ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Copiosis

Reply
Old 8th May 2020, 12:27 PM   #81
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Originally Posted by Random View Post
OK, first off, there is no negative NBR. Your activity would either earn you positive NBR or it wouldn't.

Second, could you slow your roll a bit? I mean, I only heard about this thing in Facebook ad on Tuesday and thought it was intellectually curious, like "What if Humans were descended from Cats instead of Monkeys?", not "totalitarian perverse incentive to control the system for personal profit and ideological obsession" style debate.
My apologies. Your replies to the various concerns and objections raised tend to read like defense of the idea.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 12:52 PM   #82
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,529
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My apologies. Your replies to the various concerns and objections raised tend to read like defense of the idea.
It sure did.

I would add that even if there are technically no negative NBRs, a system in which it is not possible for the issuing agency to deduct for failure to meet specifications would be an instant failure, and the difference between a deduction and a negative is largely rhetorical, except that a deduction presumably can't go below zero. If the system is designed so you need credits in order to procure food and lodging, it doesn't need to. Denying life is as far as you need to go.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 12:55 PM   #83
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,176
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My apologies. Your replies to the various concerns and objections raised tend to read like defense of the idea.
Well, it is an interesting economic idea to toss around, and a lot of the obvious problems have workarounds, and a lot of the objections that people seem to have about it are things that are already problems...

If it creates unique problems that regular old money capitalism doesn't have, then that is good to know, but I am more interested in "what if we actually had this?" scenarios then the obvious implementation problems.

Money has been around for a while, and it has certainly had a good long run, but that doesn't automatically mean that it is the best possible system. Looking at something different can be illuminating, even if it is not practically feasible.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 12:58 PM   #84
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,385
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This kind of thing has been tried before. Turns out, it sucks balls.
And that's my tee shirt of the day.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 02:13 PM   #85
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,485
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Historically, the more a system tries to control the economy for the greater good, the more harm it causes.

It's not a question of replacing one corrupt system with another. It's a question of replacing a flawed system with a system that is likely to be much more flawed.
I think what Churchill is supposed to have said about democracy also applies to free market capitalism. It a lousy system, but everything else that has been tried has been worse. Centrally planned socialism (or soviet style communism if you prefer) in particular has been a dismal failure everywhere it has been tried. I don't think this is entirely because the leaders have been evil though in many cases they were. I think markets to a better job of allocating resources than any kind of top-down central planning, evne if run with the best of intentions, ever can. I really don't see replacing the governing body with an "alogorithm", which I assume means some kind of computer software, will change that significantly. Not unless it is written by some kind of super intelligent and benevolent philosopher-king-programmer who never has existed and never will.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 02:23 PM   #86
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,845
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Well, it is an interesting economic idea to toss around, and a lot of the obvious problems have workarounds, and a lot of the objections that people seem to have about it are things that are already problems...

If it creates unique problems that regular old money capitalism doesn't have, then that is good to know, but I am more interested in "what if we actually had this?" scenarios then the obvious implementation problems.

Money has been around for a while, and it has certainly had a good long run, but that doesn't automatically mean that it is the best possible system. Looking at something different can be illuminating, even if it is not practically feasible.
The problem is that it's trying to replicate money with something and not call it money. NBR's is the coin of that realm. It is money, granted with some stupid restrictions that any imbecil can get around, but it is still money. A rose by any other name. Also, if they can sell you on that, then they can control other aspects of your life since you are beholden to the algorithm. To think TPTB wouldn't use that to make people conform is to ignore history.

Also their section on the IRS in the FAQ is somewhere between delusional and dishonest. They cite Scientology as their template for victory.
Quote:
Scientology’s approach in getting the IRS to agree with them, is somewhat like (not exactly) the strategy we will employ when the time comes. It is an easy matter to overcome the IRS.
It's an easy matter to overcome the IRS. Seems just as legit as any of their other claims.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 03:49 PM   #87
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,529
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Well, it is an interesting economic idea to toss around, and a lot of the obvious problems have workarounds, and a lot of the objections that people seem to have about it are things that are already problems...

If it creates unique problems that regular old money capitalism doesn't have, then that is good to know, but I am more interested in "what if we actually had this?" scenarios then the obvious implementation problems.

Money has been around for a while, and it has certainly had a good long run, but that doesn't automatically mean that it is the best possible system. Looking at something different can be illuminating, even if it is not practically feasible.
I think one major obstacle is that there seems to be no provision for the valuation of property, investment in property, and other things that we in a money- based economy have come to take for granted. Some, like inheritance, some people might be glad to see gone, but if barter is allowed as an alternative to money for the exchange of goods and services, then copiosis has really done away simply with the conveniently fungible specie, but has not really replaced the idea.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 04:03 PM   #88
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,176
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I think one major obstacle is that there seems to be no provision for the valuation of property, investment in property, and other things that we in a money- based economy have come to take for granted. Some, like inheritance, some people might be glad to see gone, but if barter is allowed as an alternative to money for the exchange of goods and services, then copiosis has really done away simply with the conveniently fungible specie, but has not really replaced the idea.
Looking at the FAQ on their webpage, we find the question:
Quote:
Since everything is property, and all property is owned by someone, what is the story around basic resources? How are resources allocated to provide the most net benefit?
To which the answer is:
Quote:

Yeah, it's blank. Not a promising start. Most websites pushing new systems or ways of doing things at least have the decency to hide questions they have no answer to in the FAQs.

Shame, it's a good question.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 04:13 PM   #89
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,176
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I think what Churchill is supposed to have said about democracy also applies to free market capitalism. It a lousy system, but everything else that has been tried has been worse. Centrally planned socialism (or soviet style communism if you prefer) in particular has been a dismal failure everywhere it has been tried. I don't think this is entirely because the leaders have been evil though in many cases they were. I think markets to a better job of allocating resources than any kind of top-down central planning, evne if run with the best of intentions, ever can. I really don't see replacing the governing body with an "alogorithm", which I assume means some kind of computer software, will change that significantly. Not unless it is written by some kind of super intelligent and benevolent philosopher-king-programmer who never has existed and never will.
Well the Algorithm is just that. It's a mathematic equation you put some data into to determine the value of the goods of services you produce. For some reason the link to this equation was not working properly last I checked, which is also annoying. I don't know if it's pie in the sky, poor website design or both.

A bunch of volunteers would spend their days inputting data and cross-checking each other (Wikipedia meets Blockchain!) so the Algorithm could say what has a positive value or not.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 07:13 PM   #90
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,529
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Looking at the FAQ on their webpage, we find the question:

To which the answer is:

Yeah, it's blank. Not a promising start. Most websites pushing new systems or ways of doing things at least have the decency to hide questions they have no answer to in the FAQs.

Shame, it's a good question.
It is a good question, I also think. The fundamental failing of the system, I think, is that it presumes the entire economy is that of employment and retail, all of which would be coordinated by some central system. But at least some of our economic activity is not that, and if it's not to be outlawed, then we'll end up with an unofficial economy of barter and a black market. A central cashless economy that tries to cover all eventualities and all types and sizes of transactions would, I suspect, become hopelessly unwieldy and slow, along with being intrusive.

It's worth noting that at least as far as I can tell, no social credit system has included the actual disappearance of money or some equivalent scrip.

Without some cash that can be spent without clearance our ability to perform the constant small transactions of daily life would become needlessly bulky. In a cashless society how can I sell you my old car? How can you give a bum a handout for a cuppa coffee? Will there be a special committee to issue permits and valuations for your next yard sale? How can my neighbor down the road put up a farm stand to sell his surplus squash? The copiosis answer seems always just to say you don't sell it, just give it away. But that presumes that someone else wants to give me what I want instead.

The copiosis scheme claims to eliminate debt and to provide all the necessities free, which is grand and fine, but it's not clear what the system considers a luxury and what is done if a person spends more than he makes.

We've had some similar arguments regarding a less well thought out cashless scheme put forth in another thread by Gaetan. Though the copiosis site seems a little more thoughtful, some of the objections still seem to apply. Who decides what things are worth? Who settles disputes? Who makes sure that I can get what I want? What constitutes a luxury? And what is the motivation for conservation or economy? If heating oil is free, why should I turn my thermostat down at night and use an extra blanket? etc.

But I think the practical thing that will prevent copiosis from ever taking over is the issue of intrusiveness. The popularity of crypto-currency is based to a large part on this. Copiosis is its opposite, and even if you can make a case that it's better for the common good, I wouldn't expect it to sell.

e.t.a. of course another part of the cash economy that copiosis would make impossible is various forms of crime. You won't be able to spend your money on hookers and blow, and ransomware would be an unrewarding enterprise, etc. etc. Which of course is a good thing, but it's also a sizeable interest which I think we can count on to prevent such a radical change from happening.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 8th May 2020 at 07:17 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 09:03 PM   #91
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Hmmm. A world without money. I wonder why nobody has thought of that before.

It seems to me that this relies too much on "The Algorithm" without detailing what "The Algorithm" actually is.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 09:46 PM   #92
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,024
Sounds like a neat idea that would instantly be subverted by a shadow economy where people trade directly with each other.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2020, 06:13 AM   #93
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Sounds like a neat idea that would instantly be subverted by a shadow economy where people trade directly with each other.
Any system that doesn't permit a "what's best for me" mentality is doomed to fail.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 08:37 AM   #94
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,845
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Hmmm. A world without money. I wonder why nobody has thought of that before.

It seems to me that this relies too much on "The Algorithm" without detailing what "The Algorithm" actually is.
Skynet. It's Skynet. It gets to decide what is best for us and how we should use our resources. Picks winners and losers.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 09:28 AM   #95
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Not only that, it's a Mechanical Turk version of Skynet. There's still people under the hood, tweaking the algorithm, inputting new weights and variables, etc. Edit battles and bogus information are bad enough on Wikipedia, where the fate of society doesn't hang in the balance.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 01:25 PM   #96
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,485
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Well the Algorithm is just that. It's a mathematic equation you put some data into to determine the value of the goods of services you produce. For some reason the link to this equation was not working properly last I checked, which is also annoying. I don't know if it's pie in the sky, poor website design or both.

A bunch of volunteers would spend their days inputting data and cross-checking each other (Wikipedia meets Blockchain!) so the Algorithm could say what has a positive value or not.
Okay. Frankly, I find the notion that what is beneficial to society (or not) can be reduced to an equation, algorithm, computer program, or anything of that nature to be highly doubtful. The whole scheme sounds like Utopian pie in the sky to me. We're hoping that some dedicated team of benevolent philosophers can determine what is most beneficial to society and reduce it to a formula, and, of course, that all of them are genuinely benevolent and none will attempt to manipulate the process to gain a personal advantage. I'l believe it's workable when I see it work.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 01:29 PM   #97
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,485
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Sounds like a neat idea that would instantly be subverted by a shadow economy where people trade directly with each other.
Yes. I remember seeing in some documentary I once saw about Pol Pot that the Khmer Rouge were highly distressed when that happened in Cambodia during their rule. We all know how well that worked out.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 01:47 PM   #98
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Somewhere I have a textbook on the history of cybernetics in communist policy. Which basically reduces to feedback loops in control systems. There was an idea that with proper automation, backed by computer science, a large economy could be centrally managed. But the technology of the time wasn't up to the task, and central management turned out to be a mistake.

But there's probably the idea still floating around, that now we have supercomputers and a much larger body of computer science knowledge. Automated feedback loops in control systems for data mining and ecommerce might actually pave the way to a centrally-managed system of supply and demand.

Once the technocratic elite are done refining the algorithm that properly evaluates what should be demanded and what needs to be supplied.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 02:34 PM   #99
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,176
Copiosis doesn't really make centralized Demand decisions, it's much weirder than that. The Algorithm takes in usage information (how often necessities and luxuries are consumed/used) and production information (how many people are producing those necessities and luxuries) and neutrally plugs it into the Algorithm. It looks a lot like a Demand function, but it's not quite that.

For starters, they want to define usage as just that, usage. It's not how many of your watches people buy, it's how often they wear them or use them to tell the time.

This is why they need so many volunteers entering numbers. Not to adjust the Algorithm itself, but to keep entering in usage data and statistical estimates to determine the utility part of the equation when it comes to paying you NBRs. The only other way to do it would be some sort of Big Brother AI watching us 24/7 and assigning numbers (which ironically would be something a sufficiently powerful AI could do without much difficulty).

It is still fun to think about though. Business model: Make a hundred loaves of bread, take them to the town square on a cart, leave cart in square with a sign saying "Free Bread", go for a relaxing walk, come back and if cart is empty take it back home, get paid.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 02:48 PM   #100
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,529
Even if a central economy can be made more efficient, it still has the issue of who runs it. I recall reading one account of the Soviet issue, remarking that they were actually pretty efficient at some things: the things the old men who knew how to seize power wanted. Jet planes and tanks and missiles - no problem there, but they didn't bother themselves with stuff like tampons. Who cares if you have to wait in line all day for bread if it's affordable?

Capitalism has all sorts of problems that need regulation and restraint, but its inherent decentralization tends to bring people what they want or need. If enough people want something, someone will find a way to provide it without having to run it through bureaucratic triage.

While we're at it, since Pol Pot has come into the conversation, I suspect that copiosis also runs the risk of the kind of theoretical debacle that befell the Khmer Rouge, the Shining Path, and other Maoist groups: the belief that their theory was perfect. "The algorithm" has a kind of holy ring about it. Once you've made the algorithm your doctrine, how can you ever be rid of it? If the algorithm fails, it's someone's fault. Laziness, inefficiency, traitors, wreckers.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 02:49 PM   #101
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Originally Posted by Random View Post
For starters, they want to define usage as just that, usage. It's not how many of your watches people buy, it's how often they wear them or use them to tell the time.
This seems like a robotic and incomplete way to think of usage. People get value from things in all sorts of ways. Sometimes just the knowledge of possession makes a thing useful to its possessor.

If someone is happy that they have two dozen pairs of shoes, including the perfect shoes for certain rare but important occasions, who is anyone to say they're not really using those shoes?

Reducing value to raw usage reduces humans to cogs in a narrowly-defined productivity machine. It sounds like these guys are trying to solve an human problem by denying an essential part of human nature.

Last edited by theprestige; 11th May 2020 at 02:50 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 02:56 PM   #102
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,176
I just want to know how you evaluate the utility of a 400 calorie sandwich compared to a 400 calorie muffin.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 03:27 PM   #103
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,529
The usage issue seems scary. Will someone decide if I'm looking at my watch often enough?

I would imagine that the sandwich/muffin equation would be fairly easy. You base it not only on calories but on nutritional content. This has the added benefit of allowing the central value-algorithm to insert heart health and obesity and blood sugar data, and maybe while we're at it judging the eco-friendliness and sustainability of the contents.

You know you really always wanted kale on your soy burgers.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 08:22 PM   #104
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,539
Originally Posted by Random View Post
It is still fun to think about though. Business model: Make a hundred loaves of bread, take them to the town square on a cart, leave cart in square with a sign saying "Free Bread", go for a relaxing walk, come back and if cart is empty take it back home, get paid.
You can do that without the gigantic bloated administrative overhead that this system would need by just stocking a vending machine with bread and having people pay for it using credit or bank cards.

All it sounds like is an overly complicated system that is still going to be hobbled by the usual problems and inefficiencies that make it difficult to implement economic planning on a national scale.

I mean we already have people who plug data into algorithms to determine how worthwhile their economic decisions are.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

Last edited by Arcade22; 11th May 2020 at 08:26 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 08:35 PM   #105
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Originally Posted by Random View Post
I just want to know how you evaluate the utility of a 400 calorie sandwich compared to a 400 calorie muffin.
10 this looks like an idea worth taking seriously

20 actually i'm joking

30 goto 10

Please make up your mind. Either you think this is something that could work once the implementation details are figured out, or you think it's going to stall out over muffins versus sandwiches.

We already have a system that evaluates the relative utility of muffins and sandwiches. The new system would have to perfectly encode everything the current system already tells us. This is something economists have been trying to model, without complete success, for hundreds of years. Then it would have to tell us to behave exactly the same way we'd be behaving on our own, under the old system. This is entirely redundant, of course. But the new system would try to do it anyway.

The new system basically tries to solve the problems of free-market capitalism by exactly reproducing its market dynamics as a top-down mandate. It wouldn't so much solve the problems of the free market, as it would avoid them entirely in favor of causing even worse problems.

"Who watches the watchmen?" In the current system, the sandwich people and the muffin people watch each other, with their money and their desires. In the new system, the Algorithm people watch everyone, even though they have their head just as far up their asses as the rest of us when it comes to human commerce.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 03:43 AM   #106
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,539
Originally Posted by Random View Post
I just want to know how you evaluate the utility of a 400 calorie sandwich compared to a 400 calorie muffin.
Algorithm! Plug in data!
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 04:34 AM   #107
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,176
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
10 this looks like an idea worth taking seriously

20 actually i'm joking

30 goto 10

Please make up your mind. Either you think this is something that could work once the implementation details are figured out, or you think it's going to stall out over muffins versus sandwiches.
I'm not exactly sure why I have to make up my mind. This is an internet web forum, not am up or down vote in the halls of Congress. The Science-Fiction fan in me wonders what it would be like to live under such a system. The Engineer in me wonders about the nuts and bolts of how such a system would work. The Realist in me knows it isn't going to happen.

I'm a LARPer. I enjoy dressing up in costume and hanging out with my friends in the woods in costume and beating each other up with plumbing supplies (or at least I was until this year, grr...). If I was to start every encounter by explaining that "None of this is real", I would end up sitting at home alone watching documentaries (fictional shows are not real after all). Accurate, but not fun.

Quote:
We already have a system that evaluates the relative utility of muffins and sandwiches. The new system would have to perfectly encode everything the current system already tells us. This is something economists have been trying to model, without complete success, for hundreds of years. Then it would have to tell us to behave exactly the same way we'd be behaving on our own, under the old system. This is entirely redundant, of course. But the new system would try to do it anyway.

The new system basically tries to solve the problems of free-market capitalism by exactly reproducing its market dynamics as a top-down mandate. It wouldn't so much solve the problems of the free market, as it would avoid them entirely in favor of causing even worse problems.

"Who watches the watchmen?" In the current system, the sandwich people and the muffin people watch each other, with their money and their desires. In the new system, the Algorithm people watch everyone, even though they have their head just as far up their asses as the rest of us when it comes to human commerce.
Free-Market Capitalism has a lot of problems, which are covered up by Government Intervention (which I firmly believe we need more of). Wage slavery, chattel slavery, child labor, homelessness, an inability to deal with or even acknowledge externalities like pollution, etc. All this stuff happened or is continuing to happen, and Free-Market Capitalism just kept rolling along.

The Free-Market does solve a lot of implementation problems, as much of what happens requires little to no effort from Government or is handled between individuals or groups in the Market. But it has always seemed to me that Free-Market Capitalism "works" in much the same way as Trial by Combat "works". There is a situation, something happens, whatever happens is called "the solution", and everyone goes along their way (except the loser, but there is no helping some people, right?). That does not mean it is the best solution, and certainly not the most ethical solution.

Free-Market Capitalism without Government Intervention would quickly become a dystopian hellscape, so we need Government Intervention at some level. I find the idea of "Front-Loading" the Government Intervention interesting. I don't need to be willing to die on a hill to discuss it.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2020, 07:30 PM   #108
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Free-Market Capitalism without Government Intervention would quickly become a dystopian hellscape, so we need Government Intervention at some level. I find the idea of "Front-Loading" the Government Intervention interesting.
Problem is, this isn't it. As an 'alternative to Capitalism' Copiosis is just another style of Capitalism - and suffers from the same flaws. What's worse, it purports to make real (and necessary) intervention unnecessary. That's dangerous because it could lull people into believing that it is a workable 'solution' when it is really just another non-solution. By time they realize that it will be too late.

The best solution is what we have now - a mixed economy. All we have to do to perfect it is adjust the 'mix' to suit the circumstances, which is exactly what responsible governments around the World are doing.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's not a question of replacing one corrupt system with another. It's a question of replacing a flawed system with a system that is likely to be much more flawed.
Our current system is not 'flawed' - it actually fixes the flaws in Capitalism. The problem with Copiosis is that offers a similar flawed system without the fixes.

Quote:
Historically, the more a system tries to control the economy for the greater good, the more harm it causes.
Not true. History shows there is an optimum amount (and quality) of control that provides the best outcome.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2020, 07:50 PM   #109
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
After doing some more research I discovered that Copiosis is a scam.

Is Copiosis a scam? By Perry Gruber, Copiosis Founder
Quote:
If it is, someone forgot to tell me!

...

Help make Copiosis a reality. Become a Patron.
So Copiosis makes everything no cost, but you need money? Someone should tell you that taking money for a pie-in-the-sky scheme with no chance of succeeding is a scam. If you truly care about about making people's lives better you should go out and do something that makes a real difference, not bamboozle us with talk of 'Real Freedom, unparalled prosperity, opportunity and potential' via an 'algorithm' while you rake in the cash.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 08:04 AM   #110
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,845
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Copiosis doesn't really make centralized Demand decisions, it's much weirder than that. The Algorithm takes in usage information (how often necessities and luxuries are consumed/used) and production information (how many people are producing those necessities and luxuries) and neutrally plugs it into the Algorithm. It looks a lot like a Demand function, but it's not quite that.
It's still fundamentally broken when it comes to certain luxuries.
Quote:
But the real benefit occurs when someone drinks it. “Consumed” means a human being is using the good or service. If the good is a consumable (such as wine) it is consumed when drank. The point of transfer is only important for tracking ownership. Other than that, it has no effect on NBR.
I'm not a vintner, but I know a few. They produce wine with the intent that it's not going to be good today, but great maybe a decade down the road.
I've got a few bottles that I've not consumed yet, that were made in 1997. I think I got the in 98 or 99. Due to some family issues, the winery changed hands. Who gets the reward when I finally open the bottle and enjoy my wine?

97 was a good year in the Napa valley. A combination of quanity and quality. But a good cabernet is going to a few years to be drinkable. Why shouldn't someone get their reward when they make the sale, as opposed to a massive tracking system? Not only do I have to tell the algorithm I had my wine, which is none of the central authorities concern in my book, but then they have to know who to reward. A massive tracking system of who worked where and when. And who did what, down to the bottle. Who picked the grapes, who cleaned the vat, and so on.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 08:33 AM   #111
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
After doing some more research I discovered that Copiosis is a scam.

Is Copiosis a scam? By Perry Gruber, Copiosis FounderSo Copiosis makes everything no cost, but you need money? Someone should tell you that taking money for a pie-in-the-sky scheme with no chance of succeeding is a scam. If you truly care about about making people's lives better you should go out and do something that makes a real difference, not bamboozle us with talk of 'Real Freedom, unparalled prosperity, opportunity and potential' via an 'algorithm' while you rake in the cash.
You're making a pretty dishonest argument here.

He needs resources to change the system. The current system gives him very limited options for raising resources. It's ironic that the system he's trying to change is exactly the system for raising resources, but it isn't fraudulent.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 08:35 AM   #112
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
It's still fundamentally broken when it comes to certain luxuries.

I'm not a vintner, but I know a few. They produce wine with the intent that it's not going to be good today, but great maybe a decade down the road.
I've got a few bottles that I've not consumed yet, that were made in 1997. I think I got the in 98 or 99. Due to some family issues, the winery changed hands. Who gets the reward when I finally open the bottle and enjoy my wine?

97 was a good year in the Napa valley. A combination of quanity and quality. But a good cabernet is going to a few years to be drinkable. Why shouldn't someone get their reward when they make the sale, as opposed to a massive tracking system? Not only do I have to tell the algorithm I had my wine, which is none of the central authorities concern in my book, but then they have to know who to reward. A massive tracking system of who worked where and when. And who did what, down to the bottle. Who picked the grapes, who cleaned the vat, and so on.
This is beginning to sound like one of those "to compute this would require more transistors than there are atoms in the universe and/or more time than the universe is predicted to continue existing" problems.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 01:30 PM   #113
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,845
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is beginning to sound like one of those "to compute this would require more transistors than there are atoms in the universe and/or more time than the universe is predicted to continue existing" problems.
Well, it certainly creates a problem where people only get paid when their product is consumed. Let's use a simply example of a tomato. What do I need to grow a tomato? Well, a seed, which I could get from another tomato, else I need to buy it. Some dirt and water. Let's not get into water production, but from the source, to purify and make it safe, to the pipes to bring it to me, if they are all going to wait for my tomatoes to flourish, it's going to be some time. Does the tomato plant, which consumes the water, count or do we wait until it fruits?

I'm not sure how all this tracking is a net benefit, vs, just paying for something as you receive it. Also, right now, were I to buy something, and never use it, that is on me. But if vendor doesn't get paid until I consume it, well, my sloth now becomes a burden to that vendor.

It's ill conceived, but I guess that is why we have the all mighty algorithm to solve these shortcomings. Just throw more data at it. That will fix it.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 03:07 PM   #114
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,176
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Well, it certainly creates a problem where people only get paid when their product is consumed. Let's use a simply example of a tomato. What do I need to grow a tomato? Well, a seed, which I could get from another tomato, else I need to buy it. Some dirt and water. Let's not get into water production, but from the source, to purify and make it safe, to the pipes to bring it to me, if they are all going to wait for my tomatoes to flourish, it's going to be some time. Does the tomato plant, which consumes the water, count or do we wait until it fruits?

I'm not sure how all this tracking is a net benefit, vs, just paying for something as you receive it. Also, right now, were I to buy something, and never use it, that is on me. But if vendor doesn't get paid until I consume it, well, my sloth now becomes a burden to that vendor.

It's ill conceived, but I guess that is why we have the all mighty algorithm to solve these shortcomings. Just throw more data at it. That will fix it.
But the tomato problem is just a one-time readjustment isn't it? Tomato growers are not paid while the tomato is growing, but rather when they sell it. That wouldn't really change under Copiosis.

The wine example is more problematic, but you could get around that by assuming that the consumption of the wine will happen at some point in the future when the transfer of ownership is made for the purposes of paying the provider. The benefit of the consumption of the wine would just be calculated and adjusted for future exchanges. (Yes, I am aware that that is still a mess)

Honestly, I think the biggest problem is how any starts up or any kind of company that does something new that won't see a payoff for a while. You can't really "pay" employees or ask for a loan from the bank. Sooner or later, you have to convince the Algorithm that what you are doing is worthwhile, but you have no starting data for the Algorithm to work with.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 05:10 PM   #115
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Honestly, I think the biggest problem is how any starts up or any kind of company that does something new that won't see a payoff for a while. You can't really "pay" employees or ask for a loan from the bank. Sooner or later, you have to convince the Algorithm that what you are doing is worthwhile, but you have no starting data for the Algorithm to work with.
Of the biggest problems with this idea, this is definitely one of them.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 06:17 PM   #116
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,358
Originally Posted by Random View Post
The NBRs are non-transferrable to keep economic transactions beneficial to society. Either you are doing something of net benefit to society according to the Algorithm, or you are not getting NBRs.

There's nothing stopping you from bartering and trading luxury items and goods right now. We just don't do this because we have regular money, which can be used in activities which are a net loss to society.

Again, there are a lot of issues with all this, but I thought it was worth a look at least. If the alternative is going bust at the Great Casino of Wall Street every ten years or so...

The bartering of luxury goods is occurring right now. Let’s say you are a rich dude from Mexico. You have expensive cars, watches, etc. You want to buy houses in the US to rent out and add to your wealth. But you want to hide how much you paid for them. The seller would also like to put a lower price on the books to write off as a loss. No problem. Take my Patek Phillipe watch and knock $50k off the price. The seller can then take that watch and net more than that. Or the seller will knock $75k off the price and rich dude “sells” his Bentley to the seller’s car dealer associate for a ridiculously low price, who will never pay you for the car. He will in turn sell it for that or more and give me my $75k and keep the rest for himself.

I almost bought the Bentley myself, lol.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 06:12 AM   #117
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You're making a pretty dishonest argument here.

He needs resources to change the system. The current system gives him very limited options for raising resources. It's ironic that the system he's trying to change is exactly the system for raising resources, but it isn't fraudulent.
That's what they all say.

The truth is this is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, which he is promoting in the hopes of gaining fame and fortune. The slick website, the 'algorithm', the BS about freedom etc., all point to a scam. And by scam I mean an effort to extract money and/or admiration from a scheme that he knows has no chance of success. Even worse than Bitcoin (at least the original bitcoiners produced something that actually worked, even if it morphed into something other than what they hoped for).
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 06:18 AM   #118
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Sooner or later, you have to convince the Algorithm that what you are doing is worthwhile, but you have no starting data for the Algorithm to work with.
No problem - we just change the algorithm! A few tweaks here, a 'halving' there, and pretty soon you have the same system we have now! Except without the oversight. Just like Bitcoin.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 06:27 AM   #119
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is beginning to sound like one of those "to compute this would require more transistors than there are atoms in the universe and/or more time than the universe is predicted to continue existing" problems.
Well it won't replace the existing system all at once, so current computing power should be enough to start with. And if it isn't we will just build faster computers. Might take a lot of electricity though (oops, so much for saving the planet!).
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 06:43 AM   #120
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,044
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
That's what they all say.

The truth is this is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, which he is promoting in the hopes of gaining fame and fortune. The slick website, the 'algorithm', the BS about freedom etc., all point to a scam. And by scam I mean an effort to extract money and/or admiration from a scheme that he knows has no chance of success. Even worse than Bitcoin (at least the original bitcoiners produced something that actually worked, even if it morphed into something other than what they hoped for).
I'm sure you have many lines of evidence that convince you it's a scam. My argument is simply that the line you led with, "become a Patron" is not actually evidence of a scam. Legitimate proposals also ask for financial support.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.