[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Yes, I agree it's difficult. And I'm not suggesting I have any knowledge or expertise. But the principles I listed were intended as a foundation. Given that foundation, it's difficult for me to imagine *not* having anything other than money in common with any other trader. That extreme case, where one party has *zero* commonality with another party prevents us from realizing that in the overwhelming majority of concrete situations, there's significant commonality between the parties.

So, that's not the problem. The problem is in the quantification of goods/skills being traded. While it's reasonable to, say, trade a pickup truck for an espresso machine, matching pickup trucks to espresso machines (rust spots vs pressure specs, etc.), the measure that is money allows us to quantify them. E.g. my pickup truck is worth 10 of your espresso machines. That's the technology we call money.

A significant other aspect is that money (at least fiat) can be trasnmitted at light speed, which allows me to trade 1 *virtual* pickup truck for 10 *virtual* espresso machines and TRUST that reciprocity exists. 

But both quantification and virtuality can be (are regularly) implemented in other dimensions. Money isn't absolutely, unquestionably necessary for them. (Though it's important that money may, in fact, be the best, most efficient/effective for some trades.)

And to go back to the extreme case, where the parties have 0 in common, literally *any* other dimension can be used as a 3rd, connective, material. Gold is a good one. Wooden chits might work. Marks on a wooden stick, maybe? 8^D All these are "money", writ large. But we don't have to think of them that way. They are reservoirs of value. Even if I don't actually *want* 10 espresso machines, I might trade my truck for them because I know 10 locals who do want them. 5 of those 10 locals will give me, say, playstation DVDs. 2 of them will give me coffee they've roasted. Etc. The 10 espresso machines act as money.

To see this happening today, consider options trading. You're buying the *rights* to some thing/action, virtualized things/actions. You might also see it in contract clauses like "right of first refusal". Any mediating reservoir of value might play the role played by money.


On 5/10/21 7:35 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> 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.

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ