上级分类: 经济



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 (可选) (别通知) (可选)





事实上,在我的信仰体系中,我们有 5 到 7 年的时间来建立一个基础,以支持我们的后代并尊重我们的祖先......时间不长。

在我想象的系统中: 我了解以下接线:(从人类设计系统中获得启发和学习) 1-部落接线 2- 单独接线 3- 集体接线


因为我们在这里变异和融合,并产生所有的可能性? (也许)








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
    :  -- 
    :  -- 







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
    :  -- 
    :  -- 


// 人们不喜欢免费向其他人提供他们的盈余。 //


我认为通过资产和信息的来源强制执行资产和信息的资产副本转移可追溯性的可选性,可以减少“零和”计算,因为突然间人们会对他们共享的内容和阅读的内容进行长期思考。然而,匿名信息交换市场会存在,不管这种跟踪,有点像盗版数据剥离了标识符,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,它肯定会产生副作用,导致监视社会和隐私受到侵蚀。


// 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.



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
    :  -- 



工作应该是有意义的,应该由富有同情心的人来管理。我是 antiwork 的追随者,这是一个面向从事最低工资工作的人的 Reddit 小组。人们像机器人一样被对待,很容易被处理掉。


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, 尹与及
    :  -- 
    :  -- 


“市场经济能够调节资源分配和人的需求相匹配 “的神话破灭了吗?



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.

实际上,所有公司都将其业务作为I / O流程运行,这在当前的银行系统中非常明显。我认为,问题可能很大程度上在于人类使用的会计系统。谁定义并继续定义我们应该如何处理事情,以及如何重新定义事情-也许想到这可能会导致一些富有成果的结果?有很多时间是不计其数的,很多工作要花给那些有金钱报酬的公司,但是却没有公平地分配给这些公司的股权,这是与工作成果相当并成比例的。人们的工作成果被认为是“购买和拥有的商品”,而不是员工或承包商拥有的大部分财产。我的意思是,如果雇主只是为了赚钱而为工作付费,那么我们只承担时间上的费用,这意味着员工将收到的钱用作时间,这意味着在这种情况下,员工应拥有所创建结果的50%。我实际上在视频中解释了该系统,但有一个演示电子表格

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.