I'll have to take another look at this some time! If this is the same RBE concept I heard of a number of years back before Jacques Fresco died, it seemed like a good structural framework for organizing economies, since we all have to live on the resources that are available...rather than demand year over year growth, and expect Mother Earth to just provide for our expectations. But how far is the theory developed, and how practical is it, I don't know.The only viable "solution" to all of this is an RBE. Resource Based Economy. All this hating on the rich and the super rich seems fine and dandy, until we start talking about an economy that actually equalizes everyone. Which is an RBE. Then even the most die hard liberals start balking. Why? Because they're fine and dandy with be higher on the ladder than those below them. And don't really want those peasants catching up.
All of this 1% and 99% BS would end with an RBE. And the ONLY lower class would be those who don't work and have to sponge off of those who do, directly. As in "can you buy me something to eat." Instead of going to the government and signing up for assistance.
With an RBE, there'd be no welfare. No need for social security. Little to no reason for war and ALL crimes that stem from money.
When it comes to rich and poor, seems obvious that resource based economy can't function if a handful of billionaires own half the wealth, while elite managers a little lower down are grabbing as much as they can also.
RBE may be the only way to prevent mass extinction today, as I've noticed the message is finally hitting home to media elites that the same old song and dance about cutting carbon emissions isn't being acted upon in any significant way, because growth-based capitalism can't work in a finite world with finite available resources for our consumption. It would seem to be a simple idea, but....and I don't know who said it first: it's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism!