Resource based economy, would it work?

"So what does a resource-based economy actually involve? Basically it's about how the relative prices of things are set. There are three approaches:"

   It does not involve any sort of prices whatsoever, unless you consider the use of resources as a 'price', though in a much different sense than the exchange of currency.
   A resource based economy involved a computerized network tracking, analyzing, managing, and distrubuting resources. The resources first go through an automated industrial complex, which in turn is transported directly to a product distribution center (or resource distribution center; I prefer product distribution center). This is done immediately.
   Now, the transaction between the person desiring the product and the computerized network is quite simple. After the product arrives at the center, it's pulled up to the front, and the person who ordered it gets it. That's it.
   Now, let me explain product distribution centers, and a modified version of the law of supply and demand (as used in a resource based economy). Instead of markets, stores, etc., the distribution centers are the centers of exchange (and perhaps production... but that's another explanation for another time). It is fully automated, and no sort of trading occurs; people order what they want, and it's provided ASAP, at prime condition. It's actually built to last, and it's free. People can also return items after being done with them, so products won't even need to be made that often (if they want to keep the product, fine, their burden).
   In this way, there's no need to really keep anything, as you can eaasily get it back at a distribution center, which will keep it's supply in check with demand, which will be exponentially lower due to the absence of non-quality products, 'recycling' of objects (people returning it, or having it taken back, after use), and the lack of wasteful products which must be renewed excessively. Note the 'wasteful' before production. Things such as food, water, shelter, and other necessities such as those are fine, of course. Actually, many things may still be produced that are renewed often; however, most (if not all) technological materials will be made as best as possible, optimizing their performance by multitudes.
   I mentioned supply and demand a few sentences ago... let me elaborate. Supply, in a resource based economy, is determined by the availability of resources which can be used to create a product, and how quickly that product can be made in the automated industrial complex. This would be relatively quick, as machines are providing the labor for production. Also, products are made with as high quality as possible, unlike our system today, which is subject to planned obsolescence.

   In a resource based economy, demand would be determined not by a consumers purchasing power, but simply by the consumer making a trip to a product distribution center (they may not even need to; home centers where one can order products from the distribution center could be used alternatively), in which they may examine the type of product they want, and the best variations of that product. From there, they choose what they want, add some artistic qualities (the color of a car, for example) and it is provided ASAP. By ASAP, I mean it will be provided based on the supply; which, again, includes the quickness and readiness of which a product can be provided.
   Supply and Demand are just that; what's in supply, and what's demanded from within the supply.
Those are the basics of how a resource based economy functions.

"1. All resources are dictated to be worth the same. This has a nasty side-effect that a loaf of bread "costs" the same as it's weight in flour. So there's no change in the baker's ability to obtain things via trade because his net "wealth" isn't changed by making bread. Indeed, if he has to go and make the fire that cooks it, he might be selling his life away. This is clearly unworkable."

   No resources are given any worth whatsoever. What a loaf of bread "costs" can be determined by the resources and energy that is consumed in the process of making that loaf of bread, both of which could be replaced easily. There is no net wealth value before, during, or after the process of making that loaf of bread. Also, it's likely that a baker wouldn't make it, though if a person was interested in learning how to bake, they're free to go ahead and become a baker.
   Ultimately, if a person wants to be a baker, they'll WANT to make the fire in order to bake the bread... which is their objective. Not for 'wealth' but for food (which can be obtained at a distribution center) and/or pleasure.
   To sum it up; there is no 'worth', or 'wealth', and making that bread was the decision of the person who decided to bake the bread. They decided to do so because they wanted to make bread; which they could easily obtain otherwise. They want to make the bread. Hopefully it doesn't burn, and they enjoy it (if they eat it). The outcome doesn't really matter in terms of 'wealth' or 'worth'.

"2. All resources are dictated to be a fixed value either by public vote or by some committee in society. The committee in society approach is classic communism. The value of goods are set by the party and trading at other prices is illegal. This doesn't sound like a bad plan until you notice that there are hundreds or thousands of resources all with quite subtle interplay in the economy, and a the movement of prices by small amounts can cause rather large changes to the economy (and thus the ability of the people to eat and be merry). The voting system is interesting, but with people having other motives (i.e. there are more people eating bread in society than bakers) this will nearly always work against the producer."

   Again, there is no 'value'. There is no public vote or committee determining whether or not an item is worth anything. Communism; no. Ability to go get something for free, in prime condition, ASAP, not having items with 'value/worth'; yes. There is no party, and there is no trading. There are no prices. There is no voting system, because you may simply get what you need as you need it when you need it (assuming you're not asking for the unavailable; i.e. a planet, with tons of beans on it, right this very moment). There's no need for a voting system. The producers in the economy are machines.

"3. The value of resources is determined by the most recent price traded, and there are no limits on what price a good can be traded for. This is classic capitalism. If resource B is in high demand, the value of resource B goes up. If resource A has a massive overproduction, the value of A falls."

   No prices, no trade. No 'goods', just products (though I suppose you could call them the same thing; goods insinuates trading of some sort, however, of which there is none). Capitalism; no. (Again) Ability to go get something for free, in prime condition, ASAP, not having items with 'value/worth'; yes. If resource B is in high demand, the demand will be met. Production will be done, if necessary, though it probably won't need to be for the vast majority of products. Food, however, will be produced often, if not constantly, and in large amounts. Cars, computers, and houses, on the other hand, won't (backtrack to the little part about the absence of planned obsolesence).
   There won't be massive overproduction, nor underproduction, as supply will be met to meet the exact demand. Otherwise, the computerized system, or the automated industrial complex, is malfunctioning (which I don't believe is likely to occur; However, I cannot debate this point thoroughly, unfortunately, as I'm not savvy in the field of tech). And once more, there is no 'value'.

  
"If you want, you can think of money of the various resources as a quantitative measure of the resource's importance to society, and the reward for bringing more back. If you think of it like this, you'll understand that actually it doesn't matter HOW abundant resources are in society, always be priorities for resources, therefore trading, and there'll always be economists who think of things in terms of filthy lucre."


   As for money being the quantitive measure of resource's important society; agreed. However, the prioritization of the use for resources does not dictate the use of trading. The automated industrial complex and computerized distribution centers could be exceedingly efficient, and certainly better than today's system, at prioritizing the use of resources, the process of turning those resources into the desired products, and distributing those products to those who demand it. No trading needs to be done, whatsoever.
------------------------

To the OP: Fine, let the 80% of the world's population party. They won't have drugs of any sort, so fine. Let them dance, chat, and have fun. Of course, people aspire to achieve more than party all the time, so that certainly won't be a chronic problem. Not that it's a problem in the first place. It's unlikely that people would spend their entire lives partying all night long... xD That concept is funny though. I think I may use it in a story. O.o
----------------


Edit: AHAHAHA, I didn't realize that I was replying to a guy who posted a long time ago and probably won't read this again... oh well. O.o