TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Direct Democracy implementation built using a new monetary system

Why is it with the technology we have today, we do not have an abundance of the necessities of life for everybody? It's the imbalance of wealth created by our monetary system.
What if you could live off of working only a few days, a day, or even a few hours a week? What if, instead of voting for an individual to make decisions for you, the things you do every day shape the world you want to live in? I'm hoping The Registry would do this, and I'm trying to find reasons as to why it wouldn't.
1. Back the definition of a dollar to time as the universal common commodity
2. Make it so that an individual cannot charge more than the amount of time it took to bring a utility into existence. By charging more, you're essentially stating your time is worth more than someone else.
3. Provide incentive and deterrents into society to bring it closer to where society wants to be. They are:
3.1 Provide a high abundance of quality goods and services for everyone
3.2 Deter people from using scarce resources from doing it
4. To provide incentive, introduce imbalance in all transactions so that the amount paid to the vendor does not have to equal the cost. The formula would be:
4.1 Cost = DT/S, Paid = DTRQ/S where D= demand, S = supply, R=Scarce resource factor, Q = quality factor
4.2 D & S are derived directly from the people in society by stating something that they want that isn't readily available, and by publishing what they offer. R is voted on by society to deem resources as scarce. Q is derived by individuals liking a transaction
5. Allow each member of the system to have a negative balance, interest free, up to a prescribed limit defined by society. Loans and interest don't exist.
6. Be able to publish and vote on a list of infrastructure projects. All the extra 'time money' everyone has from everything becoming so cheap gets allocated towards these projects, the cost decreasing by popularity.

Read more here:
http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Paquetp

Share:

Closing Statement from Patrick Paquette

Thank you all for your comments. I hope i've answered some of your questions about the problems you've seen with the registry, and as far as i can see, there's no show stoppers and the rest is left to finish the game to gather some simulated data

I've updated the wiki a bit since i've posted this, if you care to take a gander.

  • Feb 27 2014: You have just described a system where nobody will choose to do difficult jobs or take jobs that require a great deal of training and have great responsibility. China tried this shortly after the Communists took over. It failed, utterly. They had to force people at gunpoint to work.
    • Feb 27 2014: If the demand is there, there is incentive. Things that are hard deter people from providing the utility, which effects the supply. As supply hgoes down but demand stays the same or goes up, then a unit of the providers time is worth more.
      • Mar 3 2014: Hey, that's called a "free market", and the value of the "time" is symbolized by a thing called "money".
    • Mar 21 2014: The problem with the free market with our existing monetary system is the incentive is to just get rich. What if, by getting rich, you also provided more abundance of the things that everyone needs (as opposed to just those who can afford your utility)?
  • Mar 3 2014: "2. Make it so that an individual cannot charge more than the amount of time it took to bring a utility into existence. By charging more, you're essentially stating your time is worth more than someone else."

    A locksmith is hired and repairs a lock in ten minutes. Should he only be paid ten minutes' worth of money? What about the training and experience that allow him to do a job so quickly? If you want to take those things into consideration, how do you measure the amount of time that he took to become so proficient? You can't.
    • Mar 3 2014: If you're that good at it, you can fix more locks than the next guy and get paid more (because you have more opportunity to utilize Q). Plus, who is going to pay a locksmith a day to unlock a door when the next guy can do it faster and therefore cheaper? Competition is still there, but what if there's a monopoly/oligopoly? Same problem as today.
    • Mar 3 2014: Also, if the trading is so hard, then there is a deterrent to produce the utility. Which means the demand well likely be highly than supply. Meaning you get paid more and it cost more.
      • Mar 5 2014: Okay. I thought you were suggesting that there be a universal rate of converting time to money.
  • Feb 28 2014: Yes I think that is what gotme in the math. Also I feel like there should be more variables perhaps but you may very well be right.
    • Feb 28 2014: Thanks. Yes, there's going to be more variables for sure, as people propose problems (see the discussion I had with Mr. Colera). This is just the first iteration. The registry can be adjusted to provide the right incentives and deterrents.
  • thumb
    Feb 28 2014: I think I follow this, but the one point I am unclear... Who?

    Who allows each member...
    Who makes the limit on charges...
    Who deters people...
    • Feb 28 2014: So the Registry is a system, with software that interfaces with it (apps on phones, websites, visa cards, integrations with social media, etc). With the system will be the administrators. They're technician, who have gone to school to learn about how to properly administer it.
      They will be responsible for things like identity authentication (like the people who are responsible for Green cards in the US or SIN cards in Canada). They will be responsible for monitoring the active proposals and determining if they trace to requirements regarding adjusting the factors. Here's an example of the type of factors that could exist:

      http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Paquetp#Can_I_see_an_example_of_a_transaction_when_demand_is_more_than_supply.3F

      In that link, I talk about a Cost Demand Factor vs. a Paid Demand Factor as an example of a factor. It need not be linear, it could be complex. But this value and the equations are determined by the votes of the people in the direct democracy, but I really wouldn't call it so much as a vote as more like complaining. People will state things like "There's not enough doctors", or "the quality of this food is horrible", or "I'm concerned from these reports from all these reputable scientists that we're polluting our environment by using carbon fuel". When there's sufficient votes (percentage can also be defined separately), the administrators publish a change to the factors. Let's look at each of these. Doctors: Introduce a Paid Demand factor for doctors (from example). Quality food: Introduce a means to do a -1, or dislike, that affects the Paid side of the equation. Fuel: The R factor is set/adjusted for fuel.
      So, the people complain about things, administrator convert to factors and publish them with reports and such as to why they chose those factors (like how we set interest rates). What do you think?
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2014: Here is where I get weak kneed. You have a complex computer system and administrators. People.
        So who checks the people?
        I can see a governance system where a totally contained and self sustained computer system taking information from the people and make adjustments.
        But then someone has to do something or change something according to the computer and refuses. You know people... someone will invariably try to get over the system Someone will try to input data incorrectly to effect an outcome.
        I think the what has to be addressed is the "people" in this system.
        There is an opportunity to insert dysfunction.
        No large group will probably ever agree totally on anything.

        For example, I hate beets, a big complaint from me but everyone else likes beets. I am angry. there are beets on my dish... I will get even....I hate beets.
        An overly simplistic example, but the point I make is that the Achilles heel I see is the people in this proposition. How do you deal with people
        • Feb 28 2014: Bwahaha! Beats! That's awesome.

          But seriously. Who decides what the 'inflation' rate is today? Who decides the bank interest rates? There's a bunch of people of know a bunch of stuff about economics and look at GDP and growth and risk and decide - boom, this is the interest rate (or factor) to use from now on.

          The system has to make it simple. You would instruct the system that a particular category needs more incentive and instead of saying "I want to set the factor to blah", you would say "I want there to be x more doctors in 2 months" and it would derive the factor based on historical data of other incentives. And if we deploy it incrementally (local regions at a time) its less risky and we can build some data. We can also build the data from simulation in social networking games.

          These guys on meta government had some ideas:

          http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Consensus

          But they're not there yet. I sorta like their scoring ideas, but really it's all about incrementally building the system and working out the kinks. Finding loop holes can happen in the simulations in the game too, that's one thing I'm trying to introduce. The current idea is I'm making multiple ways to win the game base on the type of person you want to simulate.
          Ambitious and Greedy - make the most time money
          Not Abmitious but Greedy - try to work the least and make the most time money
          Ambitious but not Greedy - try to make other people more money
          Neither ambitious and not greedy - work the least and try to survive.

          I agree no large group would ever totally agree on anything - but they can agree to proceses, couldn't they? like we do in our voting system today...50% + 1?

          How do we deal with the people?

          Education is key. I'm hoping people propose that it is important. We need to have less sheeples.
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2014: Now you lost me.
        I don't know how you educate people in your world, but here, our educational system went south some 50 years ago.....seriously, if there weren't a lot of smart kids from India coming here .I'd be using smoke signals instead of a computer.
  • Feb 28 2014: Ok I am confused on 2, you can't price anything more than it took to make? This suggests time equal in value to money and the distance required to bring that material to the person making it is irrelivant. Also, the dollar backs a lot of things inthe world, but the united states would have to have a heck of a better econy for the entire world to use it.Your math in 4.1 seems... off.
  • Feb 27 2014: I think I would not fit in such society where time equal money. I do no work, but, I eat well, and drive a good car. I am retired with a good retirement plan.
    • Feb 27 2014: You may not work now, but you did in your youth I'm sure. You would be living off of all this extra time money you've saved up as opposed to some investments that are giving you interest.
  • Feb 25 2014: every day work to shape the world we live in? heck i hope not. i know very little about so much, just what is my opinion worth? i know the system we have isn't perfect, but the things that make our world the way it is are incredibly complex, and we have neither the time nor the expertise to be properly informed on all the intricacies of every situation and decision, which is why we have representatives to work it all out for us. would we could do to make it better though is to at least ensure that our representatives are making informed votes, getting information from experts and studies to make reasonable informed decisions, and not just what they personally think.

    there's a reason we ask police to enforce the law, doctors to do surgery, sportspeople to represent us at the olympics, artists to paint, and gardeners to tend gardens. why on earth would you want people who have no idea how to run a country running a country?
    • Feb 25 2014: I didn't elaborate on that, and your not the first person to bring it up. I'll make sure to add it to the questions section. The thing you vote on are not the solutions, just the problems. If you vote to say I want everyone to have a plane, for cheap, no one will be able to implement that and it won't be very popular. But, your implementation is categorized into cheap and convenient transportation, which adds a vote to that, which someone can implement. There will still be police, judges, doctors, certifications, etc. Even mayors and other political people would exist, but act more like CEOs, and there would be more than one per region competing with each other to provide the best service.

      Great question though. I too know only so little, but what if I had a means to check where the things i do know are needed most. The registry does this too.