h a l f b a k e r yWe are investigating the problem and will update you shortly.
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,
|
|
|
YoureSpendingTooMuch credit card and collective pricing
What if everybody who works was given a credit card that was attached to an unlimited money printer but liable to peer review of spending and you could only spend a peer voted amount on it each month on each kind of good, if you vote for a higher amount, you have to work harder to pay off other people's credit limits so there is no incentive for cheating the system, other people are keeping your spending in check but we maintain a capitalist system | |
Let me try explain this idea.
Money suffers from finiteness, unless you have money on which to earn compound interest.
But there's a morality of spending. If everybody is paying for everybody else simultaneously with their work, assuming work is fungible.
Everyone votes on a credit limit for
every other demographic of society.
You vote how much a waitress deserves to spend on their groceries, cinema and mobile phone and number of restaurant meals per week. You vote on the value of everybody else in society and that's your credit limit when they vote for you.
We also introduce collective pricing which open up markets beyond buyers and sellers, if the sellers have set the prices too high, the community of people can rate limit them to a more acceptable price. Same for things that are too cheap and commodity. Everybody is fantasy trading on a credit market place for a fair but profitable price for every product which is what the credit card company is willing to pay.
This is a bit similar to American healthcare insurance system
Everyone has unlimited money in return for working but everybody is rate limiting everybody else's consumption.
https://en.m.wikipe...rg/wiki/Law_of_rent
"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give." [pertinax, Sep 16 2022]
[link]
|
| |
I vote for you to send me your money |
|
| |
I'm trying to solve the problem where some people are so poor they cannot afford to survive on their low salary, I feel people deserve a place to live and food to eat within reason. |
|
| |
The often suggested solution is universal basic income but I don't think that's practical due to the blanket payment to everybody which is equal. People do not have equal spending habits. |
|
| |
Pricing controls are bad and rent controls push people outside the housing market. |
|
| |
But the housing market doesn't function very well for buyers, everything is too expensive. |
|
| |
So I am trying to combine the idea of the wisdom of crowds where the crowd knows what the reasonable price for a product or service is, which is an accumulation of knowledge and estimations for a fair and functioning marketplace with integrity and fair relationships between its participants. |
|
| |
There is absence of a buying signal in capitalism (until you are surveyed or direct marketed) But there is a seller signal which is the price you are offered a product at. |
|
| |
This price should factor in some degree of profit, for it to be worthwhile for the work to be done. |
|
| |
So I'm trying to get crowd based pricing. There should be a system that detects if the crowd designated price is not profitable and then it warns people not to enter that market as people's expectations are too cheap. |
|
| |
If businesses knew people were cheap and were only willing to pay a certain amount for a widget, you could avoid a lot of failed business. |
|
| |
It's similar to stock market but everybody is fantasy trading everyday. People who insert sell prices should have done the costings to prove it is at least viable as a business. |
|
| |
Combine with a simple order matching system and you have a pricing investigation tool |
|
| |
Actually this is quite an interesting idea if you read it again carefully. As always the devil is in the details; the precise ways in which it would fail disastrously can only be worked out once you have a much clearer picture of the implementation. |
|
| |
// Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more.// |
|
| |
There's more than enough wealth for every single human to have a home, food, clothes, medical care, transportation, and communication. Even if some decide they would rather not work if they're not forced by necessity. |
|
| |
If everyone votes instantly and correctly they'll end up setting the price the same as capitalism sans monopolies and other market manipulation. But they won't. |
|
| |
//And where does it come from?// |
|
| |
Theft! That's right, we're going to demand wealthier people pay a percentage of their incomes and if they refuse long enough we'll send men with guns to collect. It needs a catchy name. Extraction? Grabbery? Pull-em-down? Sacksation? Something like that. |
|
| |
//And who gets to decide what is enough (or too much) for any one person to hold?// |
|
| |
The same kind of people who currently make important decisions. They can usually be found near the surface of swamps or deep in the pockets of well-to-do businessmen. But I never suggested a limit on total wealth. |
|
| |
Coffee bean surgery with complimentary tax scheme |
|
| |
Knee injury reducer and socioeconomic theory |
|
| |
A method for serving the poor and safely stopping aircraft near the ground in emergencies |
|
| |
Better internet search, smarter answers, and mo money |
|
| |
A refrigerator that needs no electricity or ice, with phase change, policy change, and pocket change |
|
| |
//wisdom of crowds//
There's your (first) problem...
Some people are stupid, some people are greedy, & some people are malicious. I'm not sure that there are enough "good/decent" people to counter those effects. |
|
| |