New Epic Fail Currency? 'Occcu'

[Littleshop]

Occcu is just plain silly.   If for some reason people started to use it, they would have a huge problem with people registering multiple (hundreds??) of accounts for free money.  It would not be rare so it would become worthless (just like it is now).

[1715199827]

1715199827

[1715199827]

1715199827

[1715199827]

1715199827

[cunicula]

That is the way occupiers think (and no I am not joking).  They believe the state owes them simply for existing.  If the state doesn't have enough money to give everyone a monthly income, education, healthcare, and retirement well they can just confiscate more wealth from the suckers who actually work.

"Money for nothing and your chicks for free"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWXDjiKVs2U

"Do they owe us a living? Course they do, Course they do, Course they fucking do"

[Andrew Bitcoiner]

This is a very strange idea to say the least.

It happens frequently to spoiled brats

The correct date would be 1861 

[kjlimo]

What's to prevent a person from making two accounts and spending the coins by transferring them between accounts every four weeks?

Seems like absolutely nothing.

lol.. what the heck's the point?

[robocop]

I think that a lot of people don´t understand the principle because they understand money as a storage of value to save money for a new car or other big things but this thinking is in my optionion wrong and its the result of blowing up money.

For example what will happen, when 70% of Bitcoin will hold by 5%?

It will happen the same as with fiat money the amount of Bitcoin will increase.
Sure not directly but indirectly because the value of 21mio. Bitcoins will increase a lot of and the amount of Bitcoins increase because the comma will going to the right side because it is unpracticable to pay 0.00001 Bitcoin.
So the amount of Bitcoin will increase step by step from 21 to 210mio. to 2100mio. and more.

Bitcoin can´t be the last answer of our problems of hording money.

OCCCU is a new type of money which want to hold the amount of money less and depending on the number of guys because it is better to give the money to the next and "use" it than hold money and make it unreceivable unuseful for other guys and this is one big problem of the world.

But what can I do when I want saving money for a new car?

The answer is NOT the OCCCU the answer is Bitcoin, gold, silver, stocks and ...   
And this is normally because the OCCCU is not a storage.

I see the OCCCU as basic income to pay the lot of small things which will need every day for example food, rent, clothes, cinema, concerts and more.

I see OCCCU as a chance and a experiment to define money new.

And for correction.

You receive every month 100 OCCCU, after 30 days 25 percent will going back to community.
So you have in max. 400 OCCCU after 24 month for nothing ;-)

   20
1 Mon.   115
2 Mon.   186
3 Mon.   240
4 Mon.   280
5 Mon.   310
6 Mon.   332
7 Mon.   349
8 Mon.   362
9 Mon.   371
10 Mon.   379
11 Mon.   384
12 Mon.   388
13 Mon.   391
14 Mon.   393
15 Mon.   395
16 Mon.   396
17 Mon.   397
18 Mon.   398
19 Mon.   398
20 Mon.   399
21 Mon.   399
22 Mon.   399
23 Mon.   399
24 Mon.   400

[realnowhereman]

Occcu is just plain silly.   If for some reason people started to use it, they would have a huge problem with people registering multiple (hundreds??) of accounts for free money.  It would not be rare so it would become worthless (just like it is now).

The reason community-based economic systems always end in failure is that they rely on everyone being decent and honourable.

Capitalism does not require that.

Ronald Reagan said "socialism will only work in two places: heaven where they don't need it; and hell where they already have it".

[robocop]

The reason community-based economic systems always end in failure is that they rely on everyone being decent and honourable.

I don´t think so because "being decent and honourable" is only a question of transparency. If the system is transparent then it is impossible to cheat.
And by the way the current system is community based too but the community is not the mass but the top 5% ;-)

[realnowhereman]

The reason community-based economic systems always end in failure is that they rely on everyone being decent and honourable.

I don´t think so because "being decent and honourable" is only a question of transparency. If the system is transparent then it is impossible to cheat.

Agreed.  Bitcoin has solved that problem, which is nice.

I shouldn't have called it "community based"; it's not accurate enough.  I meant "economic systems that work to keep everyone identically wealthy".  The reason they fail is exactly as you say: lack of transparency.  Unfortunately it's inherent.  There are always going to be people who "run" things.  They will always claim they are doing it "for the good of the people".  While it's possible to benefit from cheating... someone will cheat.  The guy at the top can always cheat.

That's essentially why I was sarcastically asking "who gets to issue it?".

[cbeast]

I see the OCCCU as basic income to pay the lot of small things which will need every day for example food, rent, clothes, cinema, concerts and more.

What is a business owner supposed to do with OCCCU? Trade it for gold? Then what will the gold dealer do with it?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I meant "economic systems that work to keep everyone identically wealthy". 

Even if there is no cheating, no corruption, no flawed human behavior I would argue that the above goal is beyond stupid.

I work hard, someone else sits around making hippie songs nobody gives a shit about.  We both should be compensated equally.  Well if that is the case, fuck the 50 hour work week, fuck the continual skill development on my part, fuck the stress of managing an enterprise database.  I will write hippie songs nobody gives a shit about (and likely do a worse job than the guy in the comparison).

Multiply that by billions and global GDP declines on a massive scale. 

People shouldn't be compensated equally because talents, skills, productive capacity vary.  Capitalism is horribly flawed but it is the best system to match the needs of the population with the talents/assets/capital of the population.

It works because it doesn't require you to look out for the common good, nor does it expect you to.   Companies engage in brutal "combat" and to emerge victorious requires a better product, or better marketing (which is another product), or better prices (= production efficiency).   The entire system is made stronger because talents, resources, and capital flow to where they have the most benefit.

Sure division of that "pie" is uneven but Capitalism makes the pie bigger.  The "poor" today have a far better quality of life than say as a poor serf in the Middle Ages.  Their slice of the pie is smaller than say Donald Trump but the pie is magnitudes larger.

TL/DR version:
You build a system (even perfect) where the "slices" are even and you have broken the linking of work/assets/capital and reward.  There is no reason to be better because even if you are your slice isn't going to get any bigger.

[cbeast]

I work hard, someone else sits around making hippie songs nobody gives a shit about.  We both should be compensated equally.  Well if that is the case, fuck the 50 hour work week, fuck the continual skill development on my part, fuck the stress of managing an enterprise database.  I will write hippie songs nobody gives a shit about (and likely do a worse job than the guy in the comparison).

Most great inventors don't give a damn about money. They tend to be easily exploited by Capitalist hippies that sit around the pool collecting dividends. The real hard work of Capitalism is the lawyers that sue startups over patent infringement.

Sure, some innovation is done by greedy inventors, but original ideas tend to come from people not interested in money itself.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Most great inventors don't give a damn about money. They tend to be easily exploited by Capitalist hippies that sit around the pool collecting dividends. The real hard work of Capitalism is the lawyers that sue startups over patent infringement.

Sure, some innovation is done by greedy inventors, but original ideas tend to come from people not interested in money itself.

For the sake of argument I will say your right (although I disagree).  Without capital most ideas go nowhere.  How does one acquire capital ... by working harder (or having a ancestor who worked harder).  Yes even people who acquire wealth through fraudulent or dubious means had to work at it.  A system where acquisition of wealth is impossible because everyone's share of the pie is equal means no rich greedy investors to "exploit" inventors by bring products to market.

Even when inventor is "exploited" by Capitalists the system is made stronger.  Quality of life for the aggregate population improves due to access to new and improved products & services.

[realnowhereman]

You build a system (even perfect) where the "slices" are even and you have broken the linking of work/assets/capital and reward.  There is no reason to be better because even if you are your slice isn't going to get any bigger.

I agree of course; socialism is simply persuading poor people that the only reason they aren't rich is because of all the rich people.

However; that's not the point.  The point is that if there were no cheating socialism would operate.  It is sustainable.  Why?  Because it would end as exactly the same as a free market.

Now: people of different talents and skill are paid differently for the same number of hours work.

Inevitable end point of socialism: people of different talents and skills will work different numbers of hours for the same pay.

It's obvious why socialism would result in lower GDP, the productive would put less effort in.

[ultima]

You can't say: "I need some money, so I will produce a briliant idea now." Revolutionary ideas just happen. But most inventions need a lot of work and research done. For instance, where would you find thousands of people to do some boring laboratory work to invent a new drug? Where would you even find people to produce laboratory equipment, to start research in the first place. And where would you find people to dig raw materials from the ground to use them to make the equipment?

We can't just sit around and wait for a great mastermind to be born every 100 years to invent a few things. We have to force as much people as possible to be productive and work on the things that benefit others.

[cbeast]

Most great inventors don't give a damn about money. They tend to be easily exploited by Capitalist hippies that sit around the pool collecting dividends. The real hard work of Capitalism is the lawyers that sue startups over patent infringement.

Sure, some innovation is done by greedy inventors, but original ideas tend to come from people not interested in money itself.

For the sake of argument I will say your right (although I disagree).  Without capital most ideas go nowhere.  How does one acquire capital ... by working harder (or having a ancestor who worked harder).  Yes even people who acquire wealth through fraudulent or dubious means had to work at it.  A system where acquisition of wealth is impossible because everyone's share of the pie is equal means no rich greedy investors to "exploit" inventors by bring products to market.

Even when inventor is "exploited" by Capitalists the system is made stronger.  Quality of life for the aggregate population improves due to access to new and improved products & services.

Democracies aggregate capital through taxation and choose progressive commons based on the best information available to improve the (theoretical) quality of life for the many. I'll defer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out the usefulness of a baseline of equality. Besides, the system is broken and there are few ethical occupations where one can aggregate any personal wealth anymore. It follows then that individuals that do manage to acquire capital are not ethical and should not be trusted to make decisions for the many.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Democracies aggregate capital through taxation and choose progressive commons based on the best information available to improve the (theoretical) quality of life for the many. I'll defer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out the usefulness of a baseline of equality. Besides, the system is broken and there are few ethical occupations where one can aggregate any personal wealth anymore. It follows then that individuals that do manage to acquire capital are not ethical and should not be trusted to make decisions for the many.

So unaccountable people who didn't earn money will via bureaucratic processes more efficiently aggregate capital and match industrial needs with available resources.  Maybe with a utopian artificial intelligence but not with humans.  Modern states destroy wealth via inefficiency.  The solution isn't giving the state more power.

I have managed to acquire wealth so by your definition I am unethical.  Kinda a broad brush you are painting with.

Still I am glad you posted it.  You statements show you are a statist.  Your belief is the state can be the answer to all problems.  Even when the state itself is the source of the problem, the "solution" among statists isn't freedom but instead building an even more powerful, infringing, wealth destroying state. 

Sad ... but then again i am unethical so my disdain of your solutions is to be expected right?

[cbeast]

Democracies aggregate capital through taxation and choose progressive commons based on the best information available to improve the (theoretical) quality of life for the many. I'll defer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out the usefulness of a baseline of equality. Besides, the system is broken and there are few ethical occupations where one can aggregate any personal wealth anymore. It follows then that individuals that do manage to acquire capital are not ethical and should not be trusted to make decisions for the many.

So people who didn't earn money via buerocratic processes will more efficiently aggregate capital and match industrial needs with available resources.  Maybe with a utopian artificial intelligence but not with humans.

I have managed to acquire wealth so by your definition I am unethical.  Kinda a broad brush you are painting with.

Still I am glad you posted it.  You are a statist.  You belief the state can be the answer to all problems.  Even when the state creates problems by disrupting free markets the solution isn't freedom but instead even more power to the state.  With people like you that thinking will never be broken.  It will always be "well if we give the state more power, more money, more resources, and more of our freedom it will work".  When it doesn't work the "solution" it give a little bit more.

Your thinking is kinda dualistic here. I'm surprised. Is the world that black and white? I never, in any of my posts, push for a state. Democracy doen't require a state.

[cbeast]

Neither do "the people" require democracy to be free.

Please give an example of such a people.

[cbeast]

Neither do "the people" require democracy to be free.

Please give an example of such a people.

Anyone at any time.  Wrap your head around that yourself.

Ah. Freedom of the mind. Deep. Of course there are always conjugal visits unless you work in the laundry.

[Explodicle]

Neither do "the people" require democracy to be free.

Please give an example of such a people.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
     - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe