Universal Dividend

[Galuel]

It now seems this universal dividend concept is just a proposed solution to "the bootstrap problem".

Meaning, we want a new currency to exist, but it can't exist until we distribute some amount of it.
If we create and distribute this amount of currency out of thin air now, "to be fair" to people who come later, we must continue to create X() amount of currency from thin air forever.

Is that the only problem you are trying to solve?

Or are you saying, the EU should be paying a universal dividend every year, because they created a new Euros out of thin air and "to be fair" they should/must continue to do so?

I say ANY Money System that is not symtricly created in space and time is a ponzi scheme. That's what I say. Money is an universal (Global - Common) tool for exchanging goods. We cannot create-il in an assymetric way, that is to say from any center point in Time-Space (considering the Time-space of the money system itself, not the whole one).

As a COMMON tool, it is all members ownership.

It's a spacial Ponzi shcheme if it's created in a particular space point, and it's a time ponzi scheme if it's created in particular time points. It's a time-space ponzi scheme when it's created on particular space spoints and date points (like is the official money = a time-space pyramid ponzi scheme).

(Time-Space is not a pyramid. Time-Space is a 4-Dimensionnal Sphere with no particular point of view in front of physics laws, with hubble constant rate of inflation)

Value is not the same from an individual point of view, neither from a date point of view because this is individual choice. But Money as a COMMON tool has to be created without any particular point of view, as space is

BitCoin is 100% ok considering the space perspective, and not ok considering the time pespective as its initial money system works. BitCoins appears with correct analysys as a time Pyramid Ponzi Scheme (and not a time-space one like official money).

Is that your philosophy? Is there ever an amount of money or commodity I could give to "society" where they would say "Thanks! you don't owe us anything now. Everything you earn now is guilt free!"

Logic, Science, Physics, Mathematics, fair rules games to enjoy, and changing the rules when we discover a not-fair effect, that's my philosophy.

I don't want people organising Ponzi Scheme, this kind of things breaks relationship between the players for bad reasons, create wars, revolutions, blood and fears.

When you speak of work that benefits society but is otherwise not directly uncompensated you seem to know its value in total (5%/yr), but deny that anyone can fairly put a value on any of the composite parts.

For example, say I enjoy writing Vogon poetry. There is no current market for Vogon poetry because everyone knows that reading Vogon poetry akin to torture. But that doesn't matter. I'm contributing to society anyway by writing Vogon poetry. You can make no judgement as to what value future generations might place on reading Vogon poetry. Who knows? After all who could have predicted people gullible enough to listen to trance music.

But you decide I'm entitle to payment now, on speculation that it might benefit society in the future. Is this your logic for everyone receiving a share of new money?

It's just one way between lots of possibilities to understand what is Universal Dividend. You can also see it as :

* A little part of Global transmission to next generation to complete individual transmission.

* Considering the only universal and fundamental node of any economy is the human beings.

* Millions of individual investments made by all on each individuals, with risk as low as possible because of the large number. So if some don't provide the expected "return" on all future times (who will juge this ?), the others success will compensate the investment.

* The global economy zone as a big enterprise owned by individual shareholders, who receive so a yearly dividend.

* Fair Money System

* Want to live in society and be able to exchange with all members without lack of money and central control.

etc...

Lot of possibilities to see it. All are ok for me. I just remark each individual accept better one or other, so I adapt when explaining it.

My vision is a space-time one, which is not easy to see if you didn't study Relativity, so it's often necessary to translate it in each individual global paradigm.

[1714132319]

1714132319

[1714132319]

1714132319

[1714132319]

1714132319

[bytemaster]

"I say ANY Money System that is not symtricly created in space and time is a ponzi scheme."

You can say that all you want, but it does not make it true.   First of all you need to demonstrate that the system will crash (mathematically unstable) and that there is fraud and misrepresentation involved. 

A 100% reserve gold backed currency system is not a ponzi scheme.  It would be stable from now until the end of time in the absence of fraud or technological invention that makes creating gold trivial.  The proof is that every free exchange of goods/services among people improves the total wellbeing of society as judged by the individuals themselves  (not some outside party) or the exchange would not have happened.  Disprove this and then we can talk about the need for "forced exchanges" and "centrally planned" economic models.

Further you must prove how a forced exchange (even if designed into a bitcoin like system) actually causes a net benefit to society.   

You still have not addressed my point that no matter how good and fair in space-time your idea is "in theory", if it does not account for human nature then it is not workable and thus a bad idea.  Thus, explain by what process your system would naturally be selected in the absence of aggression?  How would it "out compete" a competing system such as bitcoin or even a 100% reserve gold standard?

[Galuel]

A 100% reserve gold backed currency system is not a ponzi scheme.

No and it's not money. It's a share of a specific good. Not usable in all space, all times, for all exchanges, not a value for large number of human beings.

It's nothing interesting.

[bytemaster]

Who said the currency had to have value for a large number of human beings?   Does that make a dollar a good system?

Your digital "UD currency" is also not usable in "all space" and "all times" for "all exchanges" and is certaintly not a value for a large number of human beings.

So, answer my other points.  Why would your system if it existed be "naturally selected" by all people among all competing alternatives?   Focusing on gold misses the point!

[Galuel]

You still have not addressed my point that no matter how good and fair in space-time your idea is "in theory", if it does not account for human nature then it is not workable and thus a bad idea.  Thus, explain by what process your system would naturally be selected in the absence of aggression?  How would it "out compete" a competing system such as bitcoin or even a 100% reserve gold standard?

I've yet answered that point. It's neither a theory, neither an idea, it's YET an experimental fact, I gave all links necessary to study real experience about this (Namibia, Brazil, Alaska, Italian SCEC etc...) that are also pointed on the wikipedia article, BIEN network, etc... Thanks to study the result of all those experiments, and study the proposition of lots of politicals including it now in their propositions in Europe, South America, Africa and elsewhere with all the material you will find over there.

Experimental proof is the only way to justify any idea.

For example for Gold backed money, experiment shows it has been rejected long time ago yet, like Newton Theory was rejected after Einstein revolution.

Take time to understand deep thought.

[Galuel]

Your digital "UD currency" is also not usable in "all space" and "all times" for "all exchanges" and is certaintly not a value for a large number of human beings.

Yes it is.

So, answer my other points.  Why would your system if it existed be "naturally selected" by all people among all competing alternatives?   Focusing on gold misses the point!

Your questions have no answer in the paradigm I describe.

[bytemaster]

All of your examples required aggression and/or "communal" property to implement.  Need I bring up the problem with tragedy of the commons?

100% reserve gold standard did not fail, fractional reserve banking fraud and government debasement of gold failed.  The people did not want gold debased nor did they want a system where banks issue unbacked "payable on demand notes that do not pay interest".  In fact, it looks like what will happen with the dollar fraud fails is a return to gold/silver.  

But, i will look into your "examples" deeper.  

You claim I need to take time to understand "deep thought", but you speak from ignorance about the amount of time I spend in "deep thought".  

[bytemaster]

Your digital "UD currency" is also not usable in "all space" and "all times" for "all exchanges" and is certaintly not a value for a large number of human beings.

Yes it is.

How does it work in the middle of the amazon without electricity?   How would it work post-emp?  

Lets attempt to avoid a "Is to! Is not!" shouting match and instead try to explain it better.

[bytemaster]

I am familiar with the Alaskan universal dividend.   So lets start here.

1) It started with land owned by government upon which oil is found.  Thus its origin is a lack of private property and a political debate over how the "proceeds" should be spent.  The universal divided has paid a paltry $7B over 30 years while the state and favored oil companies profit from the rest.  Net result, resource allocation by force and politics and a squandering of wealth caused by "spending other peoples money".   

2) Requires central "authority" to altruistically manage and distribute the wealth generated from the "common" resources.   The supposed "owners" of the land were given no right to the resources themselves, only what was left after the government decided what to do.

3) Vast majority of "dividend" invested with bankers and the stock market scam.  Once again denying the supposed owners, property rights to their share.  In effect, the government is buying peace while maintaining a need to "tax" people.  In a state like alaska, there should be no taxes at all if all citizens truly own the resources and the resources produce more revenue than the government needs to "defend liberty and provide justice". 

Of course everyone "likes" free money systems.   The question is, does this free money system actually make the best allocation of resources?   Suppose 1,000,000 people move to alaska, do you think the people there would be happy about a 60% reduction in their dividend, the over crowding, the change in culture?   

It is very popular for those who get something for nothing, but for every individual who gets something for nothing SOMEONE ELSE must get NOTHING FOR SOMETHING.   


 

[Willsway]

Lets attempt to avoid a "Is to! Is not!" shouting match and instead try to explain it better.

I too think this is an important debate.

Galuel's proposal with NewLibertyStandard's supporting arguments has sparked some interesting idea's and a healthy debate about alternatives. It would be interesting to see a simulation which compares the current bitcoin system with alternatives such as these so one can calculate possible outcomes, and further the debate in a positive way. Unfortunately this is beyond my level of skill, so it would be interesting if someone with the experience could create such a module for simulation.

[NewLibertyStandard]

Red, my comment to you may have been misdirected. You asked about cooptation and I think somebody asked somebody about Universal Dividend and I thought it was you but I don't feel like searching through to verify whether that's correct or not. I was interested in the topic and wanted to write a reply to the question that I'm now not sure even existed. Anyway, if any of my comments confused you, or anyone else, sorry. Take them for what they're worth whether they're directed correctly or not.

Liberty, now I really feel like an ass! I was being snide about the fact that someone else (not you) wrote a long post not responding to you, just prior to when I was typing. I started writing one as off track as his.

But in between others posted and the association got lost.

Your long post was perfect and exactly what I was looking for!

I shouldn't try to make jokes so late at night. Sorry to cause you grief! (hanging head)
 

I wasn't sure whether it was directed at me or not, so I replied just in case. No worries.

[caveden]

It is very popular for those who get something for nothing, but for every individual who gets something for nothing SOMEONE ELSE must get NOTHING FOR SOMETHING.   

+1

I didn't manage to follow this whole discussion, but since the beginning, actually from the wikipage itself, it's possible to see that this whole idea of universal dividend is just a form of income distribution. Income distribution is a kind of subsidy, it's subsidizing the poor. Like all all subsidies, the more you subsidize something, the more of this something you get. The more you subsidize "poverty", i.e., the lack of means to produce enough to have a decent life, the more you end up with people that lack such means and depend on this subsidy.

Anyway, if done voluntarily, I have nothing against it. I'm just practically sure it wouldn't work, for the reason others described.

If done trough the force of the state, then, of course, it's unethical and worse than a free monetary system. Sure, it would be much better than the current monetary system we live in, since there would be only "simple inflation" at a controlled rate and not inflation to manipulate the interest rates. But even a forced gold standard would be less bad, I guess, than a forced income distribution through inflation.

[Red]

Thank you Galuel for your direct response.

I understand everything you are saying with 100% clarity. You have done a fine job at conveying your points. Your English really is way better than my French!

However, I also see with 100% clarity, that there are no actual new ideas being proffered here. Just different rationalizations for the same "false paradox" that I've discussed many times. It is what is commonly known as "an epic fail".

My vision is a space-time one, which is not easy to see if you didn't study Relativity, so it's often necessary to translate it in each individual global paradigm.

This was a little condescending so let me just say, "spare me." Let's just say my colleagues actually fly in space. I'm not exactly clueless about the concept of four dimensions.

It's just one way between lots of possibilities to understand what is Universal Dividend. You can also see it as :

This and its associated list make it clear that what you are doing is merely an exercise in persuasion. You don't care the reason people accept what you want. It is only important to you that they accept what you want.

So we have a false implication. You are asserting that your premise is true. However, you will accept anything (true or false) as justifying (implying) your assertion. That means logically the relationship between the two (the implication) is necessarily incorrect.

So in effect your argument can be summarized as saying: (my premises is true)(does not imply)(anything I'll say to persuade you)
T !--> X   There is simply no point in me having that discussion with you. It's arbitrary rationalization.

----

The mathematics behind your premise has existed in space and time for longer than I have. It has always been false. It doesn't matter if you change the rationalization.

I take X% of Y from everyone in a group based upon the quantity of Y they hold. I give each person Sum(X*Y)/N. Where N is the number of people in the group.

Do you think this is a new concept? It had been tried over and over again. It is a repeated EPIC FAIL. Not theoretically, empirically. I won't quote examples. You are European. You know more examples of this failing than I do.

----

It really doesn't matter what rationalization you use to imply something false. It is logically irrelevant.  X --> F means nothing, just like T !--> X above.

The following "mathematical proof" comes to mine.

A roulette strategy was touted that went:
1) Bet on Red or Black
2a) If you win, you've doubled your money.
2b) If you lose, increase your next bet so the amount you'll win will cover your previous loses.
3) Therefore, you can never lose at roulette.

Of course, all Frenchmen think that is a silly strategy because they invented roulette. So they will no longer listen to your silliness.

So you tell them, there is this American game. It is so stupid it doesn't even have red or black. Just a bunch of cards. It's called blackjack, but what the silly American's don't know is there is an obvious strategy to beat blackjack, it goes like this!

1) Bet
2a) If you win, you've doubled your money.
2b) If you lose, increase your next bet so the amount you'll win will cover your previous loses.
3) Therefore, you can never lose at blackjack.

SEE!!! I told you!!! No Red or Black at all!!! It's a sure thing!

[NewLibertyStandard]

(I posted this as an edit of my last post, but since you, Red, posted before I got done writing it, I thought I'd make it its own post in case you don't glance backwards.)

Red, I have also traveled a bit and although there are some things I really like about other places, I overall much prefer home.

I lean pretty much as far left as I figure can realistically be compromised upon given the current polarized political environment in the United States. If Republicans didn't exist to keep the Democrats in check, then Democrats would splinter into far left and center left factions and although I'm far left now, if the current restrictions didn't exist, I'd probably move to the center left which would be the new conservative.

This next election is going to be about as interesting as a mid-term election can be, since both parties seem to be about equally confident and the majority balance could change. Good luck to ya... but I hope ya'll fail!

*Edited Again and Yet Again* I think I'm done now.

[Red]

Liberty thanks for not making me look up! :-)

I know how you feel, I fight with my brothers a lot but when all is said in done we're still brothers! If the Democrats didn't exist for balance, I'd be right there with you!

By the way, I edit a lot, I just don't tell anyone! :-)

I totally agree with you on the next election, it's like that supposed Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times!" Good luck to you too. But you don't stand a chance!

[Red]

How the Universal Dividend could be implemented
---------------------------------------------------------

I'll use four countries for example but feel free to add all of them if you wish.

Suppose country's currencies were ranked by their value. For example.

Euro > Dollar > Yuan -> Rupee

Now say the Europeans said to the Americans, "We want to use your currency, but ours is worth more." So we are going to print enough new Euros so they have even value with Dollars. We are going to distribute them as a Universal Dividend to all Europeans. They are going to all love it because they'll all get new money.

So the Americans agree and they decide Euros and Dollars are now interchangeable. But the American people now start thinking, "Hey how come the Europeans got a dividend and I didn't?

So the Americans and Europeans say to the Chinese. "We want to use your currency, but ours is worth more." So we are going to print enough new EuroDollars so they have even value with Yuan. We are going to distribute them as a Universal Dividend to all EuroAmericans. They are going to all love it because they'll all get new money.

So the Chinese agree and they decide Euros, Dollars and Yuan are now interchangeable. But the Chinese people now start thinking, "Hey how come the EuroAmericans got a dividend and I didn't?

So the Chinese, Americans and Europeans say to the Indians. "We want to use your currency, but ours is worth more." So we are going to print enough new EuroDollarYuan so they have even value with the Rupee. We are going to distribute them as a Universal Dividend to all EuroAmerChinese. They are going to all love it because they'll all get new money.

So the Indians agree and they decide Euros, Dollars, Yuan and Rupees are now interchangeable. But the Indian people now start thinking, "Hey how come everyone else got a dividend and I didn't?

+----+
|    |
|    V
| So to be fair, they decide to print 5% more EuroDollarYuanRupees so everyone can get a truly Universal Dividend.
| They are going to all love it because they'll all get new money.
|
| But the very next day, 10,000 children were born and they said, how come everyone else got a dividend and I didn't?
|    |
|    |
+----+

 
This could so totally work!

And we Europeans and Americans are going to love it, because it is so totally fair! It only takes from the really rich to give to those who need it most. Like us!

Wait! You're saying I'm the really rich? WTF!

[Galuel]

So we have a false implication. You are asserting that your premise is true. However, you will accept anything (true or false) as justifying (implying) your assertion. That means logically the relationship between the two (the implication) is necessarily incorrect.

I'm afraid you don't know what it is to define a formal system. It has nothing to do of true or false which are always relative things depending of the formal system you define (paradigm).

You should read Gödel's incompleteness theorems

To define a paradigm such as "The only Universal and Fundamental value of all economic system is individual human being", it is not a question of true or false. It's a question of defining a paradigm, a formal system in which you can developp what is true and what is false into that system knowing that in all formal system they are things true you cannot demonstrate (Gödel).

If you need to exchange about economics on other paradigm, it's not what I'm explaining, it's not what I discuss about, It's not what about I exchange with. You can create another discussion on the paradigm you want, define it, apply it and follow it if you think it will give good results, do it, learn about the results, change it if it's not good, keep it if it's good.

[Red]

You should read Gödel's incompleteness theorems

I have a degree in computer science. I'm well versed in Gödel, Turing, and Church.

I understand your concept when you say "formal system". What I'm saying is the formal system you are proposing is already been tried and it is a repeated FAIL.

If you are trying to say, I'm designing a formal system. As such, things which are true and things which are false EXIST, but you can't through logic, mathematics or programming PROVE these things to be true or false. Then yes that statement is true.

But I you say, "We should do this! It is good!" and you assert that, I cannot disprove such a thing formally, than you can't prove such a think formally either.

You can say, "This is an experiment and it will prove itself over time. Just like a program either shows itself to "halt" or "not halt" given enough time, even though no one one can formally prove what it will do."

So I'm saying, "I HAVE SEEN this program run before. It halts. It halted the first time. It halted the second time. It halts every time because there are no changes to it or its inputs. Get over yourself.

It's been done, I've seen it. It fails.
Because you don't understand how it could fail doesn't mean it will stop failing.

-----

There is an old American bit of sarcasm that goes:

If you are not a liberal when you a young, you have no heart.
If you are not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain.

Congratulations, you've discovered your heart.
Keep on searching, perhaps you'll discover...

[Galuel]

So I'm saying, "I HAVE SEEN this program run before. It halts. It halted the first time. It halted the second time. It halts every time because there are no changes to it or its inputs. Get over yourself.

It's been done, I've seen it. It fails.
Because you don't understand how it could fail doesn't mean it will stop failing.

If you think you identified precisely some clear causes and conditions in which a desire effect don't occur, you should then try to change causes and conditions to obtain the desire effect, or simply abandon to desire this effect.

Just do as you think it will be good, and stop doing what you clearly identify as bad.

I can't say more to you.

Thank you for having read what I written here.

Regards,

[Red]

If you think you identified precisely some clear causes and conditions in which a desire effect don't occur, you should then try to change causes and conditions to obtain the desire effect, or simply abandon to desire this effect.

Just do as you think it will be good, and stop doing what you clearly identify as bad.

I can't say more to you.

Thank you for having read what I written here.

Regards,

Thank you very much for the discussion. Even though I disagree it was interesting and worth my time. I like to know how others view the world.

I did abandon the desired effect long ago. But for the same reason I abandoned my desire to become a sea Pirate. It turns out the reality didn't match my imagination.


I wish you great personal success persuading other people. For you that is a personal quest. The adventure will pay you dividends in your future.

I also encourage you to build a bitcoin clone that implements your monetary policy. I posted a plausible way to get others to switch from bitcoin to your model in another thread.

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=808.msg9163#msg9163

Currencies like bitcoin are an inexpensive way to explore economic philosophy questions without putting at risk society as a whole.

Cheers!