And have literal revolving doors at places of work. Where you can either hop around and never work the same place twice, or find one you like and 'secure' your position. I would be rich if it was a effort based monetary system.

A lot of people would be (not saying your wrong, actually, proving you are right), but then, corporations would always use the "work for free OT or else we'll find someone else who wants your job" non-threat threat.

Unions did have their place at one time (prevent companies from screwing their employees, in my example, prevent free OT), however that has become corrupted/perverted as we see now-a-days.

i think they made a black mirror episode about this

Keep pumping out different ideas and solutions for a new monetary system. The more this is discussed the better off we will be. Keep up the good work.

I disagree, this is the "new monetary system" which is the beginning stages of united/one-world-currency socialistic ideals.

We need to get back to the old monetary system (uncorrupted Capitalism) of the U.S.A, before it became perverted.

Corporations should not exist is correct.

Tying paper currency to units of effort seems reasonable but who brings new currency into existence?

Theoretically that is what the United States is.

Germany, Italy, Michigan, and Florida are States.

The US Constitution is an agreement in perpetuity to grant some of the States sovereignty to the federal government. International relations, currency issuance, and dispute resolution are the primary powers granted. We have fallen far from our starting point over the last couple centuries.

Who does the Treasury issue the currency to?

What does the bank do with it?

What would 6 minutes of *energetic energetic output" be? Would a laborer and a surgeon's time be valued the same? The amount of energy they put forth surely isn't.

A real Free Market regulates itself through competition and does not allow corporations to exist and compete with private businesses

Also, as a note here... corporations are private businesses. I assume you meant independent small business.

Interesting thought though.

You didn't answer my first question at all.

Most small private business owners operate under a thing called an LLC. LLC is an acronym for "Limited Liability Company" and it exists for the exact reason to protect the individuals who are run a company. There company may be held accountable, but the LLC protects the business owner. Same the other way around. If I get in a personal lawsuit, it can't affect my company. Do some reading on LLCs, S corps, and C corps.

What makes a business private is that it is not controlled by the government. Weather it's a small company, medium company, or large corporation. My argument here is that corporations are still private businesses.

Creating a unit of measurement for time and effort is an interesting idea, but an incomplete one. One problem is in exchanging these units and keeping record of them. Any record keeping would have to authenticate the users of the transaction and validate the transaction occurred, which is susceptible to gaming if 2 parties decide to invent the transaction. Also the system of record of any transaction would have to be distributed similar to blockchain or it would be subject to a single point of failure design flaw. Then the problem of quality of work comes in. Some tasks require skill sets or ability that aren't common and can't be easily measured or compared to other providers. The market helps to valuate these contributions but it does so under all of the implicit design flaws inherent in money itself.

Money generally speaking is Bad Design. Using single metrics to summarize things that have multiple dimensions is generally a bad idea. Having a small set of actors determine value for the cohort is generally a bad idea.

Trade promises (ie. agreement to do something in exchange for something else) is a better approach that avoids the money middleman. Having systems around these promises allows for market-like services such as auditing ones transactions, ones history, etc. These provide smells as to the value of someone's contributions, but in a non single metric way. It also avoids the problem of debt generally speaking as transactions won't be completed until they are completed. Unfulfilled promises are just that - non transactions.

Money is a proxy. There are other ways to implement proxy functionality without using money.

I agree with your corporation points. It's a device that evades accountability.

Time and energy to create a minimal standard and then competition sets higher wages and prices commodities. Why do you people keep using the term "effort" instead of time and energy?

You misunderstand my points. Organizing the record keeping around this standard is an inherent monoculture-y design flaw. That's one problem. Trying to normalize all time and energy (if they are the same quantitatively speaking) is another that doesn't map to reality. Basically the whole money idea is a bad idea. Using the unit of measurement you're suggesting IS useful but as a way of quantifying contractual obligations, and not as a form of currency, as there would be no way to really validate the time/energy was used. Since money is a proxy, you're creating a gateway for the creation of these time/energy units out of thin air, absent checks that they occurred. Much easier to avoid the currency trap entirely and just use the concept of promises as constraints on any exchange.

Competition validates time and energy beyond the minimal. There would need to be some basic regulations on wages.

again you're falling into the monoculture design trap. monocultures suck. badly. a panoply of service providers to manage "trade promises" provides the market checks that monocultures tend to really fuck up.

re: wage regulations. this is an entirely different subject and goes more towards collective social values. on that subject there is need for provision of basic services by the collective - but this can also be done contractually as a "social contract" kinda thing, and still fall under the umbrella of "promise" systems.

There should be no such thing as "trade "promises"". None of what I am saying restricts a "panoply of service providers" as you implied.

yeah you don't get what i'm saying.

You are speaking from a corporate perspective.

not at all. your mental lens is warped with regards to what i'm saying. i'm speaking like a systems designer who breaks problems down from first principles and comes up with functionally oriented design. i'm solving the problem given the design constraints.

i'm not advocating for corporate anything.

Your basis for your point is the existing corrupt system which is dominated by corporations which are the ones regulating the checks and balances in global trade. Your term monoculture is a straw man and you miss the overall point which takes the power away from the government in devaluing currency and creating artificial debts.

no. totally off point. totally incorrect. i'm speaking design. i'm speaking about functionality. i'm saying one thing and you're hearing something else.

the monoculture point isn't a strawman at all. you're just throwing words together here. monoculture is a real design issue. it manifests in specific ways. it has specific characteristics and properties. systemically monocultures are Bad Ideas. read my other posts on hierarchy vs phi if that would help. absent me giving you a lesson in design principles you are just not understanding what i'm saying.

monoculture btw is how governments devalue currency and create debt. your statement is pretty ironic.

You are being vague and you know it and your implication that I am suggesting a monoculture is a lie

no i was very specific. you are articulating a design yes? in that design you have a need for record keeping yes? your idea requires a single thing to manage those records, yes? a central reserve, yes? these are your own words. that's a monoculture. that's a single point of failure.

i'm speaking the language of design. you are not. you are very much not understanding what i am saying.

listen dude. you're not understanding what i'm saying. i've said this for a bit now.

central banks are monocultures

Where did I promote a central bank? Your second straw man.

Please list my strawmen, thx. If you're going to talk shit, please be exact in your language. Right now you're pulling shit outta your ass.

Currency are not products therefore have nothing to do with monocultures. You want a diversity of currencies within a single nation? I already stated that trade of basic commodities and services should not be restricted. A time and energy based currency becomes secondary to self reliance.

You're promoting a unit of currency. Where does the information recording this unit's existence live, guy? A central bank. How do you validate the existence of this unit? A central bank. Do you even understand the design you are promoting, how it would be implemented?

You are really shady and a proven liar.

yes making statements about design is a true/false paradigm - oh wait it's not. your willful interpretation, incorrectly i'll add, of my statements as lies is complete bullshit. if you think a discussion about design is a lie then you don't know what a lie is.

I did and is was claiming is proposed a central bank and that I the second straw man and lie was that I suggested a monoculture. Anyone can look up the term monoculture and see you are lying. So just get lost.

hey i already listed the design reasons why it would be. you haven't addressed that at all and engaged in slurs. i hope you learn from this exchange that making observation isn't the same thing as attacking the individual - you apparently can't distinguish the two.

you have a cognitive issue with your general premise and how it would be implemented. i'm talking about implementation. you haven't addressed who would validate how a unit of the time/effort could come into existence. that's a legitimate design question, guy. shit like that. you're missing the fucking point and getting all whiny because who knows why. you do it over and over again. it makes conversation impossible when someone wants to always see the worst possible interpretation every fucking time even with clarification. how many times have you done this in your threads - it's fucking epidemic. anyway, good luck with that. it takes 2 people to have a conversation. what you're doing is preaching, and you're preaching ideas that can't be manifested without implementing a trust network with trusted service providers who are responsible for managing currency supply. that's also known as a fucking central bank. because the problem at a fundamental level is controlling how currency comes into existence. if you can't understand this that's your cognitive deficit.

I say move to a gifting economy without money and trade so we can live in a wealthy utopia but that's just me.

sharing economy. library model. it's not a bad idea.

There is a major hole to this idea though, as well as smaller holes, in a gifting economy.

There's a lot to it. I would have to list it all.

I like to keep an open mind, or at least, try to. And I especially at least learn about something before drawing conclusions. Do you have any links to read/learn about it?

I put together a rough draft of what it would look like here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/New_American_System/comments/6ne42s/new_government_and_economic_model_layout_model/

Also, here are 75 ways life would improve without money:

https://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/6tqpt5/75_ways_a_gifting_economy_would_greatly_benefit/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I read your ideas and offered up some thoughts. Thanks for your time.

I had to upload the answers to the original post itself (at the bottom of post) because reddit wouldn't allow me to reply to you for some reason (error).

https://www.reddit.com/r/New_American_System/comments/6ne42s/new_government_and_economic_model_layout_model/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I don't think trashing Capitalism based upon the over-regulated version of Capitalism that the U.S.A. institutes is fair to the idea of Capitalism. Just because the U.S.A. twists it and utilizes it to benefit a few, doesn't mean it is wrong ideally.

Going after monopolies in the U.S.A used to be possible (even if ultimately useless since it all benefited a few in the long run anyway). These days, no one hears about monopoly hearings against the largest corporations.

As for corporations being not natural, yes and no. Within an economic system such as Capitalism (and not a unified economic system such as socialism or fascism), there needs to be a way to group unified interests within the economy, in the case of Capitalism, this unit of grouping is the corporation.

Where the U.S.A. twisted and perverted the ideological idea of units of grouping within the Capitalist economy is when they used government to rule that corporations could be defined as people, and thus the crossover/perversion of government and Capitalism was completed wholly.

Corporations should not be defined as people with rights under the government. And they weren't since the inception of the country until recently. It's only been less than 20 years if I remember correctly that the government permitted corporations to be treated as people with rights. So the U.S.A. did hold onto the ideological ideas of economy and government before they perverted it into what we have currently, and that will lead to a one-world-government/economy (using a one-world-government currency) hybrid.

Also, regulations of businesses are not in and of themselves bad, it has been the perversion of those ideas that have made them bad, and has led to bigger bloated government to manage those rules and regulations, which then feeds itself in all other areas. The beast system grows and grows if you will.

you have a cognitive issue with your general premise and how it would be implemented. i'm talking about implementation. you haven't addressed who would validate how a unit of the time/effort could come into existence. that's a legitimate design question, guy. shit like that. you're missing the fucking point and getting all whiny because who knows why. you do it over and over again. it makes conversation impossible when someone wants to always see the worst possible interpretation every fucking time even with clarification. how many times have you done this in your threads - it's fucking epidemic. anyway, good luck with that. it takes 2 people to have a conversation. what you're doing is preaching, and you're preaching ideas that can't be manifested without implementing a trust network with trusted service providers who are responsible for managing currency supply. that's also known as a fucking central bank. because the problem at a fundamental level is controlling how currency comes into existence. if you can't understand this that's your cognitive deficit.