Oil Independence in the Near Future?

[Khamsin]

I'm just curious, how would any other style of economics solve it?

Well, if you disregard all the other problems with such a government/economy, you could just have a dictatorship where the dictator orders people to mine the landfills and they do it. Then, you don't have to worry about how much it costs, because it's free!

[Maxxthepenguin]

I'm just curious, how would any other style of economics solve it?

That problem can be solved by a style where the government says "no you can't do that shit" or runs the companies itself.

Of course, each style has its own problems, which is why every surviving government is a blend of different styles, rather than the paragon of a single one.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm just curious, how would any other style of economics solve it?

Well, if you disregard all the other problems with such a government/economy, you could just have a dictatorship where the dictator orders people to mine the landfills and they do it. Then, you don't have to worry about how much it costs, because it's free!

And by his logic the dictatorship is made of win!

Edit: Semi-on topic. Are ethanol subsidies f'ing with the price of beer? I.e. farmers growing corn instead of hops or whatever goes in beer? All the bars in my town have started jacking up the price of beer by like $1-$2 a drink. I've noticed it at the grocery store to.

[Vistani]

Pollution from gasoline-powered vehicles is also the main cause of global warming, but that is another issue all together.

:bagel:

Yeah, I missed that quote (which is complete bullshit). Any scientist worth his salt knows that one volcanic eruption produces more gases that have an affect on global warming than all of the carbon monoxide from every car on the planet since cars were invented. Global warming is solely a political issue, it's not even considered remotely serious within the unbiased scientific community except by environmentalist extremists.

Not saying that we shouldn't be worried about pollutants, because we most definitely should, but saying that we should stop using oil SOLELY due to the greenhouse gas effects is completely ignorant. We should stop using oil because it's expensive and inefficient, not because of that.

But okay.

Another victim of the great global warming swindle? Or perhaps you are one of these scientists who are worth their salt. :/
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2006/06_10_26.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...olcano01m.html
Good job quoting 'facts' that are based on absolutely nothing and then insulting people who actually have reasonable and scientific arguments.

But okay.

[BIGSTIC]

Edit: Semi-on topic. Are ethanol subsidies f'ing with the price of beer? I.e. farmers growing corn instead of hops or whatever goes in beer? All the bars in my town have started jacking up the price of beer by like $1-$2 a drink. I've noticed it at the grocery store to.

From what I have been reading it is a combintion of less acreage, drought, and rising distribution costs. Sound liks $10/six pack is not to far away for you cheap beers. Hops has always been a joke crop and only planted as a last resort or on a contract. And America grows around 1/4 of all the hops in the world. So yeah you could balme ethonol fucking with beer prices. Plus remeber distribution cost have gone through the roof. Last I heard it cost around $1/mile for that semi driving down the road. Thats just fuel and maintainance with no driver/profit figured in.

[Darus Grey]

I'm just curious, how would any other style of economics solve it?

This is a good question, and one that often comes up when this topic arises with colleagues. Dictatorship/Despotism as pointed out is a completely viable means of doing this.

The real issue with economics isn't that they exist, but that there's many of them.

In the U.S. we have a fiat currency, need more money, print more. What stops us from printing any amount we want, and all living as billionaires? Other countries arn't doing that. This devalues our dollar and raises the relative value of theirs in an exchange.

Now, think if there was only one country. Nothing stops you from printing as much money as you need to meet the demands of the people. You can't print too much(i.e. everyone can't be billionaires, preferably NO ONE is, But everyone being upper-middle class ain't bad), cause if you do, people will resolve back into a barter system. But there's ways around that too.

Below is my pet format for a one world government that meets the criteria for resource preservation.

When my friends and I discussed this, the actual document we created was 578 pages, so please don't go all nitpicky with random bullshit, because it's likely been thought of in the greater picture. Some basic highlights:

No private business, all business is conducted by the government.

Jobs are structured and guaranteed to all citizens. They have different payscales based on the required education or physical labor involved(I don't view menial labor as "Menial", it's some of the most important work in society). These scales would be adjusted on the fly based on the required demand for said position. I.e. No one really wants to be a sales clerk, but it might pay the same as being a doctor for the next 500 applicants simply because it's recognized as a sacrifice made by the people willing to do it for the good of society. Probably a bad example though, since it's safe to assume this kinda society is hundreds to thousands of years away, the need for brick&mortar stores would be long gone and everything would be delivered same-day through ordering it online. Also in a society that has near-unlimited energy, things like the Star Trek "replicator" become practical, if ever a reality something like that would significantly change the dynamics of resource distribution, since anything could be converted into near-anything by anyone anywhere.

There would be colonies setup for people to escape. An enlightened society should recognize that not everyone agrees or wants to even be part of society, and colonies(small enough to not be a threat obviously), would be setup for people who simply don't want to participate. You don't get any help, live by whatever rules you want, but at the same time are welcomed back if you decide to return.

Since all business is run by government, there is no need for trade of currency between private citizens. You make $50,000 future dollars, you can spend $50,000 future dollars. This would create a private barter system for resources, but since you can only purchase resources equal to your income to trade for other resources(likely at a proportional loss), there isn't a huge conflict of interest since no citizen is able to exceed the amount of resources they've been allocated.
(i.e. a citizen may trade 2 units of aluminum for 1 unit of copper, that doesn't change the total amount of aluminum or copper in the system). Doing this past a certain percentage would be illegal and actively cracked down on upon in order to keep any private citizen from amassing a disproportional amount of resources through bartering.

Citizens could pool their resource allocations to do "great works" type projects. Such as 400,000 citizens donate 1 pound of iron to build a monument or whatever. Every project would get a random inspector to ensure there is no waste or corruption(since this is probably the most exploitable aspect of this whole system, in the same way NPOs are abused modern day).

The major X factor in this whole thing is creativity. How do you have an overwhelming orwellian style society that fosters creativity?
It's my personal belief that when people don't have to worry about job security, shelter, food, etc. That their hobbies will become a central portion of their lives.
(I myself, a somewhat spoiled rich-kid...have never *needed* to work(I worked at my families metal brokerage just out of obligation and only when needed for a long time). I spent the early part of my life playing games and reading all day long, and eventually after years of that just got tired and wanted to do more with my life. I took up an instrument, I started painting, writing, etc. and among my peers it's been my experience that everyone when confronted with a situation where their personal needs are met without effort, either follow this path, or get self-destructive. Since power-brokering won't be a viable hobby, I think most people will eventually channel their energies into being creative).

It's not something that can be regulated, but the ultimate goal is to have a society that controls resources in a meaningful way(which with full control is eaiser, you couldn't even throw anything away, *everything* would be recycled, even biological waste), well encouraging advancement of humanity in both tech/bio sense and artistic sense. Probably 80%+ of actual jobs would be R&D related.

Crime is another X factor that's hard to consider, but since this type of society has no realistic chance of occuring within the next 500 years I imagine when it did, there would be such an orwellian level of information on citizens that traditional style crime (stealing, killing, etc) would simply be near-impossible to get away with(inability to trade currency eliminates the bulk of white-collar crime, and if everyone is able to live a comfortable life...the incentive for crime becomes the domain of the mentally ill or the truly greedy). Speaking in an ideal sense excommunication as a punishment over a greatly extended period would eventually breed out crimminal mindsets and result in a genetic shift where they couldn't even breed with "normal" people.

There was a journal publish recently on that topic, showing a trend that over the last 10,000 years the elite of society have generally stayed in their own circles(either the wealthy or beautiful), and given another couple thousand years we may see a genetic shift of humanity into two distinct races(of intelligent, beautiful, wealthy people and then the people you see at Wal-mart) that are no longer capable of breeding together.

Anyways, thats how I view our ideal future.

In terms of the original question, another viable option is the extreme opposite of the above, Fascism(TRUE facism, not what most people mistakenly think of as Fascism, Corporatism is a more apt term). Since a corporation's mission is to be as efficient as possible for the benefit of it's shareholders(be they a single entity or every citizen), it achieves the same ends in a very brutal manner. Though again it assumes such a corporation has control over the world, or most of it, or at least enough to perpetually meet it's own needs.

All 3 methods are viable methods of resource control that could operate easily. The major factor is the recycling of *all* resources and the ability to get it done without worrying about economic concerns or the commercial viability of it.

It's not surprising many elements of all 3 are common themes in science fiction, with the commonality that humanity *has* to pull together somehow and stop competing with itself in a self-destructive manner.