|
Muscle Tracer posted:Am I correct in my interpretation that this bit from the op: I read it the same way: quote:X's account balance = 0 at t. Any additional transactions outgoing from X at t are drawn from TUA. And I see the same incentive problem. The claim is that the optimal strategy is to maintain expense exactly equal to income. I don't see why. Maintaining that balance is a means to an end, not an end of itself. I don't see anything in the system that makes spending lots of currency a less effective way to do those things that everyone typically does with currency. Even if we solve the blank checks problem, there's still the issue of perverse incentives when it comes to valuation. If I want to sell you a burger for a dollar, it's in our mutual best interest for me to charge you an enormous amount of money for the burger and you to charge me an enormous amount minus a dollar for the pleasure of conversation while I make you your change. This is a major problem because quantifying this information is the whole point of the system: quote:In other words, there is some additional value in our fair exchange that is not accounted for in the burgers and the dollars alone. But if our bookkeeping method only counts burgers and dollars, then it's not accounting for the value that accrues in our transactions. Suppose I enter into an otherwise valid, enforceable contract with a friend that I will refrain from, say, purchasing Nickelback albums in exchange for regular payments at whatever intervals and in whatever amounts we find most effective to game the system to force the rate of balance change to zero, so long as I agree to do the same for him. How does the system handle this without assuming a value for refraining from taking the action in question? eviltastic fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Apr 1, 2014 |
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 14, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've only said that it gives a kind of network feedback that traditional currencies don't have. I think a key point that people are not following is what additional information your system provides and how it communicates that information. Let's stick with your initial example: quote:I give you a dollar because I want the burger more than I want the dollar, and if you accept the trade it's because you want the dollar more than you want the burger, so in a fair exchange we both feel like we've come out ahead. In other words, there is some additional value in our fair exchange that is not accounted for in the burgers and the dollars alone. So, a basic commodity sale transaction. Cart vendor sells a burger to a customer walking down the street for a payment of one unit of currency, customer then eats the burger. If this transaction takes place in the new currency, what new information is available about the value of the burger, and when and how is it communicated to whom?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Okay. So price must be set before either side begins an interaction, but both can act on perceptions of the other's network before deciding to pull the trigger on whether or not to buy or sell. This does not provide any new information to any party about the value of the burger, which I thought was the whole point! It's reducing the available information by concealing what price communicates. In order to figure out what end amount they will receive, a seller must use class perception as a proxy for price. The new information that they get is the accuracy of their class perception once the transaction goes through, when they receive whatever extra payment. This obfuscation is trivially avoidable by the seller absent a new restriction, because they can simply set the price as a funds-received number before agreeing to deliver. It is also avoidable by any party with sufficient bargaining power to mandate disclosure of necessary information to figure it out. The increased difficulty in matching value to price also makes it much easier to game the system by colluding on transactions, because we've given up on the idea of a readily ascertainable fair market value for goods purchased by all classes - they will have to pay different prices. It also doesn't do anything useful in evaluating overall class perception accuracy, because the reenforcing nature of the system turns any perceived class marker into a self fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't matter if left handed people are less connected - if the perception arises that they are, they will become so as merchants refuse to deal with them or charge them higher prices. There's no reward here for challenging that perception. The reward is for accurately identifying the trend and going along with it. Based on that, I don't see the point. We can already examine how people perceive class without making it the determinant of economic success. It's not new information.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Seems to me that the closest real-world system to what you want to be talking about is electric power distribution in a grid with distributed generation. All demand must be met, hard caps on input and usage, all usage treated as flow even given discrete needs, etc. Might be easier to examine relations in that context than to try to reinvent monetary exchange itself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:What RA obviously wants out of all this is community enforced ethical consumption. Yeah this is what I've never followed. How is information about economic relationships of more than one degree of separation from a given transaction made known to the parties to the transaction? I'm unclear on how this works for either intended transactions or for non-transaction research. Like, suppose I want to buy conflict-free diamonds or to quantify the influence the Koch brothers exercise over a population of 535 specific people. The needed information purportedly exists, so how do I obtain it? Do I have to do business with someone and wait for feedback? Is there a mechanism that automatically conveys information, or forcing someone to tell me if I ask?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
So catching up on the thread, I have realized I am dumb about queer theory and would appreciate someone like Gerund directing me to a good starting point for reading up on it. It's tangential and I'd take it to PMs if I had them, but.RealityApologist posted:revised spec Quoting so I can find it quick by sorting my posts. You should probably toss a link in the OP, since it looks like we still have a few new folks coming in. Cantorsdust posted:Also, I'd still really like the answers to: RA's answer when I asked the same question is here, such as it is. Your involvement here kinda mirrors mine. I got interested by what I thought was an effort to quantify elements of value from a kinda-sorta Marxian-sounding understanding of value, particularly given all this talk of getting away from private property and so on. I lost interest when it turned out to be more about seeking desired emergent properties by making the currency do behavior-forcing things beyond its role as a medium of exchange because network theory &etc, to hopefully expose class structure I guess. Having skimmed the revised spec I am still not clear on how third party information is conveyed, and this is absolutely critical to predicting behavior! The examples read like the actors are operating on perfect information, but I don't see a defined mechanism for acquiring it other than engaging in a transaction. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 04:51 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 14, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
That was my objection: there's nothing stopping a seller from setting an aggregate funds-received condition for handing over the burger. And they've got ample reason to set that condition.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 04:57
|
|