Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
It sounds like computerized food stamps that never run out and are available to the entire population, regardless of income. One thing that I don't like about it is that it sounds like cc would be a large bureaucracy. For example, they might declare that plasma tvs with screens less than 21 inches are necessities of life (a citizen must be kept up to date with what is going on, etc), but that larger ones are luxuries. The classification would change as technology advanced, so that when flat-screen tvs took over, any size plasma tv would be seen as a necessity. This sort of thing would occur all the time, it seems to me, needing an army of bureaucrats to keep track of it all. Under this plan, the credits for necessities would be available to everybody, not just poor people. So a family with an average income, large enough to live in reasonable comfort, who, under today's system, would pay for their basic food, would no longer pay for it, meaning the government would. When you add in the other things you mention: 'health, basic health services, basic public transportation, basic shelter', it sounds like much, most? of the economy would be socialistic. Socialistic economies seem to work, unless they get too 'social'; not sure how social this plan would end up being.
RE: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
I've split Peatbog's recent commentary into several posts as they are all interesting. Please keep in mind that the proposed Virtual Currency system is hoped to work more effectively with the assistance of continued advances in technology and automation. From Peatbog: ... One thing that I don't like about it is that it sounds like cc would be a large bureaucracy. For example, they might declare that plasma tvs with screens less than 21 inches are necessities of life (a citizen must be kept up to date with what is going on, etc), but that larger ones are luxuries. Indeed, CC would be a large bureaucratic organization. However, consider the possibility that that CC might end up simplifying and streamlining several economic mechanisms. Some of the current mechanisms in place might not be all the efficient either. Incidentally, we live in a bureaucracy now. So, what's the difference? The classification would change as technology advanced, so that when flat-screen TVs took over, any size plasma tv would be seen as a necessity. This sort of thing would occur all the time, it seems to me, needing an army of bureaucrats to keep track of it all. Assuming technology and continued advancements in automation continue there is every reason to assume that additional resources (physical and/or virtual) could eventually be placed on the essential list as well. IF CC determines there exists sufficient natural resources available to ensure that everyone is at least entitled to one 32 inch flat screen TV per household why would that be considered a problem? I'm sure the manufactuer's of flat screen TVs wouldn't mind it a bit. Keep in mind the fact that every corporate entity manufacturing FS TVs would end up generating credits for their collective selves every time they sell one of their essential products. The economy is humming along. Meanwhile, keep in mind, if the rich and powerful desire a bigger FS TV, something larger than a teeny-weeny 32 incher... perhaps a 60 inch monstrosity for the Entertainment Room, they had better make sure they have sufficient credits in their credit account to pay for the entire cost of purchasing a 60 incher. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
I've split Peatbog's recent commentary into several posts as they are all interesting. Please keep in mind that the proposed Virtual Currency system is hoped to work more effectively with the assistance of continued advances in technology and automation. From Peatbog: ... It sounds like computerized food stamps that never run out and are available to the entire population, regardless of income. That is correct. The Virtual Currency (VC) system implies that everyone is entitled to the same basic resources regardless of whether they are primarily physical or virtual in nature. A philosophical POV ensues A more subtle social-reinforcement that such a VC system might be able to get across to society in general is the fact that it suggest even the richest most opulent among society are no better (or less entitled) to receive the same basic resources as those less capable of generating huge amounts of surplus credits for themselves. If the opulent feel uncomfortable about this arrangement... if some of them feel it is beneath them to receive food stamps, just like the rest of the little people, well then, perhaps it might be wise to rethink one's self-image a tad. What are we to make of someone whose self-image is primarily tied up in behaviors designed to separate themselves from the less fortunate. Such behaviors suggest they fear being tainted or infected by the influences of the less fortunate. If the acquisition of excess luxuries is how the rich and powerful distinguish a sense of their uniqueness, I would suggest it's a shallow personal goal, one that will ultimately fail in the end. Sooner or later we all end up six foot under. Practically speaking such a system might help ensure the over-all quality of food stamps. Keep in mind the fact that if rich and powerful receive the exact same food stamps that the less advantage receive they are more likely to make sure that the food stamps they receive AVAIL themselves to the best quality for which society can supply everyone with. IOW, while the rich might benefit, so would the less advantaged. /A philosophical POV ensues Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
I've split Peatbog's recent commentary into several posts as they are all interesting. Please keep in mind that the proposed Virtual Currency system is hoped to work more effectively with the assistance of continued advances in technology and automation. From Peatbog: ... Under this plan, the credits for necessities would be available to everybody, not just poor people. So a family with an average income, large enough to live in reasonable comfort, who, under today's system, would pay for their basic food, would no longer pay for it, meaning the government would. When you add in the other things you mention: 'health, basic health services, basic public transportation, basic shelter', it sounds like much, most? of the economy would be socialistic. I need to correct a misconception. Under the VC system the average and well-off DO pay for essential services. They pay for them out of their own credit account, just as someone less fortunate would attempt pay for the same essential resources, assuming the less-fortunate possess sufficient credits in their bank account. OTOH, if it turns out that the less-fortunate don't possess sufficient credits to pay for the entire costs, it is the less fortunate who will still benefit because they are still entitled to accessing the same essential resources regardless of whether they can pay the entire cost or not. If they can't pay for the entire cost they pay what they can - till their account goes to zero. Their account never goes below zero. The less entitled don't go in debt for acquiring items considered to be essential. Socialistic economies seem to work, unless they get too 'social'; not sure how social this plan would end up being. Probably very social ;-) I would imagine certain vocal groups possessing super-conservative orientations might end up vilifying VC as a system that promotes un-Christian-like values. They might even claim VC secretly promotes the evils communism, witchcraft, the breakdown of traditional marriages, and gay life styles. Such descriptions are probably the nicer things they might choose to broadcast. * * * Regardless of disagreements that might crop up (and I'm sure there would be quite a few!) it would be my objective to tweak the VC system in ways to help promote and birth new economic enterprises. For the VC system, to be of any collective worth, it must be designed to help facilitate all sorts of enterprises and businesses endeavors so that society in the collective sense could eventually benefit. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
I need to correct a misconception. Under the VC system the average and well-off DO pay for essential services. Sorry, I badly mis-read that. So, it is food stamps without limit for those who need them, applied automatically by cc. I kind of like it but still wonder about: 1. A horrendously large cc bureaucracy. 2. Thieves/lawyers/entrepreneurs (the categories greatly overlapping, probably) finding ways to milk the system for their own gain. For example, organizing poor people to buy more food than they need with virtual credits, and buying the extra food from them with real credits, if that is possible under the system, or by providing them with luxuries. The food thus bought is then sold at a price lower than its original price, but still making a profit for the thieves. The profit came from the government-supplied food, ie the taxpayer-supplied food, and went into luxuries for the poor, and more luxuries for the thieves. It does not encourage the poor to work harder, since that particular job is so easy to do. That is a half-baked example and might not be workable for the thieves, or might be easily foiled by the system, though at the price of snooping into the lives of the poor that are involved. Practically speaking such a system might help ensure the over-all quality of food stamps. Keep in mind the fact that if rich and powerful receive the exact same food stamps that the less advantage receive they are more likely to make sure that the food stamps they receive AVAIL themselves to the best quality for which society can supply everyone with. IOW, while the rich might benefit, so would the less advantaged. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see that happening: the rich will buy the best health care, not the basic care available to the less-rich - same as now; the rich will buy the best housing, not the basic version, etc. - They will be just as disconnected from the hoi polloi as they are today. I read somewhere a suggestion that people be allowed to have an income no more than x times that of the average income. Maybe that could be worked into your VC system to occur automatically and would keep the rich a bit more connected to the rest of us. One thing that strikes me about the chiropractic example is that it seems more people would become chiropractors (or doctors or perform any service) because their possible base of patients would expand to people who nowadays can not afford such services. But somebody has to pay for the services of the chiropractor, and the necessities that are bought. If it isn't the poor person, it must be the taxpayers. If the economy is efficient - if products are made at a low cost, then they can be virtually bought by the poorer people and impose a lower burden on the taxpayers than they would if the products were more expensive to make.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
- Original Message From: mix...@bigpond.com mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 4:36:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond. In reply to OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:49:04 -0600: Hi, [snip] You mentioned the example of the Chiropractor that would be paid anyway, even if the client didn't have the money to pay himself. What's to stop everyone from purchasing goods and services for which they have no money? IOW living a life of luxury, and contributing nothing in return? (and I can assure you there are many who would if it were possible). Markets don't keep tabs on who is making a contribution. That is the concern of a community or a business or the State. The net result would be that little if anything got done, so the goods and services available would be severely limited. In fact I think this is at least partially what went wrong in the Soviet Union (empty shelves and long queues for basic commodities). The reason shelves went empty was because of inflexible prices and the profit motive was denied to entrepreneurs. Anyway, it is not true that nothing will get done. People will find they have to do it themselves whatever it is. Harry
RE: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
In response to Robin, and Jed as well: [snip] From Robin: You mentioned the example of the Chiropractor that would be paid anyway, even if the client didn't have the money to pay himself. What's to stop everyone from purchasing goods and services for which they have no money? IOW living a life of luxury, and contributing nothing in return? (and I can assure you there are many who would if it were possible). The net result would be that little if anything got done, so the goods and services available would be severely limited. In fact I think this is at least partially what went wrong in the Soviet Union (empty shelves and long queues for basic commodities). Glad you asked an important question, Robin. Let me correct a misconception in regards to the hypothetical Virtual Currency system. The handy-dandy folks in charge of running Computer Central aka CC (we probably elect them!) determine which kinds of products (physical or virtual) should be considered essential for maintaining the general health and welfare of society. The same folks also determine which products have been determined to be luxuries. For a Virtual Currency system to work effectively any product considered to be a luxury must be paid for with actual credits one has accumulated in their bank account. You can't acquire luxury products from an empty credit bank account, aka: for free. To recap: Essential products, like unprepared grocery food, health, basic health services, basic public transportation, basic shelter are the right of every citizen to acquire. If you have credits in your bank account, good, you pay for them from the supplies of credit you have accumulated in your bank account. If you don't have sufficient credits in your bank account to pay for what is considered an essential product, it's still ok as far as you are concerned. Your credit account simply goes to zero while you still get the basic product you need. YOUR CREDIT BANK ACCOUNT DOESN'T GO NEGATIVE. YOU DON'T GO IN DEBT. At the same time CC is keeping track of who is economically healthy and who appears to be in economic trouble. If CC detects someone's credit account is essentially going into the virtual negative column it might be time to have experts (social workers, counselors, doctors, etc ...) review the individual's situation to see what could be done to help improve things. Meanwhile, anyone who wishes to purchase anything CC has determined to be a luxury (and that might account for 90-99% of everything being generated in the economy), you had better have sufficient credits in your account to pay for them. If you don't have sufficient credits in your account to pay for them, well then, you can't acquire it. Hopefully this gives most incentive to work above and beyond the bare minimum particularly if they wish to acquire luxuries. Hopefully, such a system would motivate the vast majority to excel to their fullest potential. An essential aspect of the proposed Virtual Currency system is that beyond making sure everyone is covered for basic essentials, there is no free ride. The proposed Virtual Currency system realizes that economic health can only be maintained when the majority of its citizens are motivated to go to work - to produce WANTED products that others would like to acquire. The economics of supply and demand, particularly in regards to purchasing luxuries is still in place. You must pay for luxuries out of your own pocket, so to speak. Meanwhile, the economics of supply and demand pertaining to essential products is ALSO essentially in place even though some might think that may no longer be the case. For example... Let's take a closer look at the simplistic chiropractor situation I cited in my original post. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the folks running CC have determined that chiropractic services are considered to be an essential product. When a customer needs the services of a good chiropractor, market forces are still going to influence the decision making as to whom he chooses to have work on him. For example, a prospective customer with 100 credits in his account is still motivated to seek a chiropractor he trusts and likes, but ALSO someone he can afford. What I mean by afford is that if a customer can find a chiropractor he both trusts and who will work on him for 50 credits, versus another chiropractor who would perform the same service for 100, which chiropractor do you think the customer will likely choose?. Of course he will choose the chiropractor that only costs him 50 credits. After he leaves the chiropractors office the customer will still have 50 credits in his account, 50 credits that he can still spend on luxuries. If he had gone to the chiropractor who would have charged 100 credits the customer would have left the offices with zero credits in his account, meaning he was no longer in a position to purchase any luxuries. He will have to wait till he is
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 20:28 -0800, Harry Veeder wrote: He is proposing a system to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth.This is different from giving everyone the same access to wealth. The system of payment he is proposing does not depend on more taxation (or what you call theft). I hope it also does not depend on generating more debt. But it does depend on taxation, and that's the moral dilemma. Taxation depends on threats of violence. To apply any morality consistently, we have to eliminate threats against people. Otherwise it's just predatory, no matter how nice the outcome might sound to some people. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
Craig Haynie wrote: I was having a similar conversation earlier... Here's the point I don't get: you want to 'spread the wealth', but why? Presumably, it's a moral argument: that people 'should' have the same access to wealth . . . Read the book! Or the web site summation. First, no one is saying that people should have the same access. On the contrary, the book says there must be variation in wealth for capitalism to work. Second, yes it is a moral imperative that people get enough money to live with dignity, but the more potent argument is that the modern economy is consumer driven and yet human labor is rapidly losing value because of robots and computers. Most recoveries are jobless and more will be. If too many people become unemployed because of automation, and other workers are scared they may lose their jobs and they stop spending money, the economy will collapse. The whole basis of economics from Adam Smith to the present has been that most people trade their labor for money. When human labor has no value that system cannot work. We will need to replace it with something. The question is: What? How will it work? This is not only a moral question, it is also a practical concern. But, and here's the but... if morality is your guide, then why isn't theft also included in your argument? Because theft is economically dysfunctional, zero-sum, and immoral. That is like asking: if economics are your guide, why not let people stave to death? We need solutions that are both moral and workable. The notion that taxes are a form of theft is ridiculous. If you don't want to pay taxes, vote for politicians who pledge to borrow from China, inflate the money, tax other people, or let the economy collapse instead of taxing you. Those are your choices. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
Least everyone forget, I deliberately created a different OT subject thread so that Jed's equally interesting commentary (in regards to advancing robotics rendering human labor obsolete) would not get hijacked by another topic that I hoped might be of interest to a few Vorts. I was interesting in how the nature of currency (cash) in the 21st century and beyond might be improved. I attempted to propose an audacious concept where currency should be virtualized. Currency (cash) should no longer be treated as a fixed asset - a fixed sum of money that is transferred between individuals and/or legal entities. I proposed a system where currency (cash) can only be generated at the point where a transaction (a service) between a seller and a customer is completed. Granted, many might consider it moot and not worth discussing. Nevertheless, I'm conjecturing that much of the economic problems we are currently dealing with are due to the fact that we still believe we need to treat currency as a fixed asset - in order to maintain its value. Lately, I've come to the conclusion that our continued need to worship such a belief is horribly misplaced. Unfortunately, it would appear that my ploy to start such a rancorous discussion has been hijacked! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
There go the prisons and workhouses. It's gonna ruin A Christmas Carol. T
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:09:21 -0500: Hi, [snip] Unfortunately they are not working for us but only for the factory owners. Unless we are all collectively the factory owners via our shareholdings. We just change from actually doing the work ourselves to telling the machines what to do. Two issues arise: 1. Once you tell a machine what to do (program it), it never forgets and you don't need to tell it again. Your job is finished. Good. :) Unfortunately my experience is that a programmer's job is never done. ;) [snip] Something we already do now e.g. when we drive a tractor rather than mowing grain by hand as we used to do. Tractors will soon drive themselves. Prototype robot driven tractors are already in use. They do a better job than human drivers so, using less gas, and distributing fertilizer and seed more effectively. Food factories are almost entirely automated. Ford's website shows robots identifying ripe strawberries and picking them without damaging them. That is something humans find difficult to do. My analogy was just an example of how productivity improves with automation. ISO dozens of people being needed for the harvest, it is done by one person on a tractor. If that eventually becomes 0 people on a tractor, so much the better. My point was that rather than running out of work, we simply turn our attention to things we previously didn't have the time to do. I can foresee a future when someone might instruct their equipment to terraform a planet. And it's done with a single instruction. I also think it will be some time before that is possible. The arts will flourish as never before, and people will largely live a life of luxury. Star Trek is a good example of the sort of lifestyle that automation can make possible. With people spending their time exploring the galaxy and meeting new peoples. (As I suspect many of them already do). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
From Jed, ... This sounds like money that dare not speak its name. I am having difficulty determining the difference between these credits and today's money in bank accounts, plus a line of credit allowing you to run a deficit. By all means Dare to Speak its name! Please keep in mind the fact that my current Virtual Currency conjecture is a work-in-progress. I'm actively asking for Vort input to see if major flaws can be found in ways that could possibly render such a concept useless as an alternative economic system. In the meantime, I'm beginning to learn that such a Virtual Currency system (and similar systems) have actually been pondered by others long before me. This is encouraging news. In Virtual Currency's defense, it seems to me that the only way such a revised system would have a fighting chance of actually being implemented is if it allows individuals to both behave and manage their personal credit stash aka money in ways they are already familiar with. IOW, as far as I'm concerned there is no inherent problem in assuming everyone continues to perceive the accumulation of credits credits as the equivalent of accumulating cash. The fact is that the accumulation of credit IS essentially being managed in the same way. Again, the difference is subtle. To recap, the Virtual Cash system no longer involves the transfer of credits between a seller and a customer. The transfer is actually being registered with Computer Central - CC, which is incidentally keeping track of the overall health of the entire economy. While in most cases transactions between a seller and a customer typically involves the same amount of credits going into CC as are going out from CC, a major advantage is that this does NOT always have to be the case - not in every circumstance. There can be mitigating situations. This fact is absolutely crucial in understanding the potential advantages the revised economic system might be able to offer society. Again, I bring the reader back to my original example where I cite a person with insufficient credits in his bank account with an ailing back who desperately needs the services of a chiropractor. It's not a problem under a Virtual Currency system. The customer can still get his back worked on and he will not go into credit debt. The worse that can happen is that his credit account drops to zero. I would propose that his credit account will never go negative, only virtually negative. Virtual negative credit amounts under such situations do NOT have to be paid back. That would help give the ailing worker additional incentive to get back on his feet and start working at a useful service ASAP. Meanwhile, CC has registered the chiropractic transaction between the customer and the chiropractor. The chiropractor automatically get's his customary fee, complements from the virtual coffers of CC. BTW, I don't think such a system is bad economics, or inflationary, nor do I think such a system is essentially the equivalent of generating counterfeit money. If anything, I think such a system would allow the overall economic system to remain healthier than what it would be forced to do under the current monetary system. Currently the chiropractor might not be able to perform his badly needed services because the customer doesn't have sufficient insurance and/or couldn't personally pay for the service out of his own bank account. Under the current monetary system BOTH the patient and the chiropractor are more likely to end up suffering due to loss of essential income on the chiropractor's part, and because no essential back healing services had been rendered to the ailing customer. As far as running up deficits are concerned as Jed brought up... to be honest, I'm not yet sure. Can a Virtual Currency system effectively work where debt can still be accumulated, or would the accumulation of credit debt be impossible. If credit debt is impossible would that make the implementation of a Virtual Currency system completely impractical??? Keep in mind the fact that most of us will probably continue to want to buy homes. For the vast majority of us purchasing a home involves taking out a mortgage, and that typically involves a massive amount of debt that can last 10, 15, to 30 years. Can a Virtual Currency system effectively manage such forms debt without crashing the system??? Can such debt be virtualized as well? Indeed, it's a tricky issue. The bottom line: Virtual Currency can NOT make something out of nothing. For Virtual Currency to be effective is would HAVE to deal with the physical reality of all situations, and that would mean having to deal with the cost of purchasing all the necessary raw materials and the labor that go into building homes. Potentially, that's a lot of bubblegum! So, Jed, in response to your question, I'm still pondering the ramifications. Film at eleven! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
He is proposing a system to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth.This is different from giving everyone the same access to wealth. The system of payment he is proposing does not depend on more taxation (or what you call theft). I hope it also does not depend on generating more debt. Harry - Original Message From: Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 10:46:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond. On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 20:55 -0600, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Jed recently brought up some interesting issues related to how will a modern society manage to spread-the-wealth equitably when presumably robots perform most of the labor. I was having a similar conversation earlier... Here's the point I don't get: you want to 'spread the wealth', but why? Presumably, it's a moral argument: that people 'should' have the same access to wealth -- and not only that -- but the argument is applied universally, meaning that there are no exceptions. IF people 'should' have the same access to wealth, then there are no people who should be exempt from this moral argument. But, and here's the but... if morality is your guide, then why isn't theft also included in your argument? I am drawing a presumption here, but the implication of your statement is that somehow we all 'should' spread-the-wealth. That generally means that we should threaten people with violence if they don't pay-up to help with the plan. If, however, you have some other method in mind when taking money from people, then my assumption is misplaced, and I can now understand that you are looking for voluntary contributions to spread the wealth. But if you believe in voluntary contributions to 'spread the wealth', then the whole topic is really moved out of public debate, isn't it? By including it here, as a point of public discussion, you're looking to devise a mechanism by which people can be taxed, right? If so, then the principle still applies: why would you apply a moral principle to 'spread the wealth' universally, but refuse to apply a similar moral principle universally, regarding theft? Craig
