Trevor Rose

This conversation is closed.

Evolving a new system of economic interaction not based on limited supply currency

I have been developing (with a good friend of mine) a way to replace our existing global systems of limited supply currency based economics with something new.

I have been developing a new methodology of sharing the profits of human endeavour.

I have developed a business system around this, which will enable it to come into being, evolve & grow... but I need non-traditional funding to get it started, and I will also need a lot of very smart people on board to help me develop & evolve the new system, as well as its many various projects.

The core systems are based on the principles of ecological systems modelling.

One of the key elements of this new system is that nature itself is fundamentally considered to be one of the "share holders", and thus must always be compensated for its investment.

This must be done, because no matter how sustainable we make our technologies, it is our economic system itself which is undermining our efforts, which is socially & environmentally unsustainable now, and always will be.

It is amazing in this information age, that our currency is "information dumb", and by this, I mean that it says absolutely nothing other than how much of it there is. Currency only has that one piece of data, its face "value", but as this number is not scientifically connected to anything at all, the term "value" is a complete misnomer.

I know there are still many people in the world with money & power who would be afraid of such a change, because they would see it as the diminishing of their empire & power... but all things must change. What this is really all about is developing a new system for economic interaction between people which does not create slaves, but instead empowers people, and where resources are not wasted, but always put to the best use we know how.

I want to know who out there will join with me in seeing this thing made, this is no longer just a theory, it can be done, and only needs now money & people on board to make it happen.

  • thumb
    May 31 2012: We are closing this conversation early, as it has repeatedly crossed the line into disrespectful comments and personal attacks.
    • thumb
      May 31 2012: TED, I am now going to post your failures... well done... you are clearly not a forum for any kind of real debate
    • thumb
      May 31 2012: and it amazes me that you have the utter disinterest in helping this very important discussion by shutting down those comments from people only interested in criticizing who never once attempted to understand enough about it to actually warrant criticism, and you have failed in your responses to me when censoring me but not them... i started this discussion, and you have allowed abusive people onto it, and then shut down the whole discussion instead of censoring them, because i dared criticise your failures in moderating it
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    May 30 2012: you talked about the proposal, but i don't see the proposal itself.

    however, the very essence of money is that it is limited in quantity. so getting rid of this "limitation" is getting rid of its function.
    • thumb
      May 31 2012: i am not saying that the limited supply of money does not have a useful function, it does, and I recognise that... the useful function of the limited supply of money is that it forces people to act... if you want money, there is only a certain amount of it out there, and hence you have to do something to go get some of it... and the potentially positive aspect of this, is that it is supposed to make people contribute towards society as a whole (do something productive)...

      ...however, this is not the end of the story...

      The limited supply of money, and some other factors, also have negative effects, and these negative effects are ultimately so negative & so irreversible, that I am arguing that whether we like it or not, there will come a point in time where no matter what technology we develop, there will be nothing we can do to counter these negative effects, unless we have by that stage managed to get off this one planet & spread to other areas to distribute the impact of our society on nature.

      Yes it is possible that we will one day achieve this... however:

      1 - it is less likely we will achieve it while the limiting factors of money continue to undermine human society & stifle our true potential

      2 - there is no guarantee that we will develop these abilities for space travel & colonization at that level before the proverbial shite really hits the fan

      3 - it may be that we theoretically understand how to do it, but have long since chewed up the resources required to achieve it (particularly energy resources) before we get there

      4 - the whole time we keep the existing system, people are suffering through the poverty it is causing, and the environment is suffering from the exploitation it cannot support... this is causing sadness in massive levels for countless people, it is causing the extinction of species at an ever increasing rate... and the only way anyone can justify it, is by having really appallingly low standards.

      I for one, expect more of us.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 31 2012: my logic is not remotely flawed & you havent shown it to be so... your assertion that it is does not make it so.

          yes i can dismiss money as a fundamentally flawed tool by pointing out its flaws & suggesting we should replace it because these flaws are not fixable because of its fundamental mechanics... your claim that i cannot is nothing but an assertion again... a completely unsubstantiated assertion...

          where is your evidence, where is your rational discussion, your reasons?

          nothing i have said is even remotely related to whether I LIKE money coming in limited amounts... my liking or not liking this is irrelevant, and I never stated anything which warrants that comment from you.

          the only things i said I like or dont like, is the fact that these problems with our existing currency system cause problems for society & the environment... and if you DO like those problems, and you DO like currency as it exists regardless of those problems, and you dont think we should do anything to change it... then i think that speaks volumes about your character.

          yes i want a world ultimately without this existing form of economic system... because it is a flawed system, and because it can be improved by such a massive amount & it is overdue for it to die... it is obsolete by its inability to become more socially & environmentally sustainable... and I made no effort to hide that, are you serious you needed me to state it?

          you cant brush me off as a "commie" anymore than I can brush you off as a "right wing fascist"

          you dont see what I am discussing because it is beyond you... and you have done nothing to attempt to understand it, and if you have, then i am rather underwhelmed by your inability to grasp the concepts, and your inability to explain properly your exact reasons for not agreeing, beyond the very limited way in which you just make unsubstantiated assertions.
      • thumb
        May 31 2012: if i say i think round oranges are bad for health, one might reasonably point out that all oranges are round, so what am i talking about? how i plan to make non-round oranges? it is a very reasonable question. if i'm against oranges in general, i should say oranges are bad for health, to still be wrong, but at least make a point. if you are against money, don't talk about "limited supply money". get your argument straight and clean.

        i could call you a "commie" if i would have any clue about your proposal. but we still don't have. pointing out some problems with the current system does not constitute as a proposal. what is th e proposal?

        unless we hear something new, i'm not going to participate in this conversation anymore.
  • thumb
    May 29 2012: One other comment, for those of you who are familiar with the ideas that are being proposed in general that society should be based on a meritocracy, or that our economics should be based on sustainable resource usage, and that there should be social sustainability in the way that the rewards & resources of our activities as a species are distributed.


    Part of the business strategy around it is a plan for its exponential growth, because every person who gets involved has the maximum possibility of advancing their own projects.

    ...yes, I am quite serious about this... it is literally ready to go, and once started, will evolve & grow while simultaneously creating projects in every imaginable realm of endeavour, which are all based on creating a more friendly, sustainable, and exciting world.

    I posted this conversation in the TED forums in the hope that people with resources & connections who are serious about this change taking place, can come forward & put their money where their mouth is, rather than everyone spending the next 5 - 10 years debating how to do it.
    • thumb
      May 31 2012: Deal me out it is a bad idea.
      • thumb
        May 31 2012: i am not biting on that Pat... you dont know anywhere near enough to make that judgement call... having asked exactly zero questions... I cant say I respect your opinion, as I dont have any information with which to offer it that, I do respect your right to express it though.
        • thumb
          May 31 2012: You have the audacity to disrespect my opinion here on TED, all I have to say is get in line.

          Re proposal and my lack of understanding I might suprise you.

          The very definition of money is an symbol backed by confidence. This is the reason it is often backed by gold or something valuable. This is one thing about your proposal that is ambigous which means I don't have any confidence in your proposal.

          You appear to have the notion that the economy is a zero sum game, this is patently not true, the pie grows.

          You appear to have the notion that you know best or that world's affairs should can be regulated again this is patently untrue. One day in the economy contain's hundreds billions of decesions made by individuals following their own best interest which connect all 7 billion of us every day through these transactioins. This is natural law that only works when it is left alone. When it meddled with it inevitably ends up in failure and suffering.

          The very definition of economics is the study of scarce resources that have alternative uses. This means that todays scarcities are tommorows plenties if the free market is allowed to work it's magic. E.g. energy todays scarcity in oil will result in a more plentiful energy source tommorow as the price rises someone will come up with a better solution unless someone is allowed to meddle with or regulate natural law out of it.
      • thumb
        May 31 2012: do you understand what the proposal is? where to find it?
        • thumb
          May 31 2012: AND Pat, since you have blocked me from replying to you directly, I have to reply to you via Kris... and I think that is without doubt quite cowardly of you, which is not name calling TED, it is an OBSERVATION based on evidence he provided himself.

          Economics IS NOT the study of scarce resources that have alternative uses yaddah yaddah yaddah... economics is the study of the effect of MONEY on & from other things (including the scarce resources you mentioned)... what you said is what economists THINK economics is a study of, because they dont understand real science, and because they think that their comprehension of basic arithmetic & their use of it in counting how much money they made & how they made it, constitutes a science... it is a joke of a science, and every other scientist (and especially the mathematicians) know this.

          Did you know that economics has to hire real mathematicians to do their maths for them, because the economists cant DO that level of maths for themselves in the first place?

          Did you know that none of those real mathematicians, nor any other real scientist has ever been involved in developing any of the underlying core principles of economics? ...and so any maths they do, is only counting the numbers of a fundamentally flawed system?

          ...of course you dont Pat, you believe in it as religiously as a person of faith does believe in their own particular sect or cult.
      • thumb
        May 31 2012: No Pat, everything you said was assumption about what you think it is I believe, and you are utterly wrong, and I cannot even see where you drew that conclusion from... you certainly havent shown it.

        Krisztian - have you ever opened your eyes & noticed how TED has a severe character limit & no ability to embed anything? ...did it ever occur to you that for me to explain completely such a complex system in text alone in this minimal space would be an impossibility, and what I was hoping via this supposedly intellectual forum is that I would encounter something other than trolls who do nothing more than look for something to criticize & then do so without bothering to look for anything other than ammunition to criticize with?

        Both you & Pat have patently failed to be polite, patently failed to take the slightest interest in asking real questions, and patently failed to see the substance of what i have written and thereby determine what sensible questions you could have asked... and I dont know if your comments pass as clever in your own circles, but they certainly do not do so in mine... i do not know anyone who would be anything other than utterly embarrassed to post what you both have... and it says way more about yourselves than anything else.

        ...and finally TED > I came to this forum in good faith posting a concept which has been worked on for many years by myself and another guy who is an EXPERT in the field of ecological systems modelling, and whom has completed his MASTERS in instrumentation engineering, along with several other post grad degrees at RMIT in Melbourne Australia.... and not only do you ALLOW these people to harass without reason rationality or evidence, but if I am remotely impolite in my responses to their un-researched & un-educated abusiveness, you censor me??

        TED, you are either going to rectify this AND publicly post a major apology about all this, OR I am going to publicly post not only a record of this discussion, but your censorship
        • thumb
          May 31 2012: Trevor I resent your statement I'm patently not clever.

          If my assumptions are wrong enlighten me. I have studied this subject more than a little.
  • thumb

    R H

    • 0
    May 27 2012: I'm not sure what you mean by 'limited supply currency'. Gov'ts print as much as they want whenever they want. Could you please explain. Also, your new econ system has 'nature' as a shareholder, but I'm not sure what is traded or 'shares of what?'. If there is no internationally agreed-upon medium of exchange, what will we trade with each other? What would be the basis of trade amongst mankind in this 'new system'?
    • thumb
      May 27 2012: currency is always in limited supply, there is never an infinite amount of currency in circulation, that is impossible. Look at it as a snap shot in time, there is never anything other than a certain amount of currency in supply. Their ability to print new money does not change this.

      So far as what is traded, nothing is traded... information is RECORDED... and the information which is recorded, is a mathematically determined contribution that each element of a system makes with respect to a desired outcome... aspects of efficiency (over & under-driving a system) are included in these calculations according to the principles of Maximum Power / Maximum emPower (see the works of the late Howard Odum on ecological systems modelling & the related use of thermodynamics - energy, emergy, transformity, exergy, entropy etc.)

      Nature therefore is a contributor to all processes, as much as a person or resource is also a contributor... the respective value of each input with respect to the desired output can be calculated, and there is at least 1 group i know of already gathering this data, though the form in which it needs to be gathered for this application is slightly different, i believe the numbers can be converted... and the initially skeletal system, will evolve over time (internally) to become more sophisticated

      the shares are a modification of an existing financial instrument called a redeemable preference share, and they are shares in the various projects which would be conducted to make financial profit in the existing financial system... even though, it is the objective ultimately to replace this system, as the new internal system evolves.

      So the system evolving internally within this company, must interface externally to the rest of the world & the existing financial framework, which is does (through the share mechanism alluded to).

      So the basis of trade is ultimately no longer a basis of trade, it is a basis of getting things done, and recording value of input
      • thumb
        May 28 2012: that sounds great, would fit as a end point in my plan to sustainability. I have just been reading some stuff about the plans of the White Dragon Society, similar stuff but with "posable heavy ramifications", not sure about alot of this stuff but some of it makes more sence than mass media take:

        The White Dragon Society proposes using humanity’s savings to end war, end poverty and stop environmental destruction. After that, humanity can be set on a path of exponential expansion into the universe. Our savings and our future planning can be devoted to such attainable goals as increased longevity, improved human abilities, free energy, the creation of new eco-systems, the expansion of life in all its forms and anything else scientifically possible and morally permissible that we can dream of.

        The White Dragon Foundation has been set up in order to attain these goals. It will carry them out by means of a meritocratically staffed international economic planning agency.

        There are indications coming from all over that the Old World Order is waging an all out offensive on all fronts in order to maintain its grip on global power.

        The world now faces a clear choice between the genocidal, racist religious fanatics who want to murder 5 billion people and a group that wants to end poverty, end war, stop environmental destruction and start a Golden Age.

        For more information:

        look forward to your thoughts
        • thumb
          May 28 2012: to be honest Geoff, I havent seen anything from anyone in the entire world yet that makes what I have been working on a component of their "thing"... and for the most part, with all due respect, all you seem to have is a very vague idea about something, with no particular strategic plan of making it happen... and I did a quick search on this white dragon society, and didnt find much... and dont particular relish the chance to go on wild goose chases... so if you have something valuable to contribute, that;s great i would love to hear it... but dont expect me to get excited about anything vague or ephemeral... i am way too cynical for that
      • thumb

        R H

        • 0
        May 28 2012: Ok. That helps. Thanks. So we get a mathematical value recorded for our efforts. Someone/group/commitee has set a value for the contribution that nature provides, therefore balancing the impact 'humans' can have on the natural world, giving nature a 'voice', so to speak, in our decisions regarding it's welfare (I hope I'm getting this right). 'Wire transfers' may be the precursor to such an exchange. Very interesting. It seems reasonable that we will develop some sort of economic numerical value to natural resources since our impact is on the verge of 'overselling' natural capacity. Maybe we could assess some value to the poor and exploited people of the world also which could provide adequate consideration for them. Thanks for the idea and good luck!
        • thumb
          May 29 2012: no, there is no decisions made by a committee, it is all based on ecological systems modelling & maths... and it is all automated behind the scenes (eventually), because it is not the kind of thing the average person can wrap their brain around 20 times a day... all they need to do, is have their activities & the outcomes & data relating to their activities logged, the system then makes the calculations for them.

          if decisions were made by a committee, that would make them as arbitrary as the existing financial system which is based on such ludicrous things as emotion, confidence, and bargaining position... none of which is directly tied to any physical phenomena that makes any sense to tie it to, or is in any way anything by highly variable.

          in brief, the process of ecological systems modelling is to define a boundary for a system you wish to analyse, this could be a pond, an office, or a community next to a forest... the model contains all the resources & elements of that system, and it also contains data about each element, & its interactions with other elements... and there is also data about the inputs & outputs of that system (which means that system once modelled, can then be treated like a "black-box" and its inputs can be mapped from the outputs of another system, and its own outputs can be mapped to the inputs of a system... and sometimes there is feedback from an output back into the same system as an input.

          this is a universal modelling language which can be applied to any system. what we model, is energy & emergy.. energy is measured in Joules, and emergy (embodied energy) is measured in emjoules (basically the same thing, except they are not free the way energy is)... kind of like the difference between kinetic & potential energy (but still different again).

          what this system would enable internally for the business which generates it, is an extremely efficient set of processes for its competitiveness against other businesses.
      • thumb

        R H

        • 0
        May 30 2012: Ok. I think I'm getting closer to understanding. So now I have some philosophical considerations. This system is 'all automated behing the scenes'. So 'someone' has to program it - to set it up. Someone has to evaluate what 'resources and elements of that system' need to be included in the calculations. It seems we would be reducing the human experience into non-empirical data. Unlike the rest of nature and the 'systems' we have observed and evaluated, humanity has consciousness and 'learns' from experience and time. It creates its own realities as it progresses. Our 'models' expire as we advance, and we don't take kindly to living within systematic limitations. The current markets and financial systems evolved freely from trial and error, and are open to constant fluctuations and shifts of emphasis. Our scientific and mathematical capabilities are impressive, but our ecological system observations and evaluations are based on these limited capabilities. To 'systemetize' human endeavors and economic behavior with an 'automated' exchange loop as a result of these observations would seem to be obsolete upon installation. We are constantly re-evaluating our understanding of the universe and nature. I don't see how there could be feedback loops within a 'modeled' system to discern what new human requirements are not being met. I am not trying to be critical, just to understand. Thanx.
        • thumb
          May 30 2012: I read your reply, but I dont really understand how you came to that conclusion, especially since I see the exact opposite, can you explain your reasoning in a different way?

          The existing financial systems of the world are extremely flawed...

          Currency ONLY states its face value; it doesnt care where or how you got it, and this makes theft possible, unfairness possible, & all sorts of things possible ...but I could not list all the flaws of currency here in this forum, that is an article of its own.

          So far as feedback loops in modelling is concerned, that is actually quite easy, and the problems you raise are no where near as big as you may imagine them to be. but I cannot explain it to you without first giving you a lesson in maths & science, and even then it would be a lot easier done face to face so i can draw you pictures.

          Could I ask you to accept that some things you will not understand in this discussion?

          I think you are interpreting a lot of things in entirely the wrong way, and far from being obsolete on installation, this system would create a company very difficult for others to compete with if they were in the exact same industry producing the same or similar products & services - and there are a whole host of reasons for that.

          Besides all of this, the comparison between what I am proposing & the existing economic systems of the world, really comes down to this:

          1 - the existing systems have already failed in delivering sustainability & friendliness to both society & the environment, they are absolutely undeniably destructive & unsustainable, all evidence shows this conclusively & irrefutably.

          2 - as the world's population grows, and the earth's already taxed ability to replenish itself shrinks further, doing nothing is not an option.

          3 - the existing system is incapable of being part of the solution, because of its flaws... either it has to be redesigned from scratch, or replaced by something without flaws.
  • thumb
    May 27 2012: i agree that there is economic inequity in the world, both in developed and developing countries and that the environment is under ever more strain, and that these issues must be addressed and made sustainable.

    Not sure by what you mean by limited supply currency? As in redistrubition? Because 80%+ of global capitial is virtual, i.e. not enough printed cash to pay out everyone at once.

    Like to hear about your plan, i have one too,

    maybe a collaboration if compatible?
    • thumb
      May 27 2012: thanks Geoffrey - have a look at the reply to the comment by R H above, and let me know if that answers your questions... it is quite difficult putting all this here in text, because it is about 20 years work in total, so i am just summarizing the core things & the highlights of that, but that is like the slick of the icicle dripping off the tip of the iceberg... happy to talk more, and thanks for the link i will check it out now :-)
  • May 27 2012: I am the first to say something.
    • thumb
      May 27 2012: thank you... er, for that :-)