New Epic Fail Currency? 'Occcu'

[cbeast]

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

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
      - Janis Joplin

[1715248476]

1715248476

[AnonymousBat]

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. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1xmGK8PEJw

[SAC]

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

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
      - Janis Joplin

"Free your mind ... and your ass will follow."
 -Funkadelic

[drakahn]

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err."
     - Mahatma Gandhi



-----

I find it funny when people link making money to freedom, money is the slave whip that keeps you all in line.

[westkybitcoins]

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.

That seems like a pretty disturbing collective view.

Even if it were true that most modern "rich people" (however you choose to define that) become wealthy through unethical means, it doesn't mean they all did. What about the guy who invented something great and had people throw money at him for it? What about someone who inherited wealth that was generated 150 years ago by some ancestor he barely knows about? What about me, should the value of my bitcoin holdings skyrocket?

To try to lump the innocent in with the guilty isn't going to achieve anything good.

That said, I still agree, in that NO ONE should be trusted to make decisions "for the many." Everyone should make their own decisions, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences accordingly.

[RaggedMonk]

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

Isn't hell more of a fascist dictatorship?  How is it socialist?

[DeathAndTaxes]

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

Isn't hell more of a fascist dictatorship?  How is it socialist?

Fascist dictatorship and socialism aren't mutually exclusive.  One is a system of governance and the other an economic model.  If you want to get meta then pain is the currency of hell and it will be shared equally.

[RaggedMonk]

Fascist dictatorship and socialism aren't mutually exclusive.  One is a system of governance and the other an economic model.  If you want to get meta then pain is the currency of hell and it will be shared equally.

Thanks

[the joint]

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

"A free being can simultaneously place its own constraints.  Freedom of ignorance is such a constraint."
      -   Me

[wachtwoord]

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.

Thank you. You present me with hope for this world.

When the day comes that a piece of land is founded where the power of the government is minimal (where the long term goal is none), and the free market is what controls everything, I will move there.

I am from Europe so let me end with a quote:

"In the end we will all pay for socialism gone wild" User @ Motley Fool about the European debt problems

[paraipan]

lol this thread is epic, researching a bit on the issue before commenting helps allot

One day a guy decides he would create this "decentralized" currency, that sympathizes with Occupy movements, and call it "occcu". Then he calls up some friends and they like the idea so they use an open source platform, Cyclos, to build it because it's easier and host it on a central server too.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize it doesn't have nothing to do with bitcoin at all. Just take a brief look at "Products & Services" on their site and you can easily find who could be behind it by cross-ref some data.

[SgtSpike]

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.

I very much disagree.  If I only bought the absolute necessities, I could survive and save money, retiring on a modest income.

Fact is, all you need is food, clothing and shelter.  You don't need a car.  You don't need a 800 sq ft house (when 200 will do just fine).  You don't need children.  You don't need a cell phone.  You don't need cable, television, or internet.

Live in Detroit, where housing is incredibly cheap.  Sell trinkets on the internet, or get a minimum wage job.  You could get by on $300/month for all your living expenses.  The rest is money in your pocket, where you begin building wealth.

Building wealth has nothing to do with how much you make, and everything to do with how you manage the money you have.  If you believe you cannot build wealth with just about any ethical occupation, then you're not living your life in a way that facilitates building wealth.  In other words, it is YOUR fault you can't build wealth with those ethical occupations.

[wachtwoord]

Good blog on this: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/

[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.

I very much disagree.  If I only bought the absolute necessities, I could survive and save money, retiring on a modest income.

Fact is, all you need is food, clothing and shelter.  You don't need a car.  You don't need a 800 sq ft house (when 200 will do just fine).  You don't need children.  You don't need a cell phone.  You don't need cable, television, or internet.

Live in Detroit, where housing is incredibly cheap.  Sell trinkets on the internet, or get a minimum wage job.  You could get by on $300/month for all your living expenses.  The rest is money in your pocket, where you begin building wealth.

Building wealth has nothing to do with how much you make, and everything to do with how you manage the money you have.  If you believe you cannot build wealth with just about any ethical occupation, then you're not living your life in a way that facilitates building wealth.  In other words, it is YOUR fault you can't build wealth with those ethical occupations.

Spoken like a true republican that has never been poor a day in his/her life.

[SgtSpike]

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.

I very much disagree.  If I only bought the absolute necessities, I could survive and save money, retiring on a modest income.

Fact is, all you need is food, clothing and shelter.  You don't need a car.  You don't need a 800 sq ft house (when 200 will do just fine).  You don't need children.  You don't need a cell phone.  You don't need cable, television, or internet.

Live in Detroit, where housing is incredibly cheap.  Sell trinkets on the internet, or get a minimum wage job.  You could get by on $300/month for all your living expenses.  The rest is money in your pocket, where you begin building wealth.

Building wealth has nothing to do with how much you make, and everything to do with how you manage the money you have.  If you believe you cannot build wealth with just about any ethical occupation, then you're not living your life in a way that facilitates building wealth.  In other words, it is YOUR fault you can't build wealth with those ethical occupations.

Spoken like a true republican that has never been poor a day in his/her life.

I can't pay my bills right now.  But thanks for the assumptions anyway.  If anything, I'm just a hypocrite, not practicing what I preach.

[robocop]

I mean

The positive sides of OCCCU is that a lot of money can´t hoarded.

Negative is that the OCCCU isn´t transparent like Bitcoin so I can´t see the transactions or amount of OCCCUs.

But what would happen if the advantages of Bitcoin would combined with the advantages of OCCCU ?

If it would not a great idea to have a basic-income coin - system?

Sure this system can´t be so anonym like Bitcoin because it needs a registration for every user. This registration should be transparent because this registration system need the verification of the community else accounts would be cheated.

Then every new user account would generate new coins and every block which will be mined generate coins too. The advantage is that the amount of coins would increase with the number of users.

I think this type of coin could be an alternative to fiatmoney and i could imagine that a lot of user would use this coin because he could get coins for nothing (basic income).

[Explodicle]

Don't get me wrong, I like Occupy and basic incomes, but the problems inherent to this concept are more practical than ideological. For any basic income, SOMEONE has to maintain a list of recipients. You need to verify that each person only has one account. You need to update the records swiftly when an identity gets stolen. Then, we have to trust that your organization won't be corrupted by power. Every single person you employ to handle all this is paid for by a regressive "inflation/demurrage tax".

We (the left in general) need to be supporting Bitcoin because it already works well and is still undergoing major upgrades. It is resistant to corruption unlike the Fed and any centralized currency. If your problem is hoarding and a deflationary money supply, EnCoin can use your help. If you want a basic income, it has to come from your government - consumers will not opt in to paying for it.

[anu]

But what would happen if the advantages of Bitcoin would combined with the advantages of OCCCU ?

the Bitcoin community and the Occcu community (if there really is one) have different ideas with constitutes an advantage. So some of those advantages are mutually exclusive. The Bitcoin community values that your Bitcoins stay your Bitcoins until you chose to spend them. The Occcu community values the fact that Occcu evaporates quickly, forcing you to get rid of it as fast as possible.

[realnowhereman]

"Basic Income" is a reasonable idea.  Sometimes called citizen's income or citizen's dividend.  It goes very nicely with land value tax.

However; implementing it is a function of the state not of the currency.

As to "not hoarding".  That's just stupid.  There's nothing wrong with "hoarding"; it is simply deferred consumption.  e.g. I would like to have a car next year instead of a bicycle this year.  Or, I'd like two hospitals next year instead of one pedestrian crossing this year.  What's wrong with letting people choose when they spend?

The 'occu' wouldn't stimulate the economy, it would simply move spending from the future to the now as people tried to avoid the hoarding-tax.

That would result in more purchases of low value items and fewer of high value items (since high value items are what people save for).  I assume that they are all "bring back t' days of t' factories" types who are proposing these anti-capital ideas.  Strangely, it is factory production that would likely suffer most (high value items are made in factories).

[anu]

"Basic Income" is a reasonable idea.  Sometimes called citizen's income or citizen's dividend.  It goes very nicely with land value tax.

However; implementing it is a function of the state not of the currency.

Basic income as a dividend requires that the state generates a surplus. Some do, such as Norway.

Just imagine how much tax revenue is required to finance this: If 300 Million Americans get $500 each (not really a sufficient income), $1.8 Trillion would be required per  year.  Financing this with a tax on land would devaluate the land to the point that most morgage loans get canceled because the backing is no longer there. The result would be a default of the house owners and a subprime crisis of unprecedented proportions. Oh, wait - we can tax the farmers. They own a lot more land.