First, for a resource-based economy to ever become reality, we'd have to change our value system (culture) in the U.S. -- by no means an easy task. While self-reliance and individualism are nice literary themes and often touted by U.S. politicians to drum up nationalist fervor, it's more mythical than anything else. No one ever gets anywhere without someone helping along the way. Elizabeth Warren said it best:
"'You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.'"
Thus, this idea that all people are entirely on their own and entirely responsible for their own actions is problematic for two reasons: 1) It simply isn't true; we are affected by each others' actions big and small, both directly and indirectly, and 2) it fractures organization of the citizenry. Most Americans who are doing well right now are likely not to care about the folks protesting on Wall Street, or anyone who is down on her/his luck, for that matter. American culture -- propagated by mass media -- simply tells us that we shouldn't care because most of what happens to you (except for a natural disaster, perhaps) is your own doing, and you're responsible for fixing it. Pull yourselves up from your bootstraps! This lack of empathy -- wonderfully exhibited in this thread, by the way -- has made organization against social problems (and their related economic problems) generally very difficult in the United States. You're a woman, and can't vote? I'm a man; it's your problem. You're black, and you can't go to school? I'm white; it's your problem. You're gay, and you can't get married? I'm straight; it's your problem. You don't have a job, and need money? I'm employed; it's your problem. "Fight your fights, and I'll fight mine" Self-reliance and individualism can be good, but they're used in American culture to make individuals believe that they're an island, and, in my opinion, that couldn't be further from the truth.
Second, we'd have to say adiós to capitalism, socialism, and communism, because this system is none of those. People often think a resource-based economy sounds like communism. However, it is not communism because there is no currency (monetary system), and the ultimate goal is to avoid any sort of "working class." This system is not about making everyone equal, per se. It's about using technology to do away with the resource scarcity that causes inequality, as well as so many micro (e.g., armed robberies) and macro (e.g., resource wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) social problems.
Ultimately, the goal would be to mechanize and automate jobs and dedicate ourselves to education, research, and sustainability. The jobs (if you want to call them that) that would exist would be in education and research, and those people would be using their knowledge making the lives of others better. Once we tear down these divisive value systems (me-me-me), this would be a bigger possibility. Currently, we have a lot of extremely intelligent people who make thousands or millions of dollars and contribute absolutely nothing to social progress, while those who do contribute to social progress (e.g., educators) get paid almost nothing. In the foreign exchange markets, traders can make hundreds of dollars a week in profit just by looking at a chart and a few indicators. Stock markets and FX markets are better than a casino. A similar story can be told for people who work in banks, financial aid offices at universities, etc.
In a resource-based economy, scarcity could be avoided because products would be manufactured with environmental sustainability, durability, and the consumers in mind -- not cost or profit. The earth has the resources to satisfy the needs of everyone on this planet, including food, water, electricity, education, transport, technology, etc. Yet, we only make these available to those who can pay with phony paper printed by a central bank. Moreover, have any of you ever questioned why we manufacture products that break easily? Why do we bother producing glass cups if they're just going to break when we accidentally drop them? Cheap chairs that break? Headphones that break? Products that last are not good for the industry that produces them, and thus sustainability and durability are of very little interest to companies that must sustain their profit margins more than Earth, its resources, and/or the creatures on it.
For those who think that mechanization/automation of jobs is not possible, it's already being done. (See Video) Nonetheless, the current paradigm can only tolerate so much technical unemployment, just as it can only tolerate so much material durability. Thus, so-called "technological unemployment" can only go so far. Data entry workers (replaced by computer programs), customer service representatives (replaced by online account management), factory workers (replaced by robotic assembly), cashiers (replaced by self checkout), and even the U.S. Postal Service (replaced by e-mail) are all good examples of how technology is replacing human resources. We can and should go a lot further, but as I said, the monetary system and the necessity of jobs complicate full implementation of technology to our benefit.
Sadly, this whole Occupy Wall Street protest is dwindling down to the old debate of rich and poor, republican and democrat, left and right, and a ton of other tired, boring, and sometimes false dichotomies. Maybe the next revolution will encourage people to fix the systemic cultural and economic problems and not just parts of them.
