Talk:Life exchange: Difference between revisions
yes, this is the same issue as in Talk:TCE
(Starting to make sense even to the dumbest of all sysops ;)) |
(yes, this is the same issue as in Talk:TCE) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Buy? Shares? Who sells them? Where can I '''buy''' them? | :Buy? Shares? Who sells them? Where can I '''buy''' them? | ||
::Right now you do it by donating, and you get maybe prestige for that. Separate from | ::Right now you do it by donating, and you get maybe prestige for that. Separate from that you can bet on it by buying derivative products based on insurance portfolios, that can be made easier... | ||
:Derivatives on insurance porfolios? I understand all the words but I've never seen this type of instrument. (We're a bit behind in this capitalist game here in Finland. eg. We just got our first real-estate lease-back offerings here.) Care to explain? What kind of derivatives you mean. Reverse (lever) instruments (mmm... sell futures that is I think) on wicked evil stock portfolio X is an interesting idea, that's crossed my mind. That would yield gains to the campaigner if one would make a really killer [[boycott]] and bought into betting the stocks will fall. Is this what you mean? | |||
:::::Yes. | |||
----- | |||
Shares and options and futures and other instruments can be created to mirror the various risks to life that [[campaign]]s are trying to protect. To buy in to a campaign, you can either buy a share in the campaign (which is a bet that the campaign will increase the value of the life affected by the activity that the campaign targets, which you consider worth doing for itself - like a tradeable donation) or in some derivative of the campaign (like a fixed deadline at which point the success of the campaign in raising the value of some life will be assessed and you will be paid some premium for predicting that rise). | Shares and options and futures and other instruments can be created to mirror the various risks to life that [[campaign]]s are trying to protect. To buy in to a campaign, you can either buy a share in the campaign (which is a bet that the campaign will increase the value of the life affected by the activity that the campaign targets, which you consider worth doing for itself - like a tradeable donation) or in some derivative of the campaign (like a fixed deadline at which point the success of the campaign in raising the value of some life will be assessed and you will be paid some premium for predicting that rise). | ||
:Premium? Premium from what? Where does the money come from? What does a [[campaign]] have to do with money? [[Campaign]]s are about opinions and facts to convince other people that the opinion is constructive. | :Premium? Premium from what? Where does the money come from? What does a [[campaign]] have to do with money? [[Campaign]]s are about opinions and facts to convince other people that the opinion is constructive. | ||
::In my experience that takes at least seed funds to get things done on a schedule. Premium can be paid by those betting on the rise, see [[w:prediction market]]. This is well understood territory now. | ::In my experience that takes at least seed funds to get things done on a schedule. Premium can be paid by those betting on the rise, see [[w:prediction market]], e.g. [http://ideosphere.com]. This is well understood territory now. US government even using it as part of [[w:Total Information Awareness]]. So they consider this more reliable than paying billions for spying and satellites. | ||
A combination of the two approaches makes donations and bets on the success of the campaign work together more closely, and provides accurate feedback on probability of success: betters don't care if the campaign succeeds so their bets tell you objectively what the odds are to see if you are impressing or scaring anyone with the campaign; shareholders do care if the campaign succeeds because they get prestige and possibly a payoff of some kind out of it. | A combination of the two approaches makes donations and bets on the success of the campaign work together more closely, and provides accurate feedback on probability of success: betters don't care if the campaign succeeds so their bets tell you objectively what the odds are to see if you are impressing or scaring anyone with the campaign; shareholders do care if the campaign succeeds because they get prestige and possibly a payoff of some kind out of it. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 20: | ||
:Prestige. Perhaps, but it's more about putting our heads together and figuring out how to slow down or stop negative cycles and accelerate positive ones. | :Prestige. Perhaps, but it's more about putting our heads together and figuring out how to slow down or stop negative cycles and accelerate positive ones. | ||
::I'd say it's more about does the red light or the green light go on, when you swipe the products on your supermarket shelf or boyfriend's cupboard? | ::I'd say it's more about does the red light or the green light go on, when you swipe the products on your supermarket shelf or boyfriend's cupboard? That is the point of the Greenpeace link, - which *is* about bar codes being used to decide if you approve of something, as I said. | ||
So, betting on/against campaigns reveals price of life, buying shares in them increases price of life that the campaign is pointing out the bad effects to. | So, betting on/against campaigns reveals price of life, buying shares in them increases price of life that the campaign is pointing out the bad effects to. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 44: | ||
:Ok. I believe this but did he research how much of this [[GGP]] comes from renewable and unrenewable resources? That would be an interesting fact. | :Ok. I believe this but did he research how much of this [[GGP]] comes from renewable and unrenewable resources? That would be an interesting fact. | ||
::Not really, the [[w:natural capital]] theory says it doesn't matter as much as people used to think. Mostly because substitutes are found for anything that is unrenewable. Focus should be on ecology risk. | ::Not really, the [[w:natural capital]] theory says it doesn't matter as much as people used to think. Mostly because substitutes are found for anything that is unrenewable. Focus should be on ecology risk. See [[Talk:GGP]] for sources. | ||
:Interesting research into ecological aspects of production can be found at http://www.factor10-institute.org/MIPSlong.htm MIPS stands for Material Input Per Service Unit. Friedrch Schmidt-Bleek has written some interesting books about it. His view is that energy is not a issue but material displacement is. | :Interesting research into ecological aspects of production can be found at http://www.factor10-institute.org/MIPSlong.htm MIPS stands for Material Input Per Service Unit. Friedrch Schmidt-Bleek has written some interesting books about it. His view is that energy is not a issue but material displacement is. | ||
| Line 85: | Line 90: | ||
[http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/twelve_leverage_points] [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/governance], [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/board]. | [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/twelve_leverage_points] [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/governance], [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/board]. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
I read the diff on this and it's slowly starting to make sense. Campaigners don't get any money, they get a chance to convince people to use their [[purchasing power]] in a constructive and less harmful way, whereas companies that are quicker to adapt to the needs and desires of the (information enhanced) marketplace grab profits. e.g. If using [[textile]]s (which make up 8% of [[GGP]]) produced in dignified work places suddenly became highly fashionable, then those manufacturers who have invested in making their factory a nice place to work in would cash-in on the rising demand. [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:49 Apr 14, 2003 (EEST) | I read the diff on this and it's slowly starting to make sense. Campaigners don't get any money, they get a chance to convince people to use their [[purchasing power]] in a constructive and less harmful way, whereas companies that are quicker to adapt to the needs and desires of the (information enhanced) marketplace grab profits. | ||
:Yes, exactly, the smarter companies will haunt this wiki and will run ads emphasizing their acceptability. See discussion of "brand, flag and label" issue at [[w:intellectual capital]] (really quite useful for terminology). The company that goes "organic" or "vegan" or "kosher" beats those that don't to the market. So this is about having perhaps up to six billion such labels (one per person!) | |||
:But beyond that, people can bet on the success of these companies and the failure of those that ignore the [[w:moral purchasing]] issue. If you are directy involved in that, e.g. by running somehing like [http://ideosphere.com Ideosphere] or [http://hsx.com HSX], you can get the information before anyo else, and encourage the most experienced PR people to feed you free data - in return for which they get prestige, and each other's money (selling bets to each other like any derivative market). | |||
e.g. If using [[textile]]s (which make up 8% of [[GGP]]) produced in dignified work places suddenly became highly fashionable, then those manufacturers who have invested in making their factory a nice place to work in would cash-in on the rising demand. [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:49 Apr 14, 2003 (EEST) | |||
:Right, exactly. Also, those who invested in those manufacturers win, and those who [[w:short-selling|"shorted"]] [[sweatshop]]s using some instruments you can run in coordination with prediction markets, or regular brokers, also win. The more ways to focus information and scrutiny, the more people who have an interest in the new life-protecting or life-advancing product line. In the past labels like "union made" or "organic" or "vegan" have caught on in exctly this way. | |||
---- | |||
You catch on fast! Soon you will not be a sysop but a full-fledged [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/troll troll]! | |||
--- | |||
This is closely related to the [[bet]] issues being discussed at [[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange]] - one might say there is [[TCE]] and the [[LE]] here... | |||