Cyber Stasis is an economic simulator in the form of a free fictional game. The interface is a futuristic dashboard which coordinates global real-time demand and supply. The model is based on gift economy and tests the hypothesis of having a market system without any type of exchange be it barters or money. The market system provides a feedback loop between production and consumption and is oriented towards efficiency of distribution. Everything that we measure with money can be measured by a ratio between supply and demand. There is no private property and a concept of wealth. Everyone is connected anonymously to prevent forming of alliances and cartels. The goal of the system is to make sure that all needs are met to the best extent possible. There is a personal reputation index which measures your contributions to society but it does not give any privileges. The goal of the game is to become the most useful member of society.

> Here is a practical example: You go to work and do what you do. You get what you usually buy. You just don't exchange money for all those activities. All that based on the assumption that we switched from ownership economy to usage economy.

> Corps transform into coops and life goes on as usual. Except you are no longer forced to work and can choose to do what you like or even change your activities ever so often. —— > The goal is the become the most useful member of society.

This absolutely makes no sense. I’m an introvert. My goal is to read as many books as I can and upkeep my living.

Anyways, I’m not showing up to work tomorrow. Who do I speak to to get gifted the 3D resin printer and computer upgrades I want?

You just post it in the dashboard and whoever is producing it will deliver it to you based on location and availability. If you make a request that is considered inadequate by all participants such as a thousand 3d printers no one will supply it. Each member/unit decides autonomously what is real and what's not. As simple as that.

I can only imagine there are 100,000 people in line before me. So who gets chosen first? The reputation meter measures reputation but gives no privileges.

So is this the metric by how the “most useful” member of society is determined? And I’m assuming it’s unrelated to production, so it’s effectively a social credit (but not required for exchange). The end result is a… popularity contest, then? The Kardashians will (still) have a head start.

>I can only imagine there are 100,000 people in line before me. So who gets chosen first? The reputation meter measures reputation but gives no privileges.

Async and random. There is no line.

>So is this the metric by how the “most useful” member of society is determined? And I’m assuming it’s unrelated to production, so it’s effectively a social credit (but not required for exchange). The end result is a… popularity contest, then? The Kardashians will have a head start.

This is your level of contribution vs your level of consumption which gives your credibility for voting in an upcoming liquid democracy simulator. People use it to decide who to delegate rights to vote on their behalf if they wish based on this index. The index is context/topic based and not an all-in-one tool like fame or money. See: https://github.com/stateless-minds/cyber-stasis/discussions/5

The following submission statement was provided by /u/shanoshamanizum:

Cyber Stasis is an economic simulator in the form of a free fictional game. The interface is a futuristic dashboard which coordinates global real-time demand and supply. The model is based on gift economy and tests the hypothesis of having a market system without any type of exchange be it barters or money. The market system provides a feedback loop between production and consumption and is oriented towards efficiency of distribution. Everything that we measure with money can be measured by a ratio between supply and demand. There is no private property and a concept of wealth. Everyone is connected anonymously to prevent forming of alliances and cartels. The goal of the system is to make sure that all needs are met to the best extent possible. There is a personal reputation index which measures your contributions to society but it does not give any privileges. The goal of the game is to become the most useful member of society.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xx48in/moneyless_economy_simulator/ir9vaov/

Why? Money is fucking useful for society. Even illiterate people thousands of years had that figured out. Without it, we'd still need living like cave men. It's might me the most beneficial invention of all time.

Because money have the inherent property of accumulation and the end game of the free market capitalism is feudalism where there are so few players there is no need for a market anymore. We are at that stage right now.

Can an agent’s productivity and contribution be augmented with automation/robotics?

Considering gamification of altruism is interesting, I’m still not sure how the goal is set. It seems like that’s the most important part to implement and many actors have different goals.

What goals other than survival and contribution do you see fit? The simulator is intentionally not using any form of AI, ML or computational help because the goal is that people learn from the process rather than delegating it to machines. Automation is critical for this to happen just not needed for the supply and demand regulator.

I guess I wasn’t taking that approach. My thoughts were that actors would have their own intrinsic motivations that may or may not align with the games goal, such as maximize luxury procurement.

This reminds me of a chatbot conversation I was just having with “God” about building a simulation in which all rewards (dopamine) can only be gained outside of actions that harm other players.

I don’t know if I’m explaining this right, I guess it’s the egomaniacal billionaire problem.

There is no ownership so there are no status goods. It's all based on usage for a certain time. Not sure if the case you describe is applicable here.

How do you get people to do the shit jobs?

Divorce lawyers Sewage inspectors Back breaking labor (construction etc)

Lol society falls apart real quick when no one is doing the crap work.

[removed]

[removed]

In the first place the majority of jobs will not exist since they are related to profit-only economy. The dangerous and boring jobs will be automated. Anything else we adapt voluntarily based on demand.

I can recommend a book which influenced me heavily while doing the simulator for further reading:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs

Assuming status goods are all forms of luxury. An agent may be motivated to live on a specific plot of land because of childhood memories. Another actor wants to live there because the house has the best view of a mountain. How is this conflict resolved in a barter-free, money-free simulation? (Sorry if this is stated in your material I’m not sure how to navigate the website.)

>Um, if I can have all my needs met by “society” WHY THE FUCK WOULD I BE GOING TO WORK!?!

You are part of the society so you care about the others. You will do what you are passionate about rather than what you have to do. Most people need to do something. There would be a few which would not do anything. That's fine too.

>This game assumes that people will still work shit jobs despite not needing to (because society takes care of everyone). And, remember the jobs that actually produce goods and provide services are all (or at least mostly) shit jobs.

No such assumption made. Boring and dangerous jobs will be automated and it happens as we speak.

Via the liquid democracy simulator which is the second module to be developed. It can happen in many ways such as - rotation, disability preferences, age preferences etc. Since no one owns it all things are time constrained.

This...actually sounds super interesting. I'm saving the link for when I sober up.

Though to be honest, I'm just looking at taking out my frustration. See, I love Capitalism. REAL Capitalism. Maybe it was listening to Humphy Bogart's speech in "Sabrina" when I watched it as a kid. Maybe it was having parents who were working-middle-class.

Because the concept of privilege, that is, "private law" [literal translation] is fucking wrong. Beyond that, mechanisms that keep the rich rich, and the poor poor, are also wrong. Both are a violation of capitalism.

​

Anyhoo I'm done. If I feel further on this topic I'll post in some other forum. Ignore me!

So people are forbidden from ever talking to anyone else because they might collude, set up exchanges outside of THE SYSTEM, or generally engage in activity that is unapproved.

Right, as cyberpunk dystopias masquerading as purported utopias, this is certainly one of them.

Hey, no worries. We all have our attachments but there is only constant thing in this world and this is change. So we will embrace it naturally as it always happened. Evolution.

Nope they are anonymous in the economy system only. Offline black markets will probably still exist but the main global market is intact that way.

What he is saying is how are you preventing the inevitable black markets that will spring up, since prices can no longer manage supply and demand, and any human or algorithm trying to control it will fail.

There is no control per se. It's an anonymous global demand and supply system. Anything offline can exist the same way people in remote areas live without bank accounts today. The goal is not control but rather a working solution and all is voluntary.

Money exists because it is useful - far more useful than your system with it's massive overhead and requirement for a draconian police state to prevent people from engaging in economic activity outside of approved channels.

Using regulation to deal with the downsides of money will be orders of magnitude less harmful that what would be required to implement your insane little thought experiment.

The reason why we have "fedualism" right now is specifically due to our lack of free market capitalism. We have plenty of market capitalism, we just don't have much freedom within that market. And its inherently due to our Communist neighbors in the Eastern world who control the global markets.

This is a fucking dystopia

How are goods and services made, distributed and gained?

The same way they are now by transforming corporations to cooperatives. There is no gaining. It's usage economy vs ownership economy. You wake up you open the dashboard and request what you need. The same way with supply.

[removed]

Yup. It’s those most scarce items that are the hardest to program policy for, especially since those qualities you mention try to stray away from being gamified, but now you have to prepare for actors to work around that. If disability is a deciding factor, who determines? Now we’re talking means testing. Will their reputation score be considered, or will the most disabled actor be chosen over a slightly less disabled actor with more sentimentality and contribution?

Very complex problem. And also one that is good to ponder as a share of overall societal conflict. In a world with relative abundance, we clearly see a lack of efficiency and can draft up an exercise like this. But what happens to the things that can never > 1?

I feel like the only workable solution is advanced virtual simulations of scarce experiences for those actors with selfish motivations (for lack of a more nuanced description).

Compared to how money handles that currently it's still way more effective don't you think? We are not talking about a utopia just a better system than the current one.

My question is not to criticize, but because I think this is a fascinating subject. I agree that most people would be doing something, but I think that a lot of that something would not be useful to society. For example, many people could spend most of their time partying or warching television, and take advantage of a system that provides them with what they want. How is this handled? The good will of the people is assumed?

It's alright, I am as interested as you and constructive critique is always welcome. If most people abuse the system they will be lower in the political system firstly so no one will consult with them about important topics. If their percentage of society becomes dangerously large then people will vote what to do or the system will naturally collapse and be replaced with something else. Bear in mind that given the speed of automation most people will not be needed anyway for production. Ideation and arts are just as needed. Even partying :)

Ok. First of all. Good and services right now are distributed throughout the economy based on price. Prices determine which areas need what goods.

Second, profit motive is what drives innovation and what continuously increases our standard of living.

Third, you never actually answered my question. What exactly is determining what goods and services are needed where at what time? What is replacing the role of prices in the economy?

You're trying to apply problems with our current set up to something that would fundamentally require an entire different structure.

If you have even looked at the description and screenshots you would have seen that this is a real-time p2p supply and demand system. Everything measured with money can be calculated via this supply/demand ratio without using money.

Interesting idea, but not sure the goal of becoming the most useful person in society makes much sense in any sort of realistic way.

For example, most people I know would prefer to simply spend time with family and friends, or to do whatever hobby they enjoy. It’s rather rare that I see someone say, ‘I love to spend my time convincing people to help me advance my own goals’.

All that is to say, real motivations usually look closer to things like security, moral rightness, connection, status, enjoyment, ease, understanding, self-actualization... And the reality of each of those look different per person.

Also curious to see how this simulation tackles events like natural disasters, food&resource shortages, plagues, wars. Who gets what? What values are prioritized and who picks?

I’d like to try the game, but I think I’d prefer a mobile friendly web app. Good luck!

>For example, most people I know would prefer to simply spend time with family and friends, or to do whatever hobby they enjoy. It’s rather rare that I see someone say, ‘I love to spend my time convincing people to help me advance my own goals’.

It is absolutely normal. The same way not many people want to become politicians. But at least this way people with highest reputation will not be corrupt and will actually represent wisdom and trust based on contribution.

>Also curious to see how this simulation tackles events like natural disasters, food&resource shortages, plagues, wars. Who gets what? What values are prioritized and who picks?

Async and random as in normal times. The system will have to self-adjust to those changes or collapse.

Also important to note. There will be a resource module which fetches live data about available resources left. So all production have to consider that and it allows for decentralized planning and forecasting. We will know well in advance when something is critically low and the alerts are already set up for that. Everyone receives them when they occur.

Are you for real?

That’s where my intuition leads me to believe. And thinking on it further, the contemplation on relative abundance/gravitation towards remaining scarcity already has some scientific research to draw on.

The scarcity mindset leads to worse cognitive performance and short/long decision making. I’d say there’s good reason to describe it as self perpetuating. Any gravitation to scarcity (those focused on sentimentality, status goods, luxuries that have available/like alternatives) should start to reduce in a society where relative abundance is efficiently distributed.

Sorry if my initial comment came off as argumentative as it seems. There’s all too common a trope of “hurr durr no money no incentive” when a genuine approach to these issues is brought up. Thanks for the conversation

Most welcome! I thoroughly enjoyed it. Please feel free to bring up things as they come to you. It's this feedback and collaboration that leads to progress.

I find it critical that we react to despair with creativity and out of the box thinking because even with the so called perfect system people die every day from it's inefficiencies and get apathetic to it.

Good idea. And since people will obviously demand way too much if everything is just available to take, we should also make that system track and calculate the value people are putting back into the economy, so we know that it is sustainable, and people aren't profiting off other people's input.

It could be a point system. Like say you work 8 hours at a certain task. You could get X amount of points, depending on how much value that task provided to the economy. Then they could use those points to obtain goods and services on the dashboard.

Look, all goods and services are scarce resources. You can't just obtain everything for nothing. Countries have tried to centrally control this in the past, and it has resulted in the mass poverty and deaths of hundreds of millions of people. You can't usher in the utopia you say you can.

And that structure is?

>Good idea. And since people will obviously demand way too much if everything is just available to take, we should also make that system track and calculate the value people are putting back into the economy, so we know that it is sustainable, and people aren't profiting off other people's input.

Practice has shown the opposite effect in fact. When you can have anything anytime it loses sentimental value to you.

Maintaining the scarcity mindset for abundant resources is what keeps the system alive. Just take a look around at digital scarcity.

[removed]

I like to think there is more than change. When it comes down to it, the core of who I am is the same, but the "outside" has changed, and will continue to change. Not my physical self, but how I interact with people. My personality. I hope to become a better person. As per my own standards of what that is.

Anyway, these sorts of economics discussions strikes something deep inside me, about how I interact with other people. Nothing to do with money or anything so stupid/trivial.

Real wealth is something far more valuable. I need to call my grandmother.

You need to learn some basic concepts about the economy. May I suggest the book Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell. He does a good job of explaining, with real world examples, these concepts that you don't seem to grasp. Like scarcity, the role of prices, etc.

>Practice has shown the opposite effect in fact. When you can have anything anytime it loses sentimental value to you.

Nope. False. When people are given the choice to not work and can, in theory, get anything they want at any time, they will try to get it and not work.

There's already a moneyless economic simulator, it's called Stellaris. It is also a coincidentally a war crime/dystopia simulator.

Clearly one above your understanding.

> If their percentage of society becomes dangerously large then people will vote what to do or the system will naturally collapse and be replaced with something else.

i.e., if one of your foundational assumptions is wrong then the system won't work.

Put another way: the system won't work unless your underlying assumptions about human behavior turn out to be true. That is, unfortunately, a key flaw that has doomed many utopian visions in the past, and will likely continue to do so in the future.

One of the most important features a socioeconomic system can have is resilience to human misbehavior. A great many systems would work if humans behaved in just the right pro-social ways, but history has shown us that it's very naive to expect that from large (10M+) spread-out (country+) societies. One of the great successes of modern systems such as democracy and regulated capitalism are that they are fairly resilient in the face of bad actors.

Take, for example, democracy vs. dictatorship. At its best, a dictatorship can be amazing -- decisions are made quickly, efficient solutions are deployed, waste is minimized -- but in reality bad behavior tends towards the "Dictator's Trap" of fear leading to poor information leading to poor decisions leading to poor outcomes; at its worst, dictatorship results in genocide and collapse. Democracy, by contrast, has much less variance -- it can never be as efficient as an enlightened dictatorship, but it will also never sink to the depths of a corrupt or murderous dictatorship, and history has shown that on average the democracy will tend to give better results.

So while it's certainly interesting to consider alternative social, political, and economic systems -- and while there are almost certainly better ones out there that we haven't tried yet -- those systems have to be resilient to human misbehavior to be even remotely realistic.

Hey, it's just a game/simulation and nothing more. Also consider that resilience in the nowadays world means order, violence and punishment.

I've not yet found a system better than capitalism to automate boring jobs. Why hasn't that already been done? Why is there no trucker bot? Why is there no janitor bot? Why is there no server bot? Why is there no fruit-picker bot? Why is there no fast food employee bot? Do business owners enjoy employing people for jobs that they hate or is there no other better solution currently?

Also, are you saying there will be no restaurants, no theme parks, no movie theaters? Will every book be self-published?

I can only guess just like you. Remember this is a game/simulation not a political battle arena :)

>I've not yet found a system better than capitalism to automate boring jobs. Why hasn't that already been done? Why is there no trucker bot? Why is there no janitor bot? Why is there no server bot? Why is there no fruit-picker bot? Why is there no fast food employee bot? Do business owners enjoy employing people for jobs that they hate or is there no other better solution currently?

My guess is that first bots are more expensive than people still. Secondly what do you do when a critical mass is not needed? Quite a philosophical topic.

>Also, are you saying there will be no restaurants, no theme parks, no movie theaters? Will every book be self-published?

I am not Nostradamus all I am proposing is a simulation of an alternative economy which is super easy to be tried and tested right now. I am sure in the future people will laugh at how we used to do things only for paper and digits.

if you cant explain and deflect then it doesnt exist/you also dont know what youre talking about

Doesnt exist? In the hypothetical scenario where our world is replaced with one where money isn't the drive? Are you.. are you drunk?

[removed]

no, i am not drunk. why cant the structure just adapt? why is a totally new one needed?

This is all 100% nonsense. Capitalism is merely freedom. The ability for us to do what we want with our own time and property. There is no "end game" or any of that crap.

Because of a billion reasons, primarily, we dont have one universal government, a change like this cant exist while those that currently have the resources can simply take them and move next door.

It's interesting how it becomes a game when I bring up specific instances that would falsify your idea, while you gave the other guy a link to anarchist ideas. Why not tell him it's just a game?

Once they exist, they'll be cheaper than humans. After all, they never ask for raises, get tired, want benefits, need time off, make mistakes, get distracted, commit fraud, have children, etc. There are already socialist countries around the world. Why haven't they automated away all the menial jobs?

They'll only laugh if they don't understand what it means to be in an economy with scarcity. We don't get to a post-scarcity economy by eradicating money and preventing people from doing what they want to do. That's called totalitarianism. Also, most people don't only do things for paper and digits.

>It's interesting how it becomes a game when I bring up specific instances that would falsify your idea, while you gave the other guy a link to anarchist ideas. Why not tell him it's just a game?

It's in the description. He is not offensive and pretending it's a war.

>Once they exist, they'll be cheaper than humans. After all, they never ask for raises, get tired, want benefits, need time off, make mistakes, get distracted, commit fraud, have children, etc. There are already socialist countries around the world. Why haven't they automated away all the menial jobs?

They already exist. What's socialism to do with it?

>They'll only laugh if they don't understand what it means to be in an economy with scarcity. We don't get to a post-scarcity economy by eradicating money and preventing people from doing what they want to do. That's called totalitarianism. Also, most people don't only do things for paper and digits.

Is NFT and crypto an actual scarcity or it's an artificial one?

Where did you see totalitarianism in a completely voluntary non-hierarchical simulation?

Last time I checked rent is paid with paper and digits. The monopoly game for kids.

He basically asked the same thing I did. In the same way that I did. But I'm pretending it's a war. Okay.

They already exist? Sweet. How much are they? Give me a link.

I'm seeing totalitarianism in implementing a cash-less system where nobody does anything for profit before we get rid of the problem of scarcity.

If it's all voluntary, there's no way that everyone will agree to this. The only way something like this can even begin to work is if it's implemented on everyone. That's not completely voluntary.

Also, "Everyone is connected anonymously to prevent forming of alliances and cartels." People like making alliances. Good things come out of alliances. Preventing people from engaging in them is a form of totalitarianism.

Your problem was linking the anarchist literature; kind of giving away the game there if you want to fall back to, "Bruh, it's just a game."

Last time I checked, not everyone pays rent, and that's not the only thing people do with their time. "how we used to do things only for paper and digits."

Get some better arguments and stop being dishonest.

PS: I'm serious about the bots that already exist that can do as good a job as all the menial jobs that exist. Put up or shut up.

Now he got mad. Sorry pal, not playing your war games.

Fair enough. I wouldn't want to have to post links to things that don't exist, either. Have a good day, sir.

> Also consider that resilience in the nowadays world means order, violence and punishment.

Not necessarily.

For example, regulated capitalism has a certain amount of resilience to greed by way of co-opting it. One way to satisfy greed under regulated capitalism is to capture market share by making a better and/or cheaper product, which in turn offers benefits to the rest of society. In that way, an anti-social impulse (greed) can be co-opted into providing a pro-social outcome (improved goods for others).

It's by no means perfectly resilient, of course -- greed can and does lead to significant anti-social results under regulated capitalism -- but that does provide one example of a way in which resilience to bad behavior can be a result of system design rather than coercion through force.

You are talking like we are in the early 90s and we have a free market. Now the real picture is 2 investment funds own the world and all new companies are created with investments from them.

> > For example, regulated capitalism
>
> You are talking like we are in the early 90s and we have a free market.

You'll note that I never once said "free market". I used the phrase "regulated capitalism" very deliberately, as history has shown us it tends to deliver better social outcomes than unregulated capitalism.

> Now the real picture is 2 investment funds own the world and all new companies are created with investments from them.

If you feel that is accurate, I would encourage you to learn more about the world.

> The goal of the game is to become the most useful member of society.

The most useful member of society would convince everyone to scrap this junk "altruistic" system before everyone starves to death.

> the end game of the free market capitalism is feudalism where there are so few players there is no need for a market anymore. We are at that stage right now.

Maybe you should learn what the word feudalism means, and perhaps study some history before showing yourself how silly your comment is. Also, learn what free market capitalism is as well before you equate it to feudalism. It's ok, you can stop being a "serf" and create your moneyless utopia...no one is going to stop you.

Do you honestly think OP would be capable of creating something like this simulator without at least a rudimentary knowledge of economics?...

>and requirement for a draconian police state

I looked really hard through the link and wasn't able to find any mention of a "draconian police state". Would you mind copy/pasting the sections that discuss this?

Yes. Did you even read the guidelines. It asks you to keep it real. The entire system relies on individuals being honest and not taking more than they need. It also assumes that people will be able to supply the same stuff as our current market economy.

>It also assumes that people will be able to supply the same stuff as our current market economy.

I'm curious, who do you think actually creates and supplies the "stuff" in our current market economy if not people?

Hey OP, I know most people are shitting on this idea of a "moneyless economy" but if we truly want to evolve as a society, this is going to have to be the way. The long-term effects of asset accumulation are becoming incredibly obvious and they're destructive for the vast majority of the people on the planet. We have the resources to feed and house everyone, right now, but resources have been accumulated in the hands of the few, increasing their influence and power, and using that influence and power to secure even more resources. The vast majority are suffering, right now, so that a few may live in ivory towers and sit on gold toilets. This is unsustainable, and history shows us revolutions occur when the masses are unnecessarily subjugated for too long. Unfortunately, technological advances are starting to reach the point where it may soon be impossible for the masses to "rise up." Drones and robots, with no moral objections and AI system control could easily lead to a society of abject social oppression, depending on who is in control of the system. We need to break the loop now, while we still have a chance. Eliminating money from our societies would be a necessary first step. Unfortunately, scarcity defines our current economic world view, so until we find a way to meet everyone's basic needs, either through policy or technological advancement, a moneyless economy will be out of reach. Simulations like this will be incredibly important though, to help us find the wrinkles that need to be ironed out before a system like this could be practically implemented. It's a step in the right direction.

Hey, thanks for the feedback. It's not about making revolutions literally. It's all about showing people how easy it is to replace the current system. I don't think something you can install and run in 15 minutes is to be considered out of reach. Literally anyone can try and see if it works or not.

Im curious how you think people are going to supply stuff wirhout any financial incentive to do so.

It's an unstated implication of what he describes, even if the OP doesn't understand that to be the case.

>Without it, we'd still need living like cave men.

The Inca were able to create one of the most advanced empires in pre-Columbian America without the use of currency. Your assertions aren't based on reality.

>How do you get people to do the shit jobs?

Who does the dishes at your house?

I mean I also wipe my own ass, doesn’t mean I’m going to put on gear and scuba in a pool of shit to unclog the city’s feces pipes

Perhaps because people would rather live in a society with things like food, shelter, clothing, etc. than a society without these things?

[removed]

I'm confused. Why do you do the dishes and wipe your own ass if nobody pays you to do it? What's the profit motive?

How is that an unstated implication? Can you explain this further?

Being a so called advanced empire in pre-Columbian America is not a high bar.

If you can't see how requiring all commerce to go through the system that's described without massive surveillance and punishments for people who decide to act outside it to prevent it from collapsing under it's own weight and massive inefficenencies, I'm not sure what to tell you.

It's a voluntary system, it should go without saying that all production and consumption isn't forced to do anything.

Then most people will choose not to use it since money is more efficient and has vastly less overhead.

Either you force people into this system, or it will not destroy money which is the stated goal.

>I’m going to put on gear and scuba in a pool of shit to unclog the city’s feces pipes

Also would you really rather live in a society with no plumbing/sewer/septic system than having to unclog the pipes every once in a while?

Wouldn't living in a city of millions with everyone using the street as an open sewer be more disgusting than having to unclog the pipes every once in a while?

And surely we could automate something like that. I refuse to believe that we're capable of building a robot that can fly to Mars and take alien soil samples but we can't build a robot to unclog pipes.

Money is laughably inefficient as a means of coordinating the distribution of labor, goods, and services.

Why would people voluntarily choose to re-enter a system where they have to work more to get less?

And what would incentivize people to make those for others for free? People aren't just going to do this out of the goodness of their own hearts. You can't possibly believe that.

Also how would you distribute. All resources are scarce. So how are you distributing scarce resources with alternative uses in the economy without the guide of prices to determine where stuff is needed?

Good chance young people will do it for enjoyment. Never built a tree fort with your buddies growing up?

But likely people will do it for social stance. The Culture series by Banks covers this topic thoroughly.

Technically we don't know how their economy worked, so it's a stretch to say they had no type of market system.

>And what would incentivize people to make those for others for free? People aren't just going to do this out of the goodness of their own hearts. You can't possibly believe that.

Of course not that would be ridiculous. However, people will work and make things for other people for free in exchange for the ability to get things that other people make for free.

There's nothing intrinsic to money that makes people want to work in exchange for it. People just want the stuff that they use money to get. If they could just get the stuff without using money why would there still be any desire for money?

>All resources are scarce.

Are they?... We grow enough food to feed 10 billion people yet 10% of us go hungry every year. The US has 580,000 homeless people in the US and 16,000,000 vacant homes. How real is this scarcity and how much of it is the result of a shitty means of distributing goods, labor, and services?

>There's nothing intrinsic to money that makes people want to work in exchange for it. People just want the stuff that they use money to get. If they could just get the stuff without using money why would there still be any desire for money?

Things have value whether there is money or not. Money is medium of exchange. So that we know how much things are worth relative to other things. Without money, value isn't determined and we lose the ability to effectively distribute goods and services to where they are needed most.

>However, people will work and make things for other people for free in exchange for the ability to get things that other people make for free.

First of all, OP said work would be voluntary. But beyond that, why wouldn't I just take much more than I contribute and screw everyone else over?

>Are they?... We grow enough food to feed 10 billion people yet 10% of us go hungry every year. The US has 580,000 homeless people in the US and 16,000,000 vacant homes. How real is this scarcity and how much of it is the result of a shitty means of distributing goods, labor, and services?

You are confused about what scarcity is. This is why I recommendes the book, "Basic Economics."

>The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

-Thomas Sowell

You can't distribute goods better than prices can. If you think you can, then prove it.

That is so interesting that this confuses you well let me try to explain

the benefit you get from wiping your own ass is that you don’t walk around with shit all over your butt cheeks, and possibly even running down the inner side of your legs, the benefit of washing your dishes isn’t you don’t live in filth and your home is not infested with cockroaches and other lovely little insects. That’s the payment that you get from doing your own dishes and that’s the payment that you get from wiping your own ass

on the other hand, going into a pool of shit and gear to scuba and unclog the the city pipes for the benefit of all your he d the well is not happening not unless you’re paid for it

A personal and immediate benefit can and will motivate people. A benefit for the greater good. Indirect and long term? Lol good luck with that. This is a dumb idea. Sorry

>Things have value whether there is money or not. Money is medium of exchange. So that we know how much things are worth relative to other things. Without money, value isn't determined and we lose the ability to effectively distribute goods and services to where they are needed most.

Under your system a banana duct taped to a wall is worth $120,000.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/someone-paying-120000-for-a-banana-duct-taped-to-a-wall-at-art-basel-is-the-perfect-picture-of-wealth-inequality-2019-12-05

If your system of valuing goods, services, and labor determines that a banana duct taped to a wall is worth more than a 2 bedroom apartment perhaps it's a sign your system doesn't work very well?...

>First of all, OP said work would be voluntary. But beyond that, why wouldn't I just take much more than I contribute and screw everyone else over?

Because if everyone did that then nobody would have anything.

Surely you'd rather have something than nothing, wouldn't you?

>You are confused about what scarcity is. This is why I recommendes the book, "Basic Economics."

I'm really not. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps Thomas Sowell was wrong about one or two things?...

>Under your system a banana duct taped to a wall is worth $120,000.

Nah. I can buy a banana and duct tape for way less than that. And let's not pretend that modern art sales are your normal purchase that everyone relies on.

>Because if everyone did that then nobody would have anything.

>Surely you'd rather have something than nothing, wouldn't you?

The person next to me is going to take advantage of it, so why shouldn't I? This is how economies are ruined and people starve. It's the more extreme version of nationalizing all industry and redistributing wealth.

>I'm really not. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps Thomas Sowell was wrong about one or two things?...

Nope. He is a pretty good economist and gives actual examples in his book. Better than this marxist crap you are spouting. You can't even tell me how people will be incentivized to work and just assume people will do it out of their own free will.

>Nah. I can buy a banana and duct tape for way less than that.

Can you sell it for $120,000?

>And let's not pretend that modern art sales are your normal purchase that everyone relies on.

We pay athletes millions of dollars to throw balls through hoops, while we barely pay the people who teach our children a living wage.

There have been paramedics that make more money doing only fans. Are you telling me being a paramedic is seriously of less value to society than doing porn?

This is not a good system we're using. It might be the only one that's worked for us so far but it is godawful at doing what we need it to do.

>The person next to me is going to take advantage of it, so why shouldn't I?

Because if everyone, including you, did that then nobody would have anything. You seem perfectly aware that people would starve if everyone did this. Wouldn't you at least do the bare minimum required for people to have their needs met? Would you honestly rather starve than do the bare minimum?

>This is how economies are ruined and people starve

Your system grows enough food to feed 2 billion extra people while 10% of the population goes hungry and you want to talk to me about people starving?...

>He is a pretty good economist and gives actual examples in his book.

Einstein was a pretty good physicist, but he was wrong about nuclear power being impossible. Lord Kelvin was widely considered the most prominent scientist of his time, but he was wrong about heavier than air flight being impossible. Aristotle is widely considered to be one of the greatest thinkers in history, but he was wrong about the elements.

Smart people can still be wrong.

>You can't even tell me how people will be incentivized to work and just assume people will do it out of their own free will.

As I've said multiple times now, people will be incentivized to work in order to have things, just the same as they are now.

It is a fact that that free markets have raised more people out of abject poverty and starvation more than anything else ever has, while marxist economies have ended in the deaths of nearly 100 million people with widespread starvation and poverty. But setting that aside, let's look at this core issue.

>As I've said multiple times now, people will be incentivized to work in order to have things, just the same as they are now.

You seem to think that people take the entire system into account when they make personal decisions. That is not true. You already changed the original proposed model that said work would be voluntary, so lets look at your model.

I have to work to use this system. Since the government runs this system, do they decide what I do or do I get to choose? If I get to choose, then how does the economy regulate oversaturated markets? We can't have everyone being an artist or a musician. And who would ever do the shit jobs in society with long hours and such unless they have some sort of incentive to do that instead of something else.

Next, what is to stop me from wildly overtaking goods and services. Does the government get to decide how much I purchase? Can they decide I have had enough food for the month and not give me anything? Do I have to get some sort of approval to buy everything?

What is your solution to these problems that money, and prices solve?

No, you can just get anything. The only problem is that your score (production/consumption) goes down but that doesn't really matter because it doesn't do anything. It relies on the good will of people to get a higher score. Which will never work imo.

Why do you feel threatened by this?

There's enough excess that most people wouldn't need to work at all should we eliminate the hording of wealth.

> Why do you feel threatened by this?

I am not. Not sure where I said I was threatened by this. Here is my previous comment:

> The most useful member of society would convince everyone to scrap this junk "altruistic" system before everyone starves to death.

I stand by this comment.

You reacted as though you were threatened. You didn't need to be explicit. It's called subtext.

> You reacted as though you were threatened. You didn't need to be explicit. It's called subtext.

Not sure how you can interpret me being threatened. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe and add whatever subtext you want to add, even when it's wrong. Have a nice day.

Like I can't see your comment history, bro.

"Without slavery we never would have built the pyramids! Why do you want to destroy society? We'll all be living in filth if we don't have slaves, you dummy!"

First of all, slaves were not use to build the pyramids.

Secondly, slaves make an economy worse not better. That is why the south was much more poor than the north in the US in the 1800s.

So while slaves are NOT helpful to society, money is DAMN useful to society. We should therefore keep money and ban slavery.

>First of all, slaves were not use to build the pyramids.

I know, that was part of the bit.

>Secondly, slaves make an economy worse not better. That is why the south was much more poor than the north in the US in the 1800s.

If your only argument against slavery is that it's financially unviable (which you're completely making up, but we'll take it as true for your benefit), then there's really no reason to eschew anything that's profitable.

Also yeah, slavery is still incredibly profitable. Happens to this day.

I'm not making that up, BTW. It's been studied a lot. It may be profitable to the person holding the slave, but not to society.

And that is not my only reason. Or even the primary one. The primary reason slavery should be banned is that it infringes on rights. Money does not infringe on rights.

He's actually comparing a task anyone can do for 10 minutes a day to a task performed by trained professionals for 8 hours a day. It's cognitive dissonance. It's incredibly disingenuous.

You explicitly explain why you think capitalism leads to feudalism in the section of your repo that announces why "Money is Bad". You can't handwave every job that sucks by saying that automation will take care of it. I mean, you can, but it's like saying "all the problems capitalism solves can be solved by magic. Let's just harry potter this shit"

Game, set, match