h a l f b a k e r yContrary to popular belief
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,
|
|
|
The purpose of this idea is to end suffering. End traffic. End
waiting for things.
Pretty much every job or work can be distilled into take A to
B,
do Y for B, assemble X with Y, combine X and Y, transfer M
information into N. So, transporting people or goods. Doing
services for people or
assembling things like burgers or
physical
objects or even software (combining of information). Data
entry
or teaching. Care work.
Convert every human activity into a virtual placement
token.
If
you have the placement token, you can do the activity on
your
token. So that could be a token to assume a place on a road
in
your car.
Most aspects of human life can be financialised. Do you want
to drive
at rush hour? Your virtual placement is more expensive. Do
you want to buy some thing? How soon do you want it?
It turns out that people need little to survive: every person
needs X amount of water to live, Y amount of food, to sleep
in
location Z.
This idea is that everyone is assigned an amount of tokens in
each functional area of life. All traditional government
benefits
and adult social care and NHS funding is cancelled and
converted into virtual placement token instead. Every thing
is designed to
maximise provision of what can be exchanged from virtual
placement tokens.
Each person is allocated a virtual placement token which is
worth a service or an amount of food, or to receive a
medicine
or to receive a service.
The government will work out to provide X number of people
Y
amount of food, it will need to employ N number of people
to
create a food production chain.
Placement tokens are also scheduled. Not everyone who is
entitled to eating food can receive food at the same time as
everyone else. So the tokens need to be scheduled.
Communal
kitchens can feed hundreds of people if people arriving to
them
are scheduled.
QS
https://quantifiedself.com
"ultra financialisation of every aspect of life" -> quantized self? [Mindey, Mar 12 2020]
[link]
|
| |
We can call the tokens "ration cards" and the whole system something about working together as a group. Communityism? Communing? Something like that. |
|
| |
Not so; the idea states // every person needs X amount of water to live, Y amount of food, to sleep in location Z. // and for most of the time - the famine in the 1930's was a prime example- the Soviet system didn't even provide that minimum. |
|
| |
Tokenomics 101 -- society doesn't need money to function properly.
Ticketing systen can do it. But once you start seeing sub-optimialities,
the
token exchanges will rise, and the money is anything used as a liquid
asset for exchange. So, even a small sub-optimality leads to money
formatiom, and capitalism formation... which is an expression of the
presence of sub-optimalities in the system, and people trying to fix them
themselves through trade. Now, if we are the borg, we could resolve the
sub-
optimalities
before they arise, and in case our society becomes the borg, we would
actually run the system something like that. Howevever, even in that
world, you won't have
perfect optimalities all the time. So, you'd have to create markets (call
them agents-based
stochastic AIs) in
some places for some sub-optimalities to figure themselves out without
the scheduler anyway. |
|
| |
This could be read in the opposite direction, as a kind of ultra financialisation of every aspect of life. Want to be first into the bathroom in the morning? You need to bid against your spouse and children. Each cup of coffee you pour from the pot costs you. Your fridge is networked and has to bid for electricity against your microwave oven, etc. |
|
| |
> ultra financialisation of every aspect of life |
|
| |
This is how this idea should be read. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, some people NEED more (sleep, food,
medication, help, whatever...) than other people, so
"everyone gets the same" fails.
Also, some people WANT more than other people, and they
will beg, borrow, trick, lie, steal or kill to get it. |
|
| |
The core behind this idea was to replace the welfare state
with one that provides only what's necessary for survival. |
|
| |
So benefits is changed from provision of money to provision of
food. |
|
| |
English is my first language. I just hate wordy sentences. |
|
| |
Right, but anyone who wants to do more than just survive will start trading in their tokens. Some people will try to trade and lose out and end up worse off, having lost their tokens gambling or swapping for drugs. Others will ruthlessly exploit other people, gathering tokens, allowing them to game the system, buy out entire queues at the depots, or to bribe the depot organisers. Tokens can be loaned to those in need at swingeing rates of interest, leading to an underclass of debt peons and a 1% who have so much wealth and power they don't know what to do with it. The token issuing authorities will be lobbied to adjust the system in favour of individuals and organisations with wealth and power. |
|
| |
I suspect virtual placements would be tracked by a virtual
market place. |
|
| |
You couldn't trade your places without going through the
online digital system. |
|
| |
On benefits? You could trade your food placements for the
bear minimum to buy better clothes or vice versa. |
|
| |
Do you think the digital system would be 100% reliable, with no bugs or loopholes to allow it to be exploited? |
|
| |
//The government will work out to provide X number of people Y
amount of food, it will need to employ N number of people to
create a food production chain.// |
|
| |
Outside actual communist countries, I think India was run a bit
like this in the 1970s. It turns out, the relationship between
inputs and outputs is too complicated and unstable for a
government to manage. |
|
| |
^Because the neural networking algorithms and hardware wasn't to hand. If there was a country now, India would be one of the few. |
|
| |
... but neural networks are still reactive (to training data). I
suspect they would still fail every time a new invention or
innovative business practice emerged |
|
| |
> Sorry [chron], there's no way to read your idea as QS or
"financialisation." Is English your first language? |
|
| |
It says so in the idea itself. Kind of rude too |
|
| |
> Most aspects of human life can be financialised. |
|
| |
Who pays for this? For the soup kitchen, who grows
the food and how are they paid? For the roads, who
builds them and how are they paid? |
|
| |
I don't doubt that implementing this system
would successfully // end suffering. End traffic. End
waiting for things//...albeit not quite in the way the
author imagines. |
|
| |
I think you've read too much of Ansible. Just becase you can specify
basic
conditions for all machines, and get them automatically satisfied by a
scheduler or optimizer, doesn't
mean it's a good idea: |
|
| |
- targets: all_humans
__needs:
__- name: making basic needs satisfied
____U.N.: basic_needs=version0.1 state=present |
|
| |
There are lots of conditions that cannot be automatically satisfied yet,...
and when they can, we'll do it every day. |
|
| |
Agreed, technology is an exponential snow ball, barring little melts, and resource optimization is an underlying economic pillar whether the workings can be understood by the genius humans or not. |
|
| |
Money still exists in my idea's world. |
|
| |
Tokens are registered on a centralised digital account. |
|
| |
They can be transferred between provider and buyer via
NFC like money can. |
|
| |
They're redeemed by companies for money based on
market rates. |
|
| |
Homeless people are assigned, like everyone else, enough
tokens for feeding every day and for medical care and for
temporary accommodation. |
|
| |
The government currently sets benefits by what you can
buy and sets a monetary amount. I'd like to see some
abstraction in the precedent that government sets what
people are allowed to have. The price of oats shouldn't
matter if someone is entitled to food for that day. |
|
| |
Each token is a marketplace. |
|
| |
The receive X amount of food token is some thing everyone
has, a bit like universal basic income. |
|
| |
You can redeem your token in any shop or restaurant. I'm
thinking credit cards should be loadable with tokens, so
from your perspective, you're buying but the government is
paying for you. |
|
| |
The business redeems the token from the government
because that's who is paying for everyone's needs. |
|
| |
The governments abolishes all benefit programmes and
replaces it with a token based allocation of benefits and
entitlements. |
|
| |
If the government can print money to keep markets from
collapsing, it could inject money into providing everyone with
what they need. |
|
| |
Clothes, water, food, shelter. Unconditional token access. |
|
| |
// but though we had plenty of money, there was
nothing our money could buy,
and the gods of the copybook headings said, "If you
don't work, you die" // |
|
| |
This seems like just "replace all social services with universal basic income and rationing". |
|
| |
Yeah I'm confused as to how this system would
handle economic intensifiers like population growth.
Systems of production need to become more
efficient to sustain larger populations, yet without
any sort of reward this system results in
technological and productive stagnation, just like
communism did. I'm not boning it because I like
thought experiments, but this one seems like it'll end
in failure. |
|
| |
This is not a system of production. |
|
| |
It's a way of giving universal basic income but not as money,
but as tokens. |
|
| |
Every thing is a market to be scheduled in. |
|
| |
If I want food now, today, next week, the price is different
depending on how the market moves. |
|
| |
What's the difference between tokens and money? |
|
| |
Money is involved in systems of production. This is
inflexible to supply and demand, and therefore fails
to respond to market needs. That was the point. |
|
| |
This idea decouples the buyer from the seller. |
|
| |
People on the street are entitled for food and clothing and
shelter but not necessarily the ones picking the price of the
goods but are the people picking the supplier. |
|
| |
The tokens are used to decouple payer and buyer. But not
price. |
|
| |
People with tokens for buying food go to the cheapest
place that takes the minimum tokens. The government
does the actual financial transaction and the person buying
the food does the exchange of food for tokens. |
|
| |
The business exchanges the tokens for money. Knowing
modern payment technology, the exchange of tokens for
food can include the financial transaction by the
government to the business for food. But the person never
sees that. It's abstracted by tokens. |
|
| |
So, tokens basically ARE money, but with a non-fixed (or
easily/rapidly changeable) value set by the government (as
opposed to however-the-hell the value of money is set...). |
|
| |
//People with tokens for buying food go to the
cheapest place that takes the minimum tokens. // |
|
| |
Wait, wouldn't the token be for food from a
particular place at a particular time, scheduled in
advance? And if they want to eat at a different time
and place, they trade with an owner of a food token
for the other place (who would otherwise eat there). |
|
| |
Also why do people go to the cheapest food place
instead of also caring about quality? |
|
| |
I'm not sure I understand this right, but I see it as an
extension of futures markets. |
|
| |
> Wait, wouldn't the token be for food from a particular place
at a particular time, scheduled in advance? And if they want
to eat at a different time and place, they trade with an
owner of a food token for the other place (who would
otherwise eat there). |
|
| |
Then how does a restaurant attract more customers overall, if every customer they gain must also cause the loss of another customer? |
|
| |