h a l f b a k e r yI didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Everyone is their own currency
Society has a cordination problem. You need a lot of money and people in one place to do any significant good - build a hospital or build a sustainable business. The problem is money is printed when debt is created so it is based on debt. I propose everyone is a currency as a replacement idea. | |
If someone accepts chronological coins they are entitled to
a proportion of my generated output on everything I do.
So anything I do includes profit from my assets, profit from
my work, and profit caused my being alive
So if I buy some thing from a shop, that causes all these
jobs to be
created, so I caused that. The buyer should get a
reward in addition to the product purchased. Its a signal for
society coordination.
The market does indeed solve many problems but the
signal
Is too slow. Venture capital is too inefficient. It takes years
to produce anything. Why not find the valuable people in
society by valuing people directly?
You know how some companies donate to charity based
on the price of item sold? I saw it on shampoo they donate
5p to charity for every product sold. It's kind of pointless as
it simply increases the product price by 5p or the profit less
5p. Same idea applies to cashback and free gifts. It's a
pointless gesture and it is caused by lack of a buying
demand signal.
So everyone has an exchange rate chronological coin is
worth some thing based on my intellectual output in
society and my qualifications. So we can have a full
meritocracy. If you have a job that generates a high salary
then everyone will want to hold coin of your name
If everyone was a currency there could be an exchange
market that guarantees the minimum products that
someone could always be capable of affording. Such as
staple foods and shelter. This is basic income by the back
door.
Now if there is a group of builders in town and they are
worth a lot of money as they are useful and their coin is
valuable due to their production being beneficial to society.
People could ask them to build a shopping mall and they
could be entitled to a portion of the profit from business
generated by all the shops in the mall So they take part in
the gains and production
Or the people want a hospital built, all the builders of
hospitals receive coins from all the potential patients in the
city. They gain whenever patient is treated or cured. They
benefit from building the hospital.
So people a cross between a bond and income generating
share.
Chris Cook discusses concepts of profit sharing and other technical stuff vaguely relevant to this idea
https://www.planetc...ts-serve-people?s=r
[pocmloc, Apr 07 2022]
North American Weather Butterfly rest stop
https://urquhartbutterfly.com/about/
Lorenz may have studied here [Sgt Teacup, Apr 07 2022]
Time Futures
Time_20Futures
[DrBob, Apr 08 2022]
In Praise of Idleness
https://harpers.org...praise-of-idleness/
[Voice, Apr 14 2022]
https://www.newyork...e-way-of-the-future
[a1, Jul 28 2022]
[link]
|
| |
I don't get it. I'm imagining I am a money-issuing entity. I make pretty coins. Now what makes anyone else want my coins such that I can trade them for petrol? And what makes me want my boss's coins? How does the petrol station know my boss is good for the debt they represent? What is my boss supposed to supply in return for his coins? Is it my labor? |
|
| |
People who hold your coins are entitled to returns
you generate in society. |
|
| |
So they're worth something. We need super
advanced accounting so people can be credited for
what they cause. Think of accounting for good
causes and effects |
|
| |
So you're proposing a centralized value tracking system that returns the value of each person's labor? |
|
| |
This is as impractical as possible for a theoretically workable system to be. You've managed to combine the worst aspects of communism, capitalism, and fascism. I'm actually impressed. [+] |
|
| |
//We need super advanced accounting so people can be
credited for what they cause. // |
|
| |
Somewhere in the Amazon, an insurance company sends a
team of lawyers and accountants to try to verify the identity
of a particular butterfly, and distrain its assets. |
|
| |
I understand there are people working on this kind of peer-to-peer profit sharing bond. A modern day version of the engineer (watt?) Supplying a nimproved mine pumping engine at no cost but in return for half of the coal saved. |
|
| |
I can see a large proportion of the world's currency becoming valueless if Bezos sent a dick pic to a union rep. See Putin. |
|
| |
Voice, A1 I thought I was being good with this idea. |
|
| |
You're right I combined the qualities of capitalism
with communism. But not deliberately I just took
ideas that I like. |
|
| |
I think people deserve a return for the buying signal
they produce in society. If you're popular or
successful, people should benefit from you. It's no
longer a winner take all system but a shared spread
out of prosperity. |
|
| |
//identity of a particular butterfly//Camp Teacup can neither confirm nor deny that that particular Butterfly may or may not be in our Witness Protection program; as you know, the yearly Canada-Mexico migration is fraught with peril and the possibility of kidnapping (see link). |
|
| |
I would also like to point out that 4 or more British banks have been allowed to print their own money for dogs' years, but it does come with some risks. Good luck trying to change those bills overseas. Also, shops in England proper have complete latitude regarding whether they choose to accept such currency or not. |
|
| |
I'm stealing 'nimproved.' It seems like the opposite of
improved somehow, like improved by a nincompoop. |
|
| |
DrBob your idea of time futures is very similar to part
of this idea. |
|
| |
// I understand there are people working on this
kind of peer-to-peer profit sharing bond. |
|
| |
pocmloc, do you know if they are cryptocurrencies? |
|
| |
//do you know if they are...// By "They" do you mean the people, or the things they are working on? |
|
| |
Either way, the answer is "no". |
|
| |
Did you listen to Chris Cook's interview? |
|
| |
Yes I am listening to it. |
|
| |
I like the idea of housing co operatives. I like the idea
of rental or care credit for looking after a place. |
|
| |
Housing is such a serious issue. It's not affordable. |
|
| |
Landlords or commodization of land leads to terrible
behaviours. Markets do not serve the people. |
|
| |
I'd say the market economy is the heart that pumps
the life blood of civilization. The propriety or
effectiveness of how that blood is directed and
controlled after the markets generate it is certainly a
topic for discussion, but person A growing wheat and
trading some of it to person B in exchange for
bringing that wheat to market is why we have wheat. |
|
| |
I am arguing from the perspective of the Chris Cook
interview pocmloc shared. Markets do not serve
every participant or stakeholder or externalities at
present. You only need to look at the retail and
residential property market to see that it doesn't
serve its customers very well. |
|
| |
I would sat that since markets are artificial constructs, and rely on authorities to set rules and enforce contracts etc. it seems obvious that the market would be run to benefit those doing the organising and setting the rules. Any benefit to market participants would be incidental to that. |
|
| |
However, to the extent there is a meta-market, so that
participants can choose between one market and another,
the artificial constructs might tend to evolve somewhat in
the interests of participants. |
|
| |
However else, though, this argument breaks down to the
extent that the most mobile, best capitalised, most
arbitrage-enabled market participants may not be a distinct
class of people from the class of people setting the rules
and enforcing the contracts, and may, on the other hand,
be a distinct class from the majority of market
participants. |
|
| |
If it rewards insufficiently people won't choose to participate. |
|
| |
If your mine needs to be pumped and contains Nims, then a Nimproved mine pumping engine is the best mine pumping engine for the job in my opinion. |
|
| |
// If someone accepts chronological coins they are entitled to
a proportion of my generated output on everything I do. //
So, if you spend 10% of your future output on a house, 2% on
a car, etc. etc. until you've promised 100% of future output,
then what happens? I don't see any reason to continue
working since you won't get any of the profits anyway. |
|
| |
//If your mine needs to be pumped and contains Nims// Only if it is proven to contain them! |
|
| |
Scad mientist, if you want to eat you must work
unless you're not capable of working or providing a
useful service to someone else with or without
property. There was a company that employed not
capable people called Remploy but it was shut down
by government. |
|
| |
I ask you a question to your question. A builder of a
house shelters you from the elements for as long as
the house exists and is maintained. They are less
parasitic than a landlord. They deserve some thing
for providing the lasting value of shelter. |
|
| |
Likewise if I build some software that everyone in the
world uses or add to world knowledge as a scientist
or philosopher or theologian or prophesy or
researcher then do I deserve some thing for this
addition to human beings? |
|
| |
We have value added tax in certain countries. You
provide value in excess of your inputs. I think for
some people they provide lasting benefit and should
be compensated to this. |
|
| |
Take for instance a garbage collector. They provide
significant value to everyone on a street by keeping
everyone's living spaces clean and without garbage.
From my perspective that person deserves a portion
from every individual on the street. The pay they
receive is a one off payment but the service of taking
away garbage is lasting and durable. The garbage
not being present is enjoyed for a lot of time after the
task of removing the garbage is finished. They
deserve some thing for this utility. |
|
| |
I am bold enough to say that the garbage man
deserves a bearing return of keeping the street clean
for the utility is beyond the simple task of taking the
garbage away. |
|
| |
My coffee delivery driver or McDonald's delivery
driver cannot afford the coffee or the food I buy as
the cost of the food and delivery service is more than
the cost of the delivery service driver remuneration.
Thus this is not a justice. Money and society is
hierarchical, the servants cannot afford the service
they provide. |
|
| |
If you declare 100% of your output that would cause
you to be regarded as a slave and must be prevented |
|
| |
In the UK the government tries to encourage people
to go off welfare and into self propelled labour in
return for money by reducing benefits/welfare
received by a certain proportion for every additional
£1 earned. |
|
| |
You must always be capable of printing new coins or
new money into existence. Inflating the supply of
money but devaluing the currency of yourself in
circulation. |
|
| |
You should always be capable of buying bread and
shelter with your coins. Mathematically this is
possible. We need an algorithm or formula that
grows all the time but is fair and not usurious. |
|
| |
Value added grows all the time. Every day you work is
a utility to your employer. Every widget you create is
valued at a certain amount for the utility of the widget
and the durable value that is supplied by every usage
of that widget |
|
| |
We don't measure the utility of a widget and this is
wrong. |
|
| |
//the cost of the food and delivery service is more than the cost of the delivery service driver remuneration// |
|
| |
Yes but that is a given.
Price you pay for coffee = £Q
Delivery driver pay = £a
Capital cost of van amortised over its useful life = £b
Running cost of van (to include fuel, consumables, parts, and labour) = £c
Barista pay = £d
Capital cost of coffee machine amortised over its useful life = £e
Running cost of coffee machine (to include power, water, consumables, parts, labour) = £f
Capital cost of premises = £g
Running cost of premises = £h
marketing, communications, admin = £i
Cost of coffee beans = £j |
|
| |
We will discount anything else that is necessary that I have forgotten. |
|
| |
If a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j>Q then the business will make a loss and therefore will stop (or will not start in the first place). |
|
| |
Assume the most optimal case where a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j=Q |
|
| |
Simple algebra will demonstrate that a=Q-(b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j) |
|
| |
And since it is easy to demonstrate that b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j>0 |
|
| |
We must conclude that, by necessity, Q>a |
|
| |
I like your explanation pocmloc |
|
| |
The outcome is that some people are destined or
fated to serve others all of their beings as working
poor and unable to afford any thing they add to. |
|
| |
I think it's a mathematical not justice. |
|
| |
It's a hierarchical society. There are masters and
servants. |
|
| |
I can afford Q due to generating an excess of a. But
everyone that serves me cannot. It causes negative
feelings to me. It's a mathematical prison. |
|
| |
I believe a related idea is the alienation of work by
Marx and what Chris Cook talked of during that
interview of "fructus" the entitlement to the gains of
property. |
|
| |
I think it is entropy. It is the actual thing that the Universe runs on. |
|
| |
The road to ruin is to try and beat entropy. The more effort you put into designing a perpetual motion machine, the more energy you have wasted. |
|
| |
Money is only a token of account for energy, materials and services in the real world. Any theory or account of economics that focusses on designing or tweaking a money system and ignores the underlying real economy of energy goods and services is like polishing the bearings of a perpetual motion machine or adding ever more refined control and monitoring systems to it. |
|
| |
// We must conclude that, by necessity, Q>a // |
|
| |
I like that line of thinking, but what you didn't include is
that the delivery driver probably delivers more items per
day than they would be able to personally consume.
Therefore there is no mathematical law saying that a
service worker cannot afford the service that they
provide. |
|
| |
In the case of coffee delivery, that's likely because
delivering coffee is a low-skilled job (could be preformed
by a significant portion of the population with no more
than a couple hours of training), and it could be considered
a luxury service (I've never paid someone to deliver a cup
of coffee). |
|
| |
If you consider a more skilled service job, such as a dental
hygienist, they perform many cleanings per day, and can
easily afford to pay for 2 cleanings per year for themselves. |
|
| |
// If you declare 100% of your output that would cause you
to be regarded as a slave and must be prevented // |
|
| |
// Scad mientist, if you want to eat you must work unless
you're not capable // |
|
| |
I guess that's why I don't like this idea. It basically is
allowing people to sell themselves into slavery (or partial
slavery if 100% isn't allowed). If you can withhold food from
those that refuse to work, that's kind of like beating your
slaves. |
|
| |
// You must always be capable of printing new coins or new
money into existence. Inflating the supply of money but
devaluing the currency of yourself in circulation. // |
|
| |
That fixes the slavery problem, but it makes your currency
worthless if you can devalue it at any time. If there is a
fixed rate at which you devalue it, then basically you are
selling your services for a fixed length of time, which isn't
too bad, but it will make the loan approval process much
harder than an traditional loan since the lender needs to
figure out how much you are likely to make during the time
you work for them. |
|
| |
I don't disagree that there are some problems in our
current economic system as you point out, but I don't see
this idea as a viable solution. |
|
| |
//I can afford Q due to generating an excess of a. But everyone that serves me cannot. It causes negative feelings to me. It's a mathematical prison.// |
|
| |
It is a puzzle, nothing more.
Is it fair? No.
Will it change any time soon? No. |
|
| |
I went another route.
I sacrificed time to enable wealth without knowing if there would be enough time to pull it off.
Decades in fact.
It totally depends on an infrastructure designed to allow somebody coming from a position of starting with nothing to pull it off if they have enough grit. |
|
| |
Now that I have carved out a place where it will take others to work under me to continue I will not do them wrong... but they will have to make their own ways. There's no free ride. |
|
| |
[scad] I was talking per unit. The delivery driver cannot use his or her wages to purchase more deliveries than the number that they make. Or even as many. |
|
| |
2 fries shy of a happy meal |
|
| |
You either sacrifice time or money for easiness
during being |
|
| |
I sacrifice money for easiness. I wilt eventually need
to return to work but I want to do something
meaningful with my skills. |
|
| |
I am happy to pay people to do things for me so I'm
happy paying for food delivery and delicious food
preparation services. If you're in the UK there is a
cultural aspect to ready meals and Cook sells decent
food. |
|
| |
I agree with you that entropy is a problem and it
requires regular repeated work to keep a garden free
of weeds and beautiful and growing food you want.
The ground is cursed as regarding Genesis 3:17. |
|
| |
When you go to a hotel, holiday resort or restaurant I
describe it as good and enjoyable as you're not the
one doing the carrying, lifting, preparing food,
cleaning and working. |
|
| |
Behind the scenes someone is cleaning the rooms,
replacing sheets on beds, cleaning toilets. Someone
else is a chef rushing out meals to people in the
restaurant. |
|
| |
How do we give everyone the experience of being
served and being master fairly. |
|
| |
In monasteries everyone works.
In house shares people take turns doing chores. |
|
| |
There was a community of people as breakaway
society people that do farming and live independently
but has the problem that newcomers don't like the
chores that need to be done to truly be independent
so they leave to rejoin wider society. |
|
| |
Everyone depends on someone else to do the dirty
work. And there is the free rider problem where
someone doesn't need to add to the system to
benefit from it - so they rationally decide not to add
anything of value they just allow or let themselves
benefit from the advantage. |
|
| |
Having individual currencies would be unworkable, since our labor is not fungible. What is basically described is a barter system, only with labor instead of physical goods. How do you work out an exchange rate, in real-time? |
|
| |
Having a job is similar... In a way you are issuing a bond for your labor, however the price is usually based on the labor, not necessarily you. You enter a contract to cook burgers for an amount of time, in exchange for a meager pittance and a degrading uniform. Rarely is the situation like, "Hello, I'm Keanu Reeves, pay me money because I'm Keanu Reeves." |
|
| |