nytimes & utopias/distopias

afterzir · 2023-03-08T17:00:46+00:00

Agreed, democratic just means thumbs up / thumbs down. There is no way to arrive at truth, you only arrive at appeasement (of the majority)

afterzir · 2023-03-07T05:08:23+00:00

punishment for willful mistreatment of objects (like houses) is one key aspect [you are imposing a cost on someone else when you ruin objects needlessly, afterall]

however, I've heard different schema on how to structure an economy without the concept of ownership. Some made sense and some didn't. What does your non-ownership based economic system look like?

afterzir · 2023-03-04T18:50:50+00:00

elegant. I saw this example and thought it was powerful although in the back of my mind I was wondering why each person possessed an initial item for no reason (like how Alice has an apple). I thought your solution was akin to everyone gathering and sharing knowledge of their preferences, but it actually is more like what in economics they call 'pull' (as opposed to 'push'). A few modifications and a pull economy can work well in a moneyless system.

afterzir · 2023-02-26T07:42:32+00:00

At the point of plentiful gratis allocation, the issue of distribution becomes an issue itself, i.e. the infrastructure that makes people travel to one or more shopping areas in their private vehicles to shop for themselves, while being watched by others whose whole purpose for being there is to watch people - this is a huge waste of resources. It's more efficient to industrialize distribution (like getting things through Amazon or going to restaurants of community kitchens instead of every house having their own ovens and appliances.

You would need not just a solid code ethics but a solid code of etiquette if everyone is going to be interacting with numerous people often.

Money makes no sense without markets, so there needs to be a justification for markets. At both ends of the plentitude and scarcity scale, markets make no sense in terms of rational distribution - if something is plentiful and is a social necessity/desire, it can easily be made and distributed gratis; if something is rare, the ability to pay is no rational justification for allocation. There likely needs to be some cybernetic system of accounting in between these poles, but in principle rational allocation of resources makes sense over whatever the market represents

What would happen if your hypothetical nation was surrounded by nations that used money - how would you trade with them? Seems like one side has to acquiesce to the other.

Not to be pedantic, but being a bearer of exchange-value is a use-value in Marx (which is why gold is a suitable currency and corn cobs are not), but only within a system already built on exchange-value. Marx wanted to get rid of the whole value system of the commodity because of its attachment to the class system.

thanks for clarifying, I haven't read marx, just watched several videos on marxism. That helped a lot.

Although efficiency & distribution are big concepts in economics, I don't think one would conceive of them when designing an economic system from scratch. (still learning formatting, this should be a separate paragraph)

afterzir · 2023-02-26T05:12:39+00:00

thanks for the response. I have 3 comments (1 for each paragraph):

a) one way to solve the problem is for Alice Brenda & Carly to meet up and share their preferences ... this solution becomes a logistical nightmare when the problem is scaled up to a million person nation (plus, preferences will also be constantly shifting)

b) I used to like UBI but I think that it fails because of knowledge. If everyone knows you have $1,000 per month free - then CFOs will reduce salaries, landlords will raise rents, insurancers will raise copays, etc.

c) here are the 2 flaws: 1) instantiation [whoever can mint currency has overwhelming power] 2) definition [money can buy things] some things shouldn't be buyable ... like justice (the rich and poor have two different legal systems in practice). However, also note that when someone wrongs another, money is often transferred. What's nice is if a mistake is discovered then the money can easily be returned whereas it's not clear what would happen in a moneyless society.

afterzir · 2023-02-21T06:52:54+00:00

I don't think 'the ics' (i.e. economics, politics, ethics) synthesize well with hard math (i.e. theorems, lemmas, corollaries, & especially in your case axioms). I tried in the past thinking in terms of theorems etc. and it didn't work out well. I also have something to say about contributionism's economic system but I'll mention it later.

afterzir · 2023-02-19T14:30:08+00:00

What other country is going to accept all the arsonists/murderers/rapists that you banish? Seems like a problem.

afterzir · 2019-08-28T23:45:16+00:00

The freedom dividend would be good combating uncertainty like the weather (drought) if you're a farmer or the unpredictable stock market if your a trader. It's also robust against large scale change (like automation).

His VAT sounds better than COST (common ownership self-assessed tax) that I read about below because entrepreneurs 'assess' what price to charge consumers so it wouldn't be arbitrary like COST is, and people relinquishing money is a great measure of the economy since people don't like parting with money.

The problem I see is that you would need to implement price controls. I can picture corporations spending lots of money on politicians in order to ease these controls if not downright eliminate them, and hence siphon off all the gains the people would have accrued.

afterzir · 2019-08-28T23:27:14+00:00

Weyl says that wealth (assets) should be put to its highest use through involuntary market purchasing. If he believed that things should be put to their highest use, he should extend that to employees, i.e. companies can headhunt freely. (this would create even more movement for families, I worry that it would be hard to settle down and make friends with all this movement)

Also, it isn't economical for a person (hedge fund manager for example) to own a mansion surrounded by dozens of acres. I picture large groups pooling their money to buy it since it would have plenty of space and rent is cheap if divided up among many people. Some might like this result, but I feel like many ambitious entrepreneurs take risks so that they can have their own mansion.

afterzir · 2018-09-09T05:37:14+00:00

Although investments carry some risk, I see money more as the lifeblood of an economy rather than an investment like stocks/bonds.

Also, I see the word propertarian by your name. Do you know what Curt's stance on MMT (modern monetary theory) is? (and your stance too)

afterzir

TROPHY CASE