|
eXXon posted:All this talk about coupling transactions just makes me think of the end of Diamond Age. Am I in a high enough caste to buy a skullgun, or would that link me to Lockheed-Martin's social network? Even in Diamond Age, when that idiot at the beginning got enough ecus or whatever together, he could just go to the low-rent clinic and get it down. And when Miranda wanted to get hers done, likewise. Diamond Age's rough economic system didn't really make much sense; it was basically socialism where only the really wealthy benefited from the socialism. But then they had free stuff for the proles. Stephenson is cool and all but actually fleshing out all aspects of the system is not something he really rules at.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 4, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
quote:Stephenson is cool and all but actually fleshing out all aspects of the system is not something he really rules at. If anyone can point me to serious attempts to formalize a system like this, I promise to stop posting until I've learned the relevant literature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If anyone can point me to serious attempts to formalize a system like this, I promise to stop posting until I've learned the relevant literature. Stephenson's system in the Diamond Age is nothing like your system. Nobody has tried to formalize a system like yours, because it is terrible and makes no sense. Now, can you please answer the wal-mart/toothpaste question, at the very least?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If anyone can point me to serious attempts to formalize a system like this, I promise to stop posting until I've learned the relevant literature. A system like in The Diamond Age?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, you can't just hand wave this away. You simply cannot have prices not mean what they advertised. No system can operate that way at all. Not true. When I am playing the slots I do not know how much I will lose but I do know I'm not leaving until I get my god drat free rum and coke. Do you see casinos closing down? No? Qed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:- A universal account provides all users a basic Strangecoin income, effectively unlimited wealth, and direct feedback on the overall prosperity of the network. Did anyone ask and get an answer about how this universal account generates unlimited wealth, and if that's supposed to read crippling hyperinflation instead? Also, y'know, since later posts claimed there would be a fixed unchanging number of StrangeCoins like other cryptocurrencies, where's this infinite wealth coming from? Is it because every time I couple with someone, we both go off to spend as much as we can of the other person's income before the coupling runs out? Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If anyone can point me to serious attempts to formalize a system like this, I promise to stop posting until I've learned the relevant literature. I suggest reading a formalization of our current financial system at both macro and micro levels first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Not true. When I am playing the slots I do not know how much I will lose but I do know I'm not leaving until I get my god drat free rum and coke. Do you see casinos closing down? No? Qed. Aha! But Casino's never say that you will win, they merely heavily imply it while relying on adrelinine highs and pretty colors to tickle the reptile part of your brain to reinforce confirmation bias. Completely different! But oddly not unlike what RA is suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Eripsa I'm stoked that you're off to see Judith Butler. That ought to help you bring your abstruse, inchoate pop-theorizing down to earth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Eripsa I'm stoked that you're off to see Judith Butler. That ought to help you bring your abstruse, inchoate pop-theorizing down to earth. You eternal optimist, you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Eripsa I'm stoked that you're off to see Judith Butler. That ought to help you bring your abstruse, inchoate pop-theorizing down to earth. Do you believe that Judith Butler can bridge RA's Is/Ought gap?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Wouldn't this idea result in a single monolithic megacorp since there'd be advantage to everyone to couple to a larger and larger corporate entity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Eripsa, are you going to answer any of the questions I've put to you? It can be on economics, or cyborgs, whichever you prefer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Eripsa I'm stoked that you're off to see Judith Butler. That ought to help you bring your abstruse, inchoate pop-theorizing down to earth. That was a little joke to myself, I'm glad someone caught it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Serious question - where is your Ph.D. thesis going to be published?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Aha! But Casino's never say that you will win, they merely heavily imply it while relying on adrelinine highs and pretty colors to tickle the reptile part of your brain to reinforce confirmation bias. Completely different! But oddly not unlike what RA is suggesting. Slot machines in particular have legally mandated minimum returns over extended play times, usually around the 85%-94% range depending on jurisdiction. You're not guaranteed to win back more than you put in, but if you put in a sufficiently large amount of money over a sufficiently large number of plays, you're only supposed to lose a certain percentage. Duly qualified agents inspect the machines once every certain time period, and machines that consistently returned under the legal minimum percentage must be removed from the playing space unless they are fixed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Rob Ford posted:Serious question - where is your Ph.D. thesis going to be published? Oh, don't tell me he's already defended it! That sounds like a hell of a show, I would pay to see that. Also, Eripsa, please explain what the deal is with your price/caste system, I'm actually curious how that wouldn't hinder, let alone help sales for merchants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Aha! But Casino's never say that you will win, they merely heavily imply it while relying on adrelinine highs and pretty colors to tickle the reptile part of your brain to reinforce confirmation bias. Completely different! But oddly not unlike what RA is suggesting. You're looking at it the wrong way. I'm not gambling my money, I'm buying a cocktail at a semi-random price governed by hidden limiters. Also, many slot machines are social (as more people play the collective jackpot increases, plus more lights and noises), so that fits in with the attention modifiers. And if you win too much the house will throw you out so you can't get more money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Good Dumplings posted:Oh, don't tell me he's already defended it! That sounds like a hell of a show, I would pay to see that. "Listen, if we assume that my idea won't be gamed then it can't be gamed!" That's literally his only answer so far. It has been incredibly frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Stephenson is cool and all but actually fleshing out all aspects of the system is not something he really rules at. fermun posted:Wouldn't this idea result in a single monolithic megacorp since there'd be advantage to everyone to couple to a larger and larger corporate entity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Also, many slot machines are social (as more people play the collective jackpot increases, plus more lights and noises) ... The same can be said of your mother's hole, what's your point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Zachack posted:A system like in The Diamond Age? Yeah, or Down and Out or the Caryatids or anywhere else it shows up in sci fi. I've looked for serious formal treatments but haven't found any. If any are linked here I'll s hut up until I've learned it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
How about you do that but with the basic literature of economic theory? Seriously, so many of your ideas point to issues that are regularly explored and quantified by economists that you're doing yourself a disservice by failing to gain technical knowledge in that field. Whatever you've learned so far ain't cutting it. e: VVV IOW
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If anyone can point me to serious attempts to formalize a system like this, I promise to stop posting until I've learned the relevant literature. http://www.amazon.com/Microeconomics-Paul-Krugman/dp/1429283424/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396392917&sr=1-3 http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-Paul-Krugman/dp/1429283432/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1MZFN3YYPCW648FJHMVT
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Can we all just reflect for a second on this phrase from the OP?RealityApologist posted:...I wanted to give a specific, proposal of limited scope that can be addressed on is own merits independent of whatever reputation I've developed. So I wrote up a proposal for a new digital currency. A new currency which is useless for most of the classical functions of money, in the sense of being a store of value or a unit of account, but which does involve entirely reshaping the way basic human relations work to the point that "payments aren't really the best strategy for conducting business." Eripsa this whole project of yours is really not a "currency" in the way anyone uses the word, it's an entirely new form of social organization. It would be sort of interesting, except that by focusing so much on the "network" you've completely neglected to explain details like how people work and spend, how they finance their business, how demand and supply are matched... it seems like you're just assuming those things would work the same way they do now? But right now those things are all very fundamentally underpinned by the idea that if I give you $1, you get $1, which you can go spend on $1 worth of stuff, and that basic principle of trade doesn't function at all in your fancy networked system. I mean, if this is your idea of "limited scope" I think you really haven't thought it through enough, or at least hadn't when you wrote the OP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:I mean, if this is your idea of "limited scope" I think you really haven't thought it through enough, or at least hadn't when you wrote the OP. For Eripsa, this is limited scope. I mean he's talking about a specific thing and not just freestyling high on his own farts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:http://www.amazon.com/Microeconomics-Paul-Krugman/dp/1429283424/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396392917&sr=1-3 I take this is an admission that a formalization of Diamond-age economics (or something similar) hasn't yet been done? Again, I've looked pretty hard, but I still find this hard to believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:I mean, if this is your idea of "limited scope" I think you really haven't thought it through enough, or at least hadn't when you wrote the OP. The limited scope that I'm interested in is the particular differences in incentive structure and economic behavior that signals from a Strangecoin network would provide. Slanderer and a few others have been commenting on the technical details of the proposal, and that has been really the only constructive or productive thing happening in this thread. I'm not interested in proposing this as a viable alternative currency or with any of the issues that might be involved in that transition, although if people want to talk about that go ahead. The fact that I don't have a story of how that goes is not an impediment for talking about the proposal I've given. This is not my or anyone else's plan for a social revolution, nor is it an attack on the foundations of economics. It is a discussion of a model of social organization. A lot of people think I'm doing something very different, and are criticizing me on those grounds, but it really doesn't touch what I'm doing. Again, I think the analogy with the "theory of the traditional family" is a pretty good analogy for the dialectical situation. Still, I'll try to go back through and catch questions I missed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I take this is an admission that a formalization of Diamond-age economics (or something similar) hasn't yet been done? Again, I've looked pretty hard, but I still find this hard to believe. "Looking pretty hard" =/= reading books, apparently. It's in there. You just have to read both of them from beginning to end. If you do that you will find it, I promise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
StrangeCoin isn't a currency, because it fails in the initial example to even be a unit of account: something that even bitcoin can succeed at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I take this is an admission that a formalization of Diamond-age economics (or something similar) hasn't yet been done? Again, I've looked pretty hard, but I still find this hard to believe. Nope, it's in there. Once you have a basic grasp of economic theory it's p. clear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Yeah, or Down and Out or the Caryatids or anywhere else it shows up in sci fi. I do have to point out that Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom makes sure to state that the whole whuffie bullshit thing only comes about once both effective immortality by way of brain state transfers and fast-growth cloning is available AND scarcity of nearly everything is solved. It's a "currency" for a world where the only allocation of resources to worry about is inherently limited things like getting to eat at the needlessly exclusive trendy restaurant, or getting to own a particular piece of attractive land. You do not need to have any form of payment at all to live, not even to literally escape death. Every problem is already solved in the putative culture, and people only creat problems for the fun of re-solving them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Rob Ford posted:Serious question - where is your Ph.D. thesis going to be published? I gather I'm on OP's ignore list. Could one of you non-bad frog dudes kindly repeat the question so he sees it, cause I'm honestly curious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I take this is an admission that a formalization of Diamond-age economics (or something similar) hasn't yet been done? Again, I've looked pretty hard, but I still find this hard to believe. If it hasn't been formalized by any reputable economist, then it's probably a system not worth looking over that critically, likely due to glaring flaws or gaps in application which renders analysis moot. But look real hard in both of those books. You'll find it. Don't just skim or look for headings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I take this is an admission that a formalization of Diamond-age economics (or something similar) hasn't yet been done? Again, I've looked pretty hard, but I still find this hard to believe. It's been well over a decade since I read it but wasn't the basis of the economy revolving around free maker piles that provided basic necessities for all while fancier maker plans were controlled by neo-victorians? And people made nanoviruses to steal info? And the Middle class was service/IP creation because manufacturing literally didn't exist? And little else of society was shown? Why exactly would someone formalize that particular make-believe economy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Looking pretty hard" =/= reading books, apparently. And without the information contained within those books, the most specific, precise and clearly articulated formalization of those economic systems possible would be useless to you because you would lack the required background knowledge to correctly contextualize and interpret what is being presented.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I take this is an admission that a formalization of Diamond-age economics (or something similar) hasn't yet been done? Again, I've looked pretty hard, but I still find this hard to believe. What the gently caress are you talking about? There is no such thing as 'Diamond-age economics'. It's a sci-fi book with a handwaved economic system. If you want to learn about economics--you know, the thing you're supposedly writing about--then read books on economics. Two good ones were offered to you. Why not read those, if you want to think about economics? Why not try understanding a subject before talking about it? It'll be novel and fun!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:A lot of people think I'm doing something very different, and are criticizing me on those grounds, but it really doesn't touch what I'm doing. No you didn't shoot me!! You can't kill me! Hey come back here I'm not done playing you guys! Have you considered learning how to accept criticism at some point or are you seriously considering submitting this pile of trash to a reputable journal? While we're on the topic of doing your homework for you, which is a recurring theme in this thread, does anyone have a good reference on critical thinking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Zachack posted:It's been well over a decade since I read it but wasn't the basis of the economy revolving around free maker piles that provided basic necessities for all while fancier maker plans were controlled by neo-victorians? And people made nanoviruses to steal info? And the Middle class was service/IP creation because manufacturing literally didn't exist? And little else of society was shown? Pretty much, though the Vickys only had a commanding share on top-level design/production, rather than a total monopoly. The other top-tier phyles were seen as serious competition, and lower-level phyles could also be in particular areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 4, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? There is no such thing as 'Diamond-age economics'. It's a sci-fi book with a handwaved economic system. Obdicut posted:He really is a grad student and really teaches people. Seriously how did this man get any sort of degree and get into a position of "teaching" students. I don't mean specifically, as in him personally. I mean systematically, how did the system let a man who cannot write, do basic math, or express willingness to read get into such a position. poo poo is clearly broken.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:45
|
|
