Talk:The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
better topic headers, a few more points
("McCat here to see you your trollishness") |
(better topic headers, a few more points) |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
== | == Is Betting essential to any "exchange"? == | ||
It is not strange. The entire global economy runs on this principle. And this is the only way to make the project pay for itself. | It is not strange. The entire global economy runs on this principle. And this is the only way to make the project pay for itself. | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
::::Not as much as involving all that junk you list at [[Hardware Requirements]]. More people have at least a little money than have all of that junk - and almost everyone can understand how to use a bet, since lotteries are so common on this planet, but how many really understand how to use their [[vote]]? You are making it non-egalitarian with a model that has no role for putting your money where your mouth is. If you want, limit the total amount of bets. All we need is the information - so a 5 yuan bet is as good as a 50 billion dollar one in some ways. | ::::Not as much as involving all that junk you list at [[Hardware Requirements]]. More people have at least a little money than have all of that junk - and almost everyone can understand how to use a bet, since lotteries are so common on this planet, but how many really understand how to use their [[vote]]? You are making it non-egalitarian with a model that has no role for putting your money where your mouth is. If you want, limit the total amount of bets. All we need is the information - so a 5 yuan bet is as good as a 50 billion dollar one in some ways. | ||
::::::Putting your money where your mouth is can be done when shopping if information is readily available which is the reason for the [[Hardware Requirements]]. I've had it almost up to the "here comes the funnel and the KitKat McFlurry"-level with your constant betting centric approach and I'm too tired/bored/aggravated to continue argumentating why it's an unplausible idea to involve any monetary transactions within the exchange. | ::::::Putting your money where your mouth is can be done when shopping if information is readily available which is the reason for the [[Hardware Requirements]]. | ||
:::::::Have you ever been shopping with a harried housewife with two kids? I think not. No one is going to read a single word in the store, ever. It will all be up to the lights and numbers, period. | |||
::::::I've had it almost up to the "here comes the funnel and the KitKat McFlurry"-level with your constant betting centric approach and I'm too tired/bored/aggravated to continue argumentating why it's an unplausible idea to involve any monetary transactions within the exchange. | |||
:::::::Then what is actually being "exchanged"? What is the unit or [[instruct-ion]] or [[socializat-ion]] that one is exchanging with others? You must have some [[unit of account]]. | |||
== How bets would actually work == | |||
A bet. This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc. Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond. If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps. If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet. | A bet. This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc. Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond. If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps. If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet. | ||
| Line 72: | Line 80: | ||
::All information is distorted by money, as much as motion is distorted by the presence of more mass, which creates what we call "gravity". So I am talking about the economic law of gravity here - it all comes down to money. You can deal with it directly, or be manipulated by those who deal with it directly. | ::All information is distorted by money, as much as motion is distorted by the presence of more mass, which creates what we call "gravity". So I am talking about the economic law of gravity here - it all comes down to money. You can deal with it directly, or be manipulated by those who deal with it directly. | ||
== Whether social capital can completely replace financial == | |||
:::Better arguments and better facts to back them up is your capital here. And reputation | :::Better arguments and better facts to back them up is your capital here. And reputation | ||
| Line 86: | Line 96: | ||
:The basic idea being of course guessing where the aggregate of all campaigns on some issue will equilibrium. eg. What "light" will prevail for [[Company X]] | :The basic idea being of course guessing where the aggregate of all campaigns on some issue will equilibrium. eg. What "light" will prevail for [[Company X]] | ||
== All buying is betting == | |||
::If I own X, it is so dangerous for me NOT to do the above, that I *must* do it, for fear that others who promote my competitor Y will do it instead. Also it is possible that there will be NO GREEN LIGHT FOR ANY PRODUCT in some category, which implies that you are asking someone to undergo a lifestyle change, that they may or may not realize is implied by their moral choices. So it might be a lot better to think about a basic model based not on the green light but on choices like "is X so much better than Y that I should pay 4 cents more for it?" - which again brings us to quantified choices. Given the price information also, this becomes a Green light (if X IS that much better, and costs only 4 or fewer cents more) or yellow light (if X IS that much better, but costs more than 4 cents more than Y, leaving you a nickel that you could maybe better spent by donating 8 cents (3 of which are tax-deductible) to save Great Apes)), or red light (if X is not that much better, and costs more, meaning that you are giving more money to those who don't actually share your values much, which you could save and donate to those who actually have your values more than you do! ;-)). | ::If I own X, it is so dangerous for me NOT to do the above, that I *must* do it, for fear that others who promote my competitor Y will do it instead. Also it is possible that there will be NO GREEN LIGHT FOR ANY PRODUCT in some category, which implies that you are asking someone to undergo a lifestyle change, that they may or may not realize is implied by their moral choices. So it might be a lot better to think about a basic model based not on the green light but on choices like "is X so much better than Y that I should pay 4 cents more for it?" - which again brings us to quantified choices. Given the price information also, this becomes a Green light (if X IS that much better, and costs only 4 or fewer cents more) or yellow light (if X IS that much better, but costs more than 4 cents more than Y, leaving you a nickel that you could maybe better spent by donating 8 cents (3 of which are tax-deductible) to save Great Apes)), or red light (if X is not that much better, and costs more, meaning that you are giving more money to those who don't actually share your values much, which you could save and donate to those who actually have your values more than you do! ;-)). | ||