Hacking the current economic system

[ALB]

1. Why would anybody want to hoard anything when they could always get what they needed when they needed it. It wouldn't make sense. George Jackson put the case against the likelihood of hoarding in conditions of abundance and free access in one of the letters published is Soledad Brother:

Quote:

Consider the people's store, after full automation, the implementation of the theory of economic advantage. You dig, no waste makers, nor harnesses on production. There is no intermediary, no money. The store, it stocks everything that the body or home could possibly use. Why won't the people hoard, how is an operation like that possible, how could the storing place keep its stores if its stock (merchandise) is free?Men hoard against want, need, don't they? Aren't they taught that tomorrow holds terror, pile up a surplus against this terror, be greedy and possessive if you want to succeed in this insecure world? Nuts hidden away for tomorrow's Winter.Change the environment, educate the man, he'll change. The people's store will work as long as people know that it will be there, and have in abundance the things they need and want (really want); when they are positive that the common effort has and will always produce an abundance, they won't bother to take home more than they need.Water is free, do people drink more than they need?

2.

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Doesn't signal the amount of demand.  One person might really really want a toaster they'll use everyday and another person might just think a toaster looks nice and they'll use it once a year.

That could happen now, under the capitalist buying and selling system where you have to pay for a toaster, and no doubt does. You've suddenly changed the definition of "demand" from "paying demand" (what economists cynically call "effective" demand) to meaning what people need (which of course is a secondary consideration under capitalism). Both money and what people take can be signals as to what to produce but of course with money the amount signalled to produce will be less as most people's "effective demand" is rationed by the amount of their wages or salary.

[Anonymous]

On a Free access society we do not have to worry about those superfluous things, and money can be used as toilet paper. Sometimes, some human beings like to complicate their own life.The Haitians also lived under the People stores owned by the Puerto Rican Sugar Company, in a place  known as Bateyes, or Company town stores, all their sweat was stolen from them, they never needed any physical money  it is all capitalism dressed in a different way, or the same dog wearing a different collar. Why some peoples like to beautify capitalism ? 

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

1. Why would anybody want to hoard anything when they could always get what they needed when they needed it. It wouldn't make sense. George Jackson put the case against the likelihood of hoarding in conditions of abundance and free access in one of the letters published is Soledad Brother:

Quote:

Consider the people's store, after full automation, the implementation of the theory of economic advantage. You dig, no waste makers, nor harnesses on production. There is no intermediary, no money. The store, it stocks everything that the body or home could possibly use. Why won't the people hoard, how is an operation like that possible, how could the storing place keep its stores if its stock (merchandise) is free?Men hoard against want, need, don't they? Aren't they taught that tomorrow holds terror, pile up a surplus against this terror, be greedy and possessive if you want to succeed in this insecure world? Nuts hidden away for tomorrow's Winter.Change the environment, educate the man, he'll change. The people's store will work as long as people know that it will be there, and have in abundance the things they need and want (really want); when they are positive that the common effort has and will always produce an abundance, they won't bother to take home more than they need.Water is free, do people drink more than they need?

2.

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Doesn't signal the amount of demand.  One person might really really want a toaster they'll use everyday and another person might just think a toaster looks nice and they'll use it once a year.

That could happen now, under the capitalist buying and selling system where you have to pay for a toaster, and no doubt does. You've suddenly changed the definition of "demand" from "paying demand" (what economists cynically call "effective" demand) to meaning what people need (which of course is a secondary consideration under capitalism). Both money and what people take can be signals as to what to produce but of course with money the amount signalled to produce will be less as most people's "effective demand" is rationed by the amount of their wages or salary.

Yes, people drink more water then they need and even pee in water which is bad for people downstream who need it to drink. they did that before socialism or capitalism. thanks, ALB for the great insight in distinguishing between "paying demand" aka "effect demand" and what people need. you're right about that and this distinction seems to me one of the primaryflaws in capitalism that is missing in the popular conception of capitalism. Most capitalist dismiss the distinction and make the false equivalency that effective demand = needs.  Nonetheless, the my argumen still stands, IMO, because the information on "what people really need" is not communicated very well my measuring stock levels either.  Under socialism instead of "effective demand" we have "stock levels"?    But looking at the information bandwidth we see that the information communicated by removing an item from a shelf would be a simple yes or no binary information.  the information communicated by capitalist selling a stock item for a price is also yes or no, but it has an additional magnitude to distinguish the "yes" form buying a great toaster from the "yes" of buying a terrible toaster.  So that makes effective demand in capitalism equal in information content to something like stock levels devided by production costs in socialism.  The production cost in socialism (correct me if I'm wrong) is not included in the counting of stock levels. But some informatin about production costs and needs beyond a simple yes or no is included in a market price equilibrium. the argument over whether capitalism stock levels or socialism stock levels communicate more information seems to me analogous ot the argument or phrase "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" which tells us that a slow clock is never right.  BUT a slow clock can be compensated for and with effort it's possible to work out the time of day it actually is if you know a clock is 2 minutes slow each day.  the stopped clock may be exactly right 2 times a day, but you never know when those two times are so it's basically useless for telling time.  So by this analogy communism might get the information on need based on stock levels correct sometimes, but you'll never know for sure which items on the shelves are correctly stocked based on need.  Capitalism is guaranteed to never get the information on need correct, but there is some unreliable and tenuous connection between effective demand and need that you can use to make better decisions.  Now if you had a system of hourly based prices so that a toaster could be priced for 10 hours of your work and a car priced at 1000 hours of your work, then you could have somethign that might be more usefull. but that's another argument. so maybe I don't want to wade into that?  Let me get back to my UpVote digital currency argument. The upvote digital currency strategy works similar to the stocking levels argument.  you could even do a one to one mapping and say taking an item off the shelf equals an upvote for producing more of the item.  So an upvote coin functions mostly as a signal of user need.  in fact a spreadsheet listing stock levels of tasters is functionally equivalent to a how much currency you have if you have a currency with a base unite conversion fixed at a value of a toasters (so currency based on toasters intstead of a weight of gold).     

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

I suggest the problem with capitalism isn't money, it's the that money so far has been exclusively using a base unit of capital and used to manage captial and is easily converted only to capital.  Here's some reading on the topic form the book. . .Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy By Melanie Swanhttps://books.google.com/books?id=RHJmBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=multi-currency+society&source=bl&ots=XPsJD0-Sc0&sig=pgpoceXJ-FAqb8if-Y-AHglfQbU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7DsyVaO-I4SxogSS_oHYAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=multi-currency%20society&f=falseWith blockchain digital currencies you can create a currency based on upvotes or voting for example that might be valuable for socialism. Call it a Vote-coin and it would allow you to split your vote so you might vote all your daily allotment of vote-coins that you've saved for over a year at one time for a decision that's of most importance to you.  Or you might split your available vote-coins into two major issues you want to vote on equally.  Or you might spend your vote on spontaneous matters such as the need for snow plow labor after a big storm.  in any case the votes-coin currency could be configured to change value over time or in different locations or be transferable.  So a vote for more snow plow labor after a storm might add the votecoins in the local snow plow services sector of the economy and the act of voting might be considered converting from a vote-coin to a resource-requirement-coin.    Alternatively you could create a currency based on an hour-of-labor-coin and require that everyones hour of labor was valued equally as a currency sepecfic law.   

We do not need suggestions from reformers, we have had sufficient reformers through the existence of capitalism, In this forum we advocate for a society without money, without state, without exploitation, without leaders,  and without capitalism, capitalism is an overdue system, that must be overthrown  Those writers they are ideologists of the capitalist class, we do not need them. Money is not only a piece of printed paper, gold or silver, it is a product of workers explpotation, it is capital

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

I suggest the problem with capitalism isn't money, it's the that money so far has been exclusively using a base unit of capital and used to manage captial and is easily converted only to capital.  Here's some reading on the topic form the book. . .Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy By Melanie Swanhttps://books.google.com/books?id=RHJmBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=multi-currency+society&source=bl&ots=XPsJD0-Sc0&sig=pgpoceXJ-FAqb8if-Y-AHglfQbU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7DsyVaO-I4SxogSS_oHYAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=multi-currency%20society&f=falseWith blockchain digital currencies you can create a currency based on upvotes or voting for example that might be valuable for socialism. Call it a Vote-coin and it would allow you to split your vote so you might vote all your daily allotment of vote-coins that you've saved for over a year at one time for a decision that's of most importance to you.  Or you might split your available vote-coins into two major issues you want to vote on equally.  Or you might spend your vote on spontaneous matters such as the need for snow plow labor after a big storm.  in any case the votes-coin currency could be configured to change value over time or in different locations or be transferable.  So a vote for more snow plow labor after a storm might add the votecoins in the local snow plow services sector of the economy and the act of voting might be considered converting from a vote-coin to a resource-requirement-coin.    Alternatively you could create a currency based on an hour-of-labor-coin and require that everyones hour of labor was valued equally as a currency sepecfic law.   

We do not need suggestions from reformers, we have had sufficient reformers through the existence of capitalism, In this forum we advocate for a society without money, without state, without exploitation, without leaders,  and without capitalism, capitalism is an overdue system, that must be overthrown  Those writers they are ideologists of the capitalist class, we do not need them. Money is not only a piece of printed paper, gold or silver, it is a product of workers explpotation, it is capital

 Well, you don't believe in leaders, so you can't speak for the others in this forum.  If enough of them all agree and ask me not to make suggestions, then I'll go along.  For now, though it looks like since you're trying to assume leadership and speak for others, that YOU are the one who should go away based on YOUR OWN argument. Also, you don't seem to have understood the poposed idea.  It's not reforming capitalism, it's subverting capitalsm. It's not a form of money based on gold or silver and doesn't need to be printed (as if that matters).  this is form of counting opinions and votes by using a unit of vote and giving it the transferability and ubiquity and conveniece that so far only capital  backed currencies have benefited from.  Many socialist have argued that capitalism would eventually evolve into socialism, and this is perhaps a step in that evolution.    But don't let my idea stop you if you have a better plan then please go ahead with it and just ignore me. I'm still waiting for details on your better plan, but I think if you want to accmoplish all that at once you're going to need a combination of a magic wand and a nuclear war.  I don't believe in solving problems with magic wands or nuclear war.  So what's your plan for turning advocacy into results?  and how's that been working out for you so far? 

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

On a Free access society we do not have to worry about those superfluous things, and money can be used as toilet paper. Sometimes, some human beings like to complicate their own life.The Haitians also lived under the People stores owned by the Puerto Rican Sugar Company, in a place  known as Bateyes, or Company town stores, all their sweat was stolen from them, they never needed any physical money  it is all capitalism dressed in a different way, or the same dog wearing a different collar. Why some peoples like to beautify capitalism ? 

so correct me if I missunderstand you. . . but you're saying the peoples store failed even though it was socialism?  Or are you saying the peoples store alone isn't enough?  I can infer that you have a general distrust of capitalism that goes beyond reasoning. If a capitalism said something wasn't capitalist, then you wouldn't trust their reasoning and that's why you don't trust me or want to hear anything because you figure I'm just another capitalist with another trick to pull on you to make a buck.  I don't think there's any way to get through to you since you've already decided I'm trying to deceive you. Am I right about you? Is there any reason to talk to each other if you don't trust me to make an honest argument.  

[Author]

Posts