[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[Russ Abbott]

I meant it seriously. Thank you for taking me seriously.

I agree that those extra "dimensions," rules, norms, laws, etc. are very
important. Do you believe they could all exist without a framework of money
to refer to, e.g., for penalties (e.g., for when an agreement is not met),
awards (e.g., as incentives for improved or more timely performance),
contracts, arbitration decision, etc? I'm skeptical. It's widely agreed
that one of the primary values of money is to facilitate trade between
people/organizations that don't have specific items to exchange. E.g.,
person A wants/needs something person B has "for sale" (whatever that means
in a non-money environment), but person B doesn't want/need anything person
A has "for sale," even though there are others who do want/need what person
A is "selling." Money makes such exchanges possible. How do you see it
happening without money?

More generally, how will society allocate human effort and physical
resources without money? (I'm surprised I hadn't thought of this earlier.
It seems like the core question. I know I mentioned it last time. I
surprised myself by finding it.) It doesn't seem feasible to me to have the
kinds of agreements/contracts you mentioned at the individual level for
each individual. It's still not clear to me how you see it all working.

-- Russ


On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:02 AM ⛧ glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> No. We already have N-ary obligations in our current markets. So it's
> anything but utopian. You asked how to get there from here. I'm taking you
> seriously and trying to answer your question. Maybe I'm being naive in
> doing so.
>
> But, take a look at the research tabs on any modern trading app. What you
> see are the extra dimensions like recent contracts, mergers, acquisitions,
> what State governs the agreements, a standard arbitration method, etc.
> These ad hoc, band-aid, artifacts are there to assist with reciprocity and
> balance. And they all *inform* the market *price*. Further, our laws (at
> various scales) help ensure reciprocity in rules for disclosure, breach,
> etc. And this applies not only for publicly traded companies, but privately
> valued ones as well.
>
> A gradual, increasing encoding of such extra dimensions can approach what
> you snarkily dismiss, without immediately abandoning money as one of the
> tools in the kit.
>
> On May 9, 2021 6:38:41 PM PDT, Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Sounds utopian: from everyone according to his abilities; from everyone
> >according to his meds.
> >
> >On Sun, May 9, 2021, 2:47 PM ⛧ glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But reciprocity need not be merely dyadic, as I tried to point out
> >with my
> >> post about N-ary contracts in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Dave
> >alludes
> >> to such a legal system by using the term "balance". Defectors in a
> >> multidimensional "market" are *easier* to coerce than in a
> >unidimensional
> >> "market". To boot, the coercion can be even more adaptive. So your
> >> assertions of indoctrination or harsh punishment is an artifact of
> >the
> >> overly reductive system we currently have.
> >>
>
> --
> glen ⛧
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210510/279c5801/attachment.html>