上級分類: 經濟



This is a relatively old problem for humanity, but that has been gaining new nuances with each major wave of innovation: the agricultural revolution (arguably where the problem really started), then the industrial revolution and currently the computer revolution.

The problem in its current form is this: humanity possesses both the resources and technology to provide basic necessities to everyone in the planet: housing, food, water and basic medical care. However, the current economic system does not create incentives for this to happen, and there are many other social and cultural impediments. An important point is this: it is a social, not a technological problem.

Of course it is hard to consider this problem without discussing some famous attempts. I will list some obvious ones, while trying to avoid ideological discussions -- one of the social impediments that gets in the way addressing this issue rationally. Of course, this is a highly simplistic summary:

  • Marxism / Communism appears to have failed due to removing incentives for people to work. Extreme collectivism appears to eventually lead to brutal repression, because the only way to survive is then to force people to do what the collective needs.

  • Contemporary Capitalism appears to be collapsing under increasing inequality. Once a small fraction of the population amasses a significant portion of the resources, it becomes capable of creating international organizations that both transcend and dictate local laws, effectively side-stepping democracy.

Proponents of both Marxism, Capitalism and other systems -- let's consider an abstract ideology X -- typically use the argument that what failed was not "true X". "True X" would solve all the problems. Upon examination, "True X" always seems to assume perfect people acting in good faith.

Is it possible to devise a system that does not require ideal humans to work?

We are currently stuck in a situation where resource distribution is done through jobs. The problem is that, as technology progresses, more and more jobs become obsolete. It appears that we are already in a situation where the adult population vastly outnumbers the number of real jobs available. Social scientists are pointing out the phenomena of "bullshit jobs" -- an increasing number of unnecessary and meaningless jobs that are created to maintain social stability. This is tragic: people are being imprisoned for large chunks of their lives simply because there is no sane way of redistributing wealth.

Another unsustainable aspect of the current economic system is its reliance on growth. It is trivial to conclude that infinite growth cannot be maintained in a finite environment, and it is also trivial to observe how destructive this position is to the environment. One simple illustration of this is the phenomena of "planned obsolescence". As with bullshit jobs, planned obsolescence consumes real resources to achieve the abstract aim of economic stability.

How to create the incentives for people to cooperate, maintain scientific and technological progress, increase individual freedom and reduce unnecessary suffering? Can such a system be imagined without falling for the "perfect human beings" trap?

投票 (可選) (別通知) (可選)

實際上,所有公司都將其業務作爲I / O流程運行,這在當前的銀行系統中非常明顯。我認爲,問題可能很大程度上在於人類使用的會計系統。誰定義並繼續定義我們應該如何處理事情,以及如何重新定義事情-也許想到這可能會導致一些富有成果的結果?有很多時間是不計其數的,很多工作要花給那些有金錢報酬的公司,但是卻沒有公平地分配給這些公司的股權,這是與工作成果相當併成比例的。人們的工作成果被認爲是“購買和擁有的商品”,而不是員工或承包商擁有的大部分財產。我的意思是,如果僱主只是爲了賺錢而爲工作付費,那麼我們只承擔時間上的費用,這意味着員工將收到的錢用作時間,這意味着在這種情況下,員工應擁有所創建結果的50%。我實際上在視頻中解釋了該系統,但有一個演示電子表格

In fact, all companies run their businesses as I/O processes, that are very visible in the current banking system. I think, the issue may lie very much in the accounting system, that humanity uses. Who defined and continues to define how we should account things, and how to redefine that -- maybe thinking of that may lead to some fruitful results? There's a lot of time that goes unaccounted, and a lot of work, that goes to companies, with monetary rewards, but without a fair share of the equity into those companies, equivalent and proportional to the work results. The results of the people's work are considered "commodity bought and owned", not something that remains in large part the employee's or contractor's ownership. What I mean is if the employer is paid for the work just to get by, then we only covered the costs of the time, which means, that the employee invested the money received as time, which means that in this case, the employee should own 50% of that result created. The system I explain actually in a video, but there is a demo spreadsheet.



I think suffering comes from optimisation. Not from building things from scratch.

People are hired to go through reports, create reports and do analysis. It's boring work.

“市場經濟能夠調節資源分配和人的需求相匹配 “的神話破滅了嗎?


工作應該是有意義的,應該由富有同情心的人來管理。我是 antiwork 的追隨者,這是一個面向從事最低工資工作的人的 Reddit 小組。人們像機器人一樣被對待,很容易被處理掉。


People abuse and take for granted things that are free. So I think we should be careful to prescribe free stuff for everybody.

Work should be meaningful and should be managed by compassionate human beings. I'm a follower of antiwork, a reddit group for people who work in minimum wage jobs. People are treated like robots and disposed of so easily.

Some work is hard work, dirty, dangerous, but needs to be done. I propose we pay more for jobs that are like this, that nobody wants to do. People shouldn't be desperate to do jobs.

    : Mindey, 尹與及
    :  -- 
    :  -- 




People don't like giving up their surpluses to other people for free. People feel that there is a free loader problem in society. You 'have to earn your living'. I think it's wrong and incredibly short sighted. Theres this prevailing mainstream opinion 'i have got mine, fuck everybody else'.

People deliberately vote to remove benefits from other, less fortunate citizens. That's how terrible human nature is.

    :  -- 
    : Mindey
    :  -- 


// 人們不喜歡免費向其他人提供他們的盈餘。 //


我認爲通過資產和信息的來源強制執行資產和信息的資產副本轉移可追溯性的可選性,可以減少“零和”計算,因爲突然間人們會對他們共享的內容和閱讀的內容進行長期思考。然而,匿名信息交換市場會存在,不管這種跟蹤,有點像盜版數據剝離了標識符,即使是像[新IP](https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper -an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/)。然而,它肯定會產生副作用,導致監視社會和隱私受到侵蝕。


// People don't like giving up their surpluses to other people for free. //

It's the zero sum mentality, and lack of tracking systems that would give them credit feedback systems for what they did. Imagine if every donation and giving, that every read of your idea and every fetch of data from your repository was tracked by you, and you could connect someone's super-duper startup with the ideas that the person had read from your blog or your repository, making it possible to get back the credit from that startup, and every other success, that you had inspired.

I think the optionality for enforcement of traceability of the transfers of assets copies of information by the source of assets and information, can reduce the "zero sum" calculation, because suddenly people would think long-term about what they share and what they read. Howevertheless, anonymous information exchange markets will exist regardless of such tracking, a bit like pirated data stripped of identifiers, even with something like New IP. However, it certainly has side effects leading to surveillance society and erosion of privacy.

I think, just the actual presence of easy tools and optionality for systems to demand read receipts and fetch histories with anonymous identities that care about their track records (WoT) would create a new game, that people concerned about the future credit could opt to use, and that possibly may lead to new social norms.






I agree with the concept that any body or any thing that was necessary for you to succeed should be rewarded a portion of the profits.

We should reward those that are right and those that are necessary. So this means any worker that contributes to you or any service or product on the way that enhanced your output.

I called this idea chain of necessity - that taxi driver that takes you to a job interview or to a business meeting is someone who chose you over someone else. He deserves something extra for his work and contributing toward your success.

Every worker in getting your product or service out the door should agree with his cut of the profits.


One idea I had that we should invest in the success ingredients of individuals and share their outputs. I call this baby citizen investment.


I think the finance industry is corrupt, bloated and not very innovative. It's very self serving and provides very little toward society. The stock market does not reflect on the health of the economy.

However index funds reveal a very important and useful idea of distributing your bets across everybody for success. We should do that with people and projects. Government and other people have a stake in your success and they also contribute to your success. Taxation can be just another chain or necessity or claim on your success.

If it weren't for your government funded education, you probably wouldn't have been able to read and write unless your parents taught you. So you owe the government something for the money the government spent on you.

Government spending should be a bit like index fund investment. Invest in lots of people and things and hope that some items grow more than others. Government should invest more in successful students at school. Doing well should unlock more investment in you because you're a winner.

I received a scholarship, bursary and grant when I applied for university because of my grades and writing quality when I applied to my department.

If I give someone and idea they wouldn't have originally had then I deserve some profit from the ultimate result.

The same way that Jeff Bezos parents are probably the true cause of Amazon's success because they gave him $245,000 to start up.

The VC model in society is truly messed up. The relationship between a investor and founder is adverserial and the investors try to remove the founder ASAP by diluting the shares and equity of the founder. They try get as much equity as possible for the least investment. They're greedy and over state their importance in what makes a successful company.

This post covers how bad it can be


    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  -- 






事實上,在我的信仰體系中,我們有 5 到 7 年的時間來建立一個基礎,以支持我們的後代並尊重我們的祖先......時間不長。

在我想象的系統中: 我瞭解以下接線:(從人類設計系統中獲得啓發和學習) 1-部落接線 2- 單獨接線 3- 集體接線


因爲我們在這裏變異和融合,併產生所有的可能性? (也許)








I believe we forget that a human is so so different and unique like everyone else!

We share the same "structure" but different wiring.

I think it's the ultimate test now make such a financial security a reality.

In fact in my belief system we have 5-7 years to build a foundation that will support our future generations and respect our ancestors... Not a long time.

In my imagined system: I understand the following wirings: (inspired and learned about from human design system) 1- tribal wiring 2- individual wiring 3- collective wiring

Also I believe also that there is a set limit of community members before it splits into two which arises conflict if understood.

Because we are here to mutate and blend , and produce all the possibilities? (Perhaps)

So for tribes, they need the food, the marriage, the freedom to be left alone. They should never be in control of the system alone because they are tribal and will always prefer their son/daughter than others. Which people interpret as corruption, and for sure it leads to that with bad understanding and resistance.

Then individuals they come with all the new ideas, they like to live alone, they need space etc .. their freedom is the freedom of all.

And collective which are fit for making sure all is happy, they sometimes steal the ideas of the individual and quarrel a lot with the tribes, but they put the benefit of everyone as a theme.

Why is related? Because money is a currency or an energy×exchanged , and for us all to exchange healthily we must respect our designs .. take care of communities, always accept mutations, and have procedures and processes .. that are organic... Nature gives us all the clues.

Sorry to talk a lot I couldn't sleep..

So I'm thinking of a global coop. Need to sketch it, and I will share hopefully sooner than later.

    : transiency
    :  -- 
    :  --