An end to poverty?

[AtW]

Why not? Why does a resource that needs to be allocated somewhere need to have value?

Because, stupid, different places have different importance which means they put different value on same resource.

[Jog On]

Have you studied money & economics at all?
That's a bold claim to make - and in fact is absolutely the opposite of the truth. Money is the facilitator of wealth creation - and those people who hold most of it are the very people that create all of the wealth that means every day people have cars, central heating, hot running water, pocket computers / phones, 25+ days per year holiday, health care, etc etc.

You just posted a quote about people arguing vociferously about things they know nothing about - and yet you are spouting this nonsense from such a colossal depth of ignorance that it feels like talking to a child who asks his parents, when they don't have money, why they don't just get more form the cash machine.

TVP is based on the premise of a future state of being without scarcity. Until this happens TVP cannot exist. And then if there was such a state, TVP would be redundant anyway. And even then, in a world without scarcity - if such a thing could exist, there would still be many reasons I can think of why people would very likely want money.

TVP is based on the current state being without scarcity.

What's your solution to ending poverty then?

[Jog On]

Because, stupid, different places have different importance which means they put different value on same resource.

So what if the classification of importance and value was the same for everyone?

[TykeMerc]

So what if the classification of importance and value was the same for everyone?

To do that you would have to replace everyone's brain with a piece of paper. Free will, individuality and human nature dictate that you're writing completely unachievable tripe.

As trolling goes it's pretty weak sauce.

[AtW]

So what if the classification of importance and value was the same for everyone?

That would mean that the system will function a lot less efficiently because more important places won't get resources at best possible time - higher overheads, especially if you factor in corruption and incompetence of those in charge of deciding who gets resources - it's already been done extensively in USSR, using computers too - you should have lived a bit in a "planned economy" that you advocate, perhaps that could cause your brain cells to divide quickly and in no time you'll have 2 or 4 of them.

[Jog On]

Are there more poor people now than 200 years ago? - BBC News

One billion people across the world live in extreme poverty, struggling to survive on the equivalent of about $1 a day. The United Nations aims to lift every single one of them out of this category within 15 years.

Jesus said "There will be poor always. Pathetically struggling. Look at the good things you've got". Or was that Andrew LLoyd money bags and Tim Rice?

Sounds like a great goal. And I am all in favour of everyone getting a chance and being rewarded for their efforts.

However, if you took all the money in the world and divided it equally, after 6 months there would be super rich and pathetically poor.

What can be done?

Apparently nothing BP - the highest intellects on CUK have deemed we are all doomed to continue under 'trickle down economics'

Let them eat cake!

[SpontaneousOrder]

Why not? Why does a resource that needs to be allocated somewhere need to have value?

If it was of no value, then why would anyone want it.

If you could think of a nice piece of cake that you desired, and could magic it into existence & straight into your mouth, then perhaps you could argue that it is of no value.

Otherwise the very fact that a thing is desired and needs to be allocated & delivered some way or another means that it has value - by definition.

The greater the level of relative scarcity of that resource, the greater the scope for people assigning different values to that resource. Mars bars are hardly scarce, yet even so I still enjoy the ability to vote with my money my preference for snickers instead. Even if both were somehow available in unlimited quantities, I still enjoy the ability to vote with my money to have a man mow my grass instead of deliver that snickers bar to my house.

[meridian]

Why not? Why does a resource that needs to be allocated somewhere need to have value?

Knowledge and labour are resources, and to build the TVP cities presumably you'd need to allocate the architectural and engineering/construction knowledge, and the labour to build them. Presumably then, these resources would have more value when they are allocated to building the cities compared to, say, an engineer who can't be bothered and will just take the free food for doing nothing?

[AtW]

Jog On, why won't you go live and spekulate in North Korea?

Low taxes, you can sell your "work" as trying to crash Western financial system via spekulation on markets.

Dear Leader will like you ...

[AtW]

an engineer who can't be bothered and will just take the free food for doing nothing?

Engineer who can't be bothered will have a new job in a Friendship Gulag