h a l f b a k e r yYou think: Aha! We go: ha, ha.
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.
|
This is hard to think about, because we all take money and
value for granted and we've never even thought of not
doing that - so hold on:
What if nothing had a fixed value?
What if everything's "worth" was relative?
And, of course, you yourself are part of this everything as
well. You
literally have a worth, same as everything else.
What if none of that was "fixed"?
This would make for a society that is fully functional, just
as today, except where the concept of "Fairness" replaces
the existing concept of "Value".
The best way to understand this, is to imagine that you
start off by owning yourself - just like you might own a
company: using shares. You start with owning 100% of your
own shares.
To buy food, the shopkeeper and you will initially agree on
how many shares the produce will cost you - a meal might
cost you 0.1% of yourself for example - and after you're
fed, the shopkeeper now owns 0.1% of you.
Now, lets say you go and work picking strawberries for a
day - you agree with the farmer that a days work will earn
you 0.2% of the farmer. Awesome... and here's where it
gets interesting - you got 0.2% of the farmer, but the
shopkeeper owns 0.1% of you, so, the shopkeeper now gets
0.1% of the 0.2% of the farmer (that's 0.000002 of him, or,
0.0002% - a tiny amount, because these are small
transactions, but nevertheless - an amount).
Now, add into that system a mechanism to "claw back" you
own equity by swapping bit of people or things you own to
get back what you paid of yourself earlier, and the idea is
complete.
And there you have it! Food (and everything else) "costs"
different amounts to different people, all based on their
worth. The more "Respected" you are (teachers, doctors,
etc) the lower other people are willing to trade with you.
The more "Productive" you are, the lower again (because
people want your "equity" more, because they know it is
valuably income-producing).
Finally - add into this mix the concept of a universal basic
income (UBI), and you can ensure that nobody will ever
starve or go homeless - while at the same time limiting
anything that society-deadbeats can buy - the more
"worthless" you are to society, the vastly more expensive
everything will be - so everyone is encouraged to
contribute by doing anything thy like that other people will
value, in order to improve their lot.
UBI could be either some kind of daily-minted societally
agreed value system, or a tiny "leveling tax" that erodes
everyone's own value over time to support everyone else.
The main thing to try and understand, is that this is totally
incompatible with actual money. There is never any way
to say how much anything costs in absolute terms - it's
always different depending on who you are. This is a good
thing, because the concept of "rich" and "poor" goes away,
to be replaced with the much more valuable concepts of
reputation and productivity.
Wikipedia: In Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Time
2011 movie apparently inspired by the above short story. I thought it was pretty good. [notexactly, Nov 25 2019]
Time is Money, Lee Falk, 1975
http://mandrake-com...ry-by-lee-falk.html
Yes, some people *did* read Playboy magazine for the stories [a1, Mar 19 2024]
[link]
|
| |
This is predicated on the incorrect assumption that humans are nice, and will not immediately try to exploit, distort and subvert such an arrangement with a view to screwing over everyone else and trying to get the most they can for the minimum of effort, no matter what lies they need to tell to achieve it. |
|
| |
It is, therefore, more suitable for the "Utopian Twaddle" category, being as it is unrealistic, impractical, and doomed to failure. [-] |
|
| |
Hey, welcome to the HB, [cnd]. This is a well-considered
and carefully thought out plan, which is never a good place
to start. Take no notice of [8th], he's just... well, anyway,
take no notice. |
|
| |
//the more "worthless" you are to society, the vastly more
expensive everything will be - so everyone is encouraged to
contribute by doing anything thy like that other people will
value// |
|
| |
So, what happens if you're just lacking in talent,
intelligence or physical ability? |
|
| |
Also, what if you trade away 51% of your own equity and
discover you're no longer in charge? |
|
| |
And also too, how do you manage this system in reality? If I
want to buy a pound of potatoes, how does the
potatoshopkeeper know what my equity is worth? |
|
| |
// what happens if you're just lacking in talent, intelligence or physical ability? // |
|
| |
You become a politician. Next question ? |
|
| |
// how does the potatoshopkeeper know what my equity is worth? // |
|
| |
In you case it's irrelevant as (s)he'll be too busy trying to remove you from the shop before you (a) steal things, (b) cause damage, (c) frighten away the other customers, (d) all of the aforementioned. |
|
| |
Hello and welcome cnd. I see you’ve met [Max]
and [8th]. |
|
| |
The concept of a moneyless society, and any
system that disposes of the idea of accumulated
(or inherited) wealth is good. We should all be
valued on our own contribution, and have a right
to some basic level of support. So [+] for the idea. |
|
| |
You’ve chosen to pitch in with something quite
controversial, so you will have some negative
responses, and challenges to support your
assumptions. Be prepared for bones. |
|
| |
I’m guessing you’re British (from
language/grammar). |
|
| |
Welcome again. Don’t be put off. |
|
| |
[8th], please be nice. It lulls them into a false
sense of security. |
|
| |
//We should all be valued on our own contribution// I'm
not convinced that that's entirely true. Let's assume that I,
by low cunning or high achievement, make a lump of
money. In fact let's assume it is from high achievement. I
choose to give that money to my daughter, as a gift, upon
my death. |
|
| |
Are you saying that society should not allow that? We
already have inheritance tax, meaning that the government
gets a big chunk of money every time it's passed along (as
well as when it's earned, when it's spent, and when they
feel like it). Frankly, I'm not interested in a society where
my efforts can't benefit my children (or whoever else I
decide to leave things to). |
|
| |
It's also notable (and has been noted many times) that the
abolition of hereditary wealth has wiped out a large group
of philanthropists who were prepared to gamble on new
ventures or simply give their money away. |
|
| |
I'm against hereditary poverty, but I'm also for hereditary
wealth. |
|
| |
//limiting anything that society-deadbeats can buy - the more "worthless" you are to society// Sounds like a type of Stalanism with the volume control up full. What are your proposals for dealing with troublesome dissenters? (as I would be) |
|
| |
[cnd] if you want to shoot one dissenter as an example, I
won't stand in your way. |
|
| |
I read that as a compliment. |
|
| |
We read it as targeting coordinates ... |
|
| |
// [8th], please be nice. // |
|
| |
Ahhhh ... got it, is it our turn to be the Good Cop ? |
|
| |
//Good Cop//... you know we’ve tried that and it
doesn’t work. But if you start with Shih Tzu rather
than Rottweiler, we might be able to extract more
ideas/fun in the long term. |
|
| |
Also, how does the concept of "rich/poor" go away (aside from
hereditary wealth - see above)? For instance, suppose I invent
something that everybody wants. I make it, and as the sole
manufacturer I say "You can buy this, but it will cost you 3% of
yourself, adjusted for your personal value." So, pretty soon I
own 3% of a lot of people, and I am (for all intents and
purposes) "rich" - all you've done is substitute a more complex
measure in place of money. |
|
| |
I don't understand. Currencies and prices already float, no? |
|
| |
And morealso, suppose I am a customer wanting to buy this
new and amazing product. I will clearly argue that my "value"
is very high, so I have to pay less than 3% of me. But the
seller will argue that my "value" is very low, so I have to pay
more than 3% of me. |
|
| |
// What if everything's "worth" was relative? // |
|
| |
It is already relative, as the prices get set by supply and demand. |
|
| |
// meal might cost you 0.1% of yourself for example - and after you're
fed, the shopkeeper now owns 0.1% of you. // |
|
| |
How does the % get determined in such circumstances? |
|
| |
// you agree with the farmer that a days work will earn you 0.2% of the
farmer // |
|
| |
How do I agree on that? How would I be able to say that a day's work
will be worth that particular percentage? I need to know the relative
value of their equity. |
|
| |
// add into this mix the concept of a universal basic income (UBI), and
you can ensure that nobody will ever starve or go homeless // |
|
| |
So, how would the UBI work under these circumstances? Do I slowly
but surely get back my own equity from everyone who has it? |
|
| |
While that may be a fairer way to define UBI, this idea does not explain
how would UBI work under such system. Currently, similar UBI
impleementation can be achieved through linking back the consumption
to production, say, through making products bought be treated as
investments (cosumption back-propagation tax, that buys stocks of
companies making the products you buy) into companies. I.e., if you
bought a lot of milk, you'd naturally own part of those enterprises that
make it. |
|
| |
Act 5,924, scene 11,423. In the potato shop.
enter Pocmloc, and PotatoShopKeeper.
Pocmloc: Hail, fair monger!
PotatoShopKeeper: Hello.
Pocmloc: OK I want 5kg of Maris Pipers please.
PotatoShopKeeper: Certainly sir. That'll be 0.1% of yourself.
Pocmloc: Well actually I'm running a bit low of my personal equity the day. I was out at a spaghetti-tower-building festival at the weekend and my team won the height-to-base ratio contest and so I had to buy all the rounds at the bar. But, I have some [8th]s here. Could I offer you 25% of an [8th]?
PotatoShopKeeper: What? Never heard of them. No way.
Pocmloc: OK well how about 0.001% of a [MaxwellBuchanan]?
PotatoShopKeeper: Now you're talking, but I wouldn't take less than 0.0023% [MB], because the transaction costs are steep on that one.
Pocmloc: Hmm that's tricky.
PotatoShopKeeper: Do you have any [BankofEngland]s?
Pocmloc: Well yes, of course, doesn't everyone? How many [BankOfEngland]s do you want for the potatoes?
PotatoShopKeeper: Well the usual rate is 0.000,000,000,007 [BofE]s per kg.
Pocmloc: Excellent. Here's 0.000,000,000,1 [BofE]s.
PotatoShopKeeper: And your change, 0.000,000,000,075 [BofE]s
Pocmloc: Perfect, thankyou.
PotatoShopKeeper: Enjoy the rest of your day!
exeunt, pursued by an economist |
|
| |
[Pocmloc], you've nailed it. Actually,
isn't it what Ethereum already allows us to do, when everyone's got a
cryptocurrency? The only way that I see this working, is if we
have global risk estimate (say, through open data and proofs of
contributions), and a large computer that estimates the prices
of those tokens, rather than having the market decide them. However,
how do we make the computer that prices well? |
|
| |
You could think of it in terms of "respect" or "trust".
To continue the shopkeeper example, when you first
purchase, you are "unknown", so things will "cost" you more.
But once you've been a few times, the shopkeeper trusts
you, so the "price" drops. Equally, you come to trust that the
shopkeeper will have what you need and reward them with
loyalty.
Of course, the most difficult part of this "alternative" is
keeping track of all the microtransactions. But I guess
there's probably an app for that... |
|
| |
One problem with this system, as proposed, is that it's all
virtual. Unless there's meticulous and universal record
keeping, there's nothing to stop me spending 10% of myself
at each of eleven shops. |
|
| |
A much more practical system would be to make the
transactions physical. So, if I want to buy a new helicopter,
it's going to cost me an arm and a leg. I'll then need the
helicopter adapted to be flown with only two remaining
limbs, and for this presumably I will have to stump up, foot
the bill
and pay through the nose. Of course, if someone offers to
do the adapting for less than that, I'll jump (well, hop) at
the chance and bite their hand off - I'd definitely give them
a thumb-up to go ahead. On the other hand (hey, gimme
that back!), I might opt for a jet ski instead of the
helicopter - I'd give my eye teeth for one of those. |
|
| |
The revised business model for weight-loss clinics would
need some serious work. |
|
| |
Less vaguely reminiscent of "The Merchant of Venice" using
[MB]'s adjustment. |
|
| |
How about we just use a renewable bodily resource instead of
limbs & digits [Max], so blood then, supply & demand means
universal donors
would be worth more, so seeing as I think I am one (hmm, I'll
have to see if I can find my donor details to check that),
subject to confirmation of my own blood type (of course), I
like
that idea. |
|
| |
Welcome to the half bakery. Wine is extra, don't pop the hullaballoon, beer is in the fridge, and watch out for the cudgels. |
|
| |
See David Graeber, Debt (2011) p.46 on (in fact the whole book really). |
|
| |
The idea above is shown basically to be how the entire concept of money originated. |
|
| |
I.e. not an original idea, superseded thousands of years ago, etc. |
|
| |
Welcome, [cnd]. This idea bodes well for your halfbaking career. |
|
| |
But: This might be the worst idea I've ever read. It's not the worst-conceived, or the
most evil, but it has enough of each that it could be the worst overall. Therefore,
take my fishbone as an honor. |
|
| |
Interesting how nobody seems to have thought "how can we make this work", and most who chimed-in seems to have thought "how can we burn this idea down". |
|
| |
The "worth" of an individual is entirely algorithmic - no shopkeeper can set a price for a specific person - they set a global rate from which every shoppers price is determined based on and the respect commanded by the role each individual plays in society - doctors/teachers end up "paying less" (specifically - being able to afford more), while politicians, and every other role where society finds themselves unimpressed with ends up being able to afford less... which is entirely the point of this. You get "rich" in this new world, not by trying to "get more money", but instead, by trying to "command more respect" - which basically means do more good, be less of a shit, be more honest... |
|
| |
Deadbeats who can't figure out how to contribute anything that anyone else values, end up being unable to afford anything more than whatever "essentials" the UBI system grants them (basic food, lodgings, and healthcare). |
|
| |
Inheritance and gifting would probably still exist; so would scammers and thieves and politicians and tax... |
|
| |
@8th - your comment is the most amusing: this system specifically introduces a way to deal with the parasites you introduced :-) |
|
| |
Semi-relatedly, with some decent homomorphic encryption and graph-theory, this monetary system could be implemented without requiring any blockchains or centralized systems - just some decent math, a network, and an app (and some serious effort building inheritance / loss / theft / mistakes / etc handling into it) |
|
| |
I would be interested to see how you're going to assign global value without global information. |
|
| |
//entirely algorithmic [...] based on [...] respect// |
|
| |
So, does the algorithm measure how much other people respect you? That's difficult, because most other people have never heard of you. And the people who know you best might not have turned over all their personal data (including their opinion of you) to the algorithm.
Or, does the algorithm measure how much other people respect the *type* of person you are? That means (a) an arbitrarily constructed typology, and (b) an immediate rush to game that typology.
Or, does the algorithm decide how much *it* respects you? That means all of the problems above, plus a likely absence of transparency, plus the problem of generally creeping everybody out. |
|
| |
Over four years since your last appearance [cnd]? |
|
| |
Was it a coma? you have a working time machine? or is it a cryo chamber you have in your possession? |
|
| |
Hoping for the cryo chamber. |
|
| |
Comas are a little mundane after all, ten a penny .. well, maybe a little more than that since the price of cudgels went up, but Sturton has one already and he still hasn't figured out what inflation is .. and a time machine is just so last century isn't it, you always end up there sooner or later when you have one. |
|
| |
We have of course discounted the idea that (having once found it) you just weren't interested enough in this wonderful edifice we lovingly call the halfbakery to bother with another visit for such an extended period of time as far too silly an idea to be worthy of any serious contemplation ;p |
|
| |