes together.

Will a resource based economy have to be implemented with force? NO!! You have to start in the small and what we believe is that every idea has to elevate people its way. So lets start a resourced based economy and then let those who want to live in it do so! A real revolution gives people options, that is why we propose as many solutions as possible as people are different and should be able to choose their destiny without socially engineering them towards your solution!

Learn more

To learn more go to this website!

Do you like the resource based economy? Well its time to meet and connect with others that love this great economic concept: http://thevenusproject.com/ and http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

Learn more on the Venus project YouTube Channel:

Go here to see the original:

Resource Based Economy | The Economic Truth

More than 250 projects worth $5.1 billion launched in first two years of industrialisation plan – Astana Times

ASTANA Kazakhstan launched 258 projects worth 1.7 trillion tenge (US$5.1 billion) in the first two years of its second five-year industrialisation plan. The plan is meant to diversify the countrys economy and boost domestic production.

Photo credit: primeminister.kz

Kazakhstans First Vice Minister of Investments and Development Alik Aidarbayev reported on the countrys progress in its State Industrial and Innovative Development Programme for 2015-2019 during an Aug. 22 press conference.

In line with the industrialisation road map, we continue launching new ventures, creating and preserving jobs. We unveiled 258 projects worth 1.7 trillion tenge (US$5.1 billion) since the beginning of the second five-year plan in 2015. We created 21,000 jobs. Since the beginning of this year, 32 projects worth 489 billion tenge (US$1.47 billion) were commissioned, providing jobs to 3,900 people. Over the industrialisation years, [since 2010] 1,060 projects amounting to 5.1 trillion tenge (US$15.33 billion) were launched creating 100,000 jobs, said Aidarbayev.

One of the key goals of the programme, according to the vice minister, is the diversification of the predominantly resource-based Kazakh economy and the subsequent increase of the processing industrys share in the domestic market.

Our economy needs diversification and this programme has been working for several years now. The results are evident and every year we are witnessing the growth of the processing industry. It constitutes 12 percent of the current [gross domestic product] and 30 percent in the economy in general, added Aidarbayev.

A rapidly growing sector in the domestic economy, the processing industry also serves as a main driver of industrial growth, according to Aidarbayev.

Within seven months of 2017 the real growth in the processing industry was 6.3 percent, while production grew 5.3 percent. The volume of exports totalled $6.2 billion, which is 27.8 percent more than in the same period last year. This is due to the favourable conditions in international markets and expansion in new foreign markets. The amount of investments in the processing industry is estimated at 411 billion tenge (US$1.24 billion) in the first half of 2017, which shows a 2.7 percent increase compared to the same period last year, noted the vice minister.

The industrialisation programme allowed the country to produce 500 different commodities previously not produced domestically, including passenger and freight cars, electric locomotives, x-ray equipment and pharmaceutical products.

One hundred projects worth more than one trillion tenge (US$3 billion) are to be implemented by the end of this year.

Read the rest here:

More than 250 projects worth $5.1 billion launched in first two years of industrialisation plan – Astana Times


12345...10...