Question, based on THIS VIDEO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoCOagL69_s)
So there's a whole bunch of number-techy-onomics going on but the bigger picture gist made sense to me in a kind of thinking tiny and between the lines. But my immediate gut instinct is telling me that it should be even simpler. If we just set up an online bank for all of the third world people and inject an account worth a couple of hundred K in each of their names, they can now purchase goods but not assets unless offered by way of export sale (they can't club together and asset strip microsoft or anything)
Suddenly everyone's order books are fuller than they've ever been but all the money is coming back here. We all get rich and go apeshit buying stuff. The filthy rich will probably get even more disgustingly filithier. So the next month do we give them twice as much?
This obviously can't happen, right, because...
Remember when Ireland was going to get rich selling each other houses?
I'm honored you think I'm an economist, but I'm really not.
From what I can gather from Krugman, printing money is a good idea only when certain conditions are met, something called a "liquidity trap". I think it's something to do with what happens when the interest rate approaches zero.
Anyway, I have no idea what the economic situation is in these other companies, or how prone they are to corruption, etc.
And that's pretty much the limit of my economic knowledge.
K, I thought you were a money-guy. I'm thinking this whole "economics" thing isn't working optimally. It's overcomplicated I think but one other simple facet is that the supply of money is kept scarce. It's how it used to be, back in the days where all they could produce was the odd cart wheel or sturdy hessian smock. Nowadays the only reason there aren't more things being produced is cos the people at the plants are getting laid off.
Right now they're injecting cash in at the top and waiting for it to trickle down. And it's not 's not trickle down economics we need, it's flood-up. Fill in the holes with the starving people in, with a sea of cash. Here's the simple facts of the matter - cash buys food. People are starving. For a lot of people, it's because they can't afford the food. Give them the cash and let companies like Tesco and Sports Direct and little guys, construction companies and the like, organise shipping the goods and services out. Opening up retail outlets and setting up projects. Getting the increased production out to the consumers.
Our life might be shit but compared to starving fuckers, our life is the hilton. We don't give enough of a collective shit to pay to save our fellow apes and have to take a significant drop in our living standards. This way would help out the needing help contingent and filter back to us, making us even better off.
I'ma keep blurting out shit like this, like a retard, until someone explains it to me in a language I can understand, cos right now, I'm not getting it.
Do you want to know how they're "injecting" the cash?
They lend it to the major banks, at nearly zero interest rate. The banks then turn around, and lend it to us, at much higher interest rates.
And yet the banks still regularly need bailouts and support. Allegedly. Despite working on a business model where it's literally impossible to not make a profit. Unless you're making stupendously stupid gambles with the money or something. But of course, bankers are sober and repsonsible people, so I'm sure that's not happening.
Quote from: Cain on February 26, 2014, 09:06:09 PM
Do you want to know how they're "injecting" the cash?
They lend it to the major banks, at nearly zero interest rate. The banks then turn around, and lend it to us, at much higher interest rates.
And yet the banks still regularly need bailouts and support. Allegedly. Despite working on a business model where it's literally impossible to not make a profit. Unless you're making stupendously stupid gambles with the money or something. But of course, bankers are sober and repsonsible people, so I'm sure that's not happening.
What's really funny is that, for a while, they DIDN'T lend it out at a higher rate.
They bought T-bills with it, and wound up basically charging US interest on the loans we gave THEM.
Which is Emperor Palpatine level evil. In a twisted way, you almost have to admire it.
That's exactly what I'm talking about, Cain. They're injecting it wrong. It happens at the top of the inequality pyramid. Meanwhile third world starves.
Hypothesise, please - they do nothing other than invent a whole bunch of cash balances and give the people who don't have anything an account number. What happens next?
Yes, that's true. They did the same over here actually. Our local factory nearly went under as a result of those kind of games. They're still not lending as much as they used to, though I'm not entirely clear why. Other than them being evil, impulsive and not very bright, I mean.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2014, 09:14:22 PM
That's exactly what I'm talking about, Cain. They're injecting it wrong. It happens at the top of the inequality pyramid. Meanwhile third world starves.
Hypothesise, please - they do nothing other than invent a whole bunch of cash balances and give the people who don't have anything an account number. What happens next?
Uh, third world ecomomies improve making cheap mineral and resource extraction harder and much more economically and politically expensive?
At a guess, talking really broadly.
I'm not an economist, but as best as I understand the idea in the first post wouldn't really work.
1) Corruption.
Every country has it, it's just the wealthy ones are better at hiding it. There's a good chance that as soon as the project is on the boards, people in the USA will start trying to find ways to game it in order to make money. Embezzlement is the tip of the ice berg. A surprising number of non-profits just plain don't devote most of their money to their cause (http://www.ibtimes.com/worst-charities-non-profits-spend-most-their-money-fundraising-1298829). The worst spend all their money on fundraising and paying their high-level employees. By the way, making the company look good by swaying public opinion in order to get the governemt to give more funds would count as fundraising.
2) Guilt
Not every single 3rd world occupant needs or wants money nor are we really seeing the full picture from what news reporters send over. I'll use Africa as an example as it's a popular target. Some bushman in Africa would see money as pretty useless considering he'd need to go 40 miles to a city in order to use it. He's happy as he is with his wife and his cattle. He and his family aren't asking for our help. Even city dwellers in Africa might be happy as they are- some richer, some pooer but overall no worse than in parts of the USA. Not all of them will want our country's help even if times are hard.
Ever notice how it's usually people who just plain aren't the group in question always saying what's best for the group? Also, ever notice the sheer guilt they tend to toss out there? We need to stop it. We should be listening to them if we really want to help them, not coming up with crazy schemes they may not even want. Here are Africans wanting to collect Radiators for Norway as a parody of these programs! (http://www.africafornorway.no/)
3) Good Luck enforcing it
There's a good chance that combining the first two will result in people getting the money when they don't need it, illegally or not, then using fake documents to buy and sell domestic goods instead of international ones (which are more expensive, by the way). Chances are they will be more clever than I can be right now. Either way, maybe 15-25% of the money that actually made it into people's hands will filter back to the USA at best. I really doubt anyone will want to enforce it, anyway, as it's still helping the country it's meant to "help".
Quote from: Cain on February 26, 2014, 09:17:31 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2014, 09:14:22 PM
That's exactly what I'm talking about, Cain. They're injecting it wrong. It happens at the top of the inequality pyramid. Meanwhile third world starves.
Hypothesise, please - they do nothing other than invent a whole bunch of cash balances and give the people who don't have anything an account number. What happens next?
Uh, third world ecomomies improve making cheap mineral and resource extraction harder and much more economically and politically expensive?
At a guess, talking really broadly.
Certain resources become genuinely scarce. Is any of it life threatening or could life as we know it sustain a three thousand pound bag of sugar or whatever pops out the weirdsphere?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2014, 09:24:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 26, 2014, 09:17:31 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2014, 09:14:22 PM
That's exactly what I'm talking about, Cain. They're injecting it wrong. It happens at the top of the inequality pyramid. Meanwhile third world starves.
Hypothesise, please - they do nothing other than invent a whole bunch of cash balances and give the people who don't have anything an account number. What happens next?
Uh, third world ecomomies improve making cheap mineral and resource extraction harder and much more economically and politically expensive?
At a guess, talking really broadly.
Certain resources become genuinely scarce. Is any of it life threatening or could life as we know it sustain a three thousand pound bag of sugar or whatever pops out the weirdsphere?
Probably not scarce, as such. But you'd see resource nationalism like in the 1950s and 60s. Increased wealth would involve a growing middle class and more educated nation, who would probably be upset that Shell, for example, is making so much money in, lets say, the Niger Delta. And with the resources that affluence, of a sort, and organisational ability and knowledge bring, they'd probably make it harder for politicians in Lagos to do so. They might argue for nationalisation, like Chavez or Mossadegh, or they might just argue for preferential treatment for Nigerian firms (to continue with a theme), or increased taxation on international companies.
And that would affect the bottom lines of MNCs based in Europe and America, and make them sad. And when they get sad, they tell big sobby sad stories to their friends in the intelligence community. And then mysteriously, coup attempts would occur.
So in brief, it would inconvenience the people who have the power to lobby (or more directly insist) that it not happen?
Yes. Banks of course work hand-in-hand with both international firms whose activities may impinge on national interest (such as but not only oil) and the intelligence community too.
So it's one nice, big, circlejerk of people whose interests are served by keeping certain parts of the world poor, in debt, and ruled by a small, paranoid elite who mostly rely on Europe and America for their weapons and luxury goods.
Yeah, I'm still seeing no negative effects here. Just a couple of positive ones, I'd never thought about. The coups and political machinations are what's going to stack up in opposition to this kind of thing happening but, if it somehow managed to happen, in spite of that, who's going to be worse off? I'm hypothesising - actually doing this would seem nigh on impossible? If a method of beating these odds became obvious is it the right thing to attempt?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2014, 09:42:23 PM
Yeah, I'm still seeing no negative effects here. Just a couple of positive ones, I'd never thought about. The coups and political machinations are what's going to stack up in opposition to this kind of thing happening but, if it somehow managed to happen, in spite of that, who's going to be worse off? I'm hypothesising - actually doing this would seem nigh on impossible? If a method of beating these odds became obvious is it the right thing to attempt?
All the things Westerners now assume are their rights would get mor expensive. Anything made by externalizing costs (i.e. slave or child labor) like electronics, clothes or imported food would become prohibitively expensive. For Americans the worst part would be the increase in the cost of cars and fuel.
The rich won't really be influenced by this, though they would whine, they just couldn't buy a third yacht. The poor though, would be fucked beyond comprehension when Walmart and such suddenly start demanding reasonable prices for things like shirts and chocolate. Would
you make a shirt for that price? You know what a shirt should cost, it just never happened to you that you were actually expected to pay that much for it.
My thinking is that the poor of this country become less poor, too. This is an overall reduction of poorness strategy, there's more money floating about, everyone has a job cos millions of new consumers just came online. Those consumers are still working, only this time they're getting paid for it. Paid the same as their 1st world counterparts.
So there won't be cheap shit that people only buy because they're strapped for cash, cos no one is strapped for cash anymore.
Wouldn't the cheap shit just cost more, and everything the cost of everything else scales up from there?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 10:24:27 PM
Wouldn't the cheap shit just cost more, and everything the cost of everything else scales up from there?
Dunno. I'm back to net effect. Is this a worse thing than starving people. Or isn't there really that much of a problem with starving people in the world?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 10:24:27 PM
Wouldn't the cheap shit just cost more, and everything the cost of everything else scales up from there?
I hear that argument every time the minimum wage is raised, and it really doesn't happen, because the velocity of money is more important than the quantity of money, and poor people spend everything they earn.
Every time I find out how fast my money is going, I can't find it anymore.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 10:24:27 PM
Wouldn't the cheap shit just cost more, and everything the cost of everything else scales up from there?
I hear that argument every time the minimum wage is raised, and it really doesn't happen, because the velocity of money is more important than the quantity of money, and poor people spend everything they earn.
So it follows that if the poor people were earning more, there'd be more demand for all the things. More demand for all the things requires increased production, requires more people to produce it, who have more money who require more things...
Sure there will be backlogs on luxury yachts, In the meantime is everyone nourished? Is everyone medicined? Have people stopped being dead through sheer fucking ignorance and neglect?
I'm led to believe that our means of sharing out all the things (food included) is a causing a humanitarian crisis. And not just that. It's making all the comparatively well off people less well off than they could be. Doing the same stupid shit forever is not going to fix it. But no one is talking about changing this system, other than in small incremental patches that do not feed starving people.
It strikes me that the ones who stand to profit from the OP being implemented are the vast fucking majority of planet earth. All they have to do is demand it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2014, 11:33:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 10:24:27 PM
Wouldn't the cheap shit just cost more, and everything the cost of everything else scales up from there?
I hear that argument every time the minimum wage is raised, and it really doesn't happen, because the velocity of money is more important than the quantity of money, and poor people spend everything they earn.
So it follows that if the poor people were earning more, there'd be more demand for all the things. More demand for all the things requires increased production, requires more people to produce it, who have more money who require more things...
Sure there will be backlogs on luxury yachts, In the meantime is everyone nourished? Is everyone medicined? Have people stopped being dead through sheer fucking ignorance and neglect?
I'm led to believe that our means of sharing out all the things (food included) is a causing a humanitarian crisis. And not just that. It's making all the comparatively well off people less well off than they could be. Doing the same stupid shit forever is not going to fix it. But no one is talking about changing this system, other than in small incremental patches that do not feed starving people.
It strikes me that the ones who stand to profit from the OP being implemented are the vast fucking majority of planet earth. All they have to do is demand it.
You know what? You have convinced me to try this shit. The worst that could happen is the rich suffer as much as the poor suffer now. Good! Fuck em, this may lead to anarchy but as i said before: Anarchy is Justice.
Quote from: :regret: on February 26, 2014, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2014, 11:33:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 10:24:27 PM
Wouldn't the cheap shit just cost more, and everything the cost of everything else scales up from there?
I hear that argument every time the minimum wage is raised, and it really doesn't happen, because the velocity of money is more important than the quantity of money, and poor people spend everything they earn.
So it follows that if the poor people were earning more, there'd be more demand for all the things. More demand for all the things requires increased production, requires more people to produce it, who have more money who require more things...
Sure there will be backlogs on luxury yachts, In the meantime is everyone nourished? Is everyone medicined? Have people stopped being dead through sheer fucking ignorance and neglect?
I'm led to believe that our means of sharing out all the things (food included) is a causing a humanitarian crisis. And not just that. It's making all the comparatively well off people less well off than they could be. Doing the same stupid shit forever is not going to fix it. But no one is talking about changing this system, other than in small incremental patches that do not feed starving people.
It strikes me that the ones who stand to profit from the OP being implemented are the vast fucking majority of planet earth. All they have to do is demand it.
You know what? You have convinced me to try this shit. The worst that could happen is the rich suffer as much as the poor suffer now. Good! Fuck em, this may lead to anarchy but as i said before: Anarchy is Justice.
It needs turned into a meme and then turned into a movement. It needs a name. It's a fundamental shift in the way the world works. I've taken umpteen posts to convince one person on a forum that it's an idea worth exploring. This does not make it happen. It needs optimised. I'm prepared to work on this. Like IRL. I'll go door to door posting leaflets or whatever the fuck. How is this concept explained to everyone?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2014, 09:42:23 PM
Yeah, I'm still seeing no negative effects here. Just a couple of positive ones, I'd never thought about. The coups and political machinations are what's going to stack up in opposition to this kind of thing happening but, if it somehow managed to happen, in spite of that, who's going to be worse off? I'm hypothesising - actually doing this would seem nigh on impossible? If a method of beating these odds became obvious is it the right thing to attempt?
The only negative is that it would never happen because of the status quo opposition to it, like Paes said.
It would also cause significant political instability in the meantime, which probably wouldn't be a good thing, given the kind of tards who normally approve of political instability.
Political instability, I'm all in favour of. Complete economic meltdown I'm also a large fan of, given that our current political and economic system (or conglomerate) is an unworkable clusterfuck that does more harm than good. However, politics does give us one piece of ridiculously evil technology that could serve our goals short term - programmable human opinion
If it's so fucking easy to convince the world that something as retarded as democracy/fascism/communism/capitalism is a good idea, even in the face of it failing spectacularly at every given step, surely convincing them that something that's actually a good idea is a good idea should be possible, if a little difficult to gain initial traction?
I'm pretty sure that the most informed answer to this question will be "unknown" so I might as well give it a try...
I'm a fucking idiot. My immediate goal is to convince someone smarter to help me. In lieu of someone smarter, I'll settle for someone equally dumb.
So, the plan, boiled down, is printing money and giving it to the poorest subset of a society, right?
Isn't that the same as welfare with fiat currency?
So, you could call it "Welfiat".
Funnily enough "welfare" is one word that's been dancing around my head in connection with this idea. It struck me that the general opinion, in this context, is that "welfare" is a bad word. This illustrates (t me at least) just how utterly fucked in the head our society is, that the welfare of our starving, malnourished fellow human beings is a bad thing. It's a hefty paradigm shift, that's for sure.
The other thing that struck me, from the Ted talk I linked in the op, is that this "Printing of money" that is required is not unprecedented. That's what the "stimulus" was all about. Only they didn't stimulate the ones who needed it, the poor and the dying. They stimulated the rich assholes who were the problem in the first place.
So I'm thinking "Welfare Stimulus"
Two missions in one phrase:
1) Convincing most of the world that ensuring the "welfare" of sick and dying people is worthwhile. Historically this has been a tough nut to crack. Most of the privileged people on earth, even the ones living in so called "poverty" in developed nations couldn't give a flying fuck about people who actually have nothing, either to own or to eat or to drink in a lot of cases. If they did there wouldn't be a problem.
2) Money isn't a real thing in limited supply and we can, in fact, just invent a whole bunch more to make up the shortfall, pretty much on the whim of the small group of people who control it. On this latter point we at least have recent precedent. Problem was the stimulus, being directed where it was, was obviously just a scam. We need to convince people that the word stimulus isn't evil but, rather a magic bullet that would have been amazing if they'd aimed it at the right target.
If we can tackle both these missions, I reckon we're well on the way to having a meme.
"Strengthening the Saftey Net"
There's also the angle of all the people who aren't in the shit (comparatively speaking) profiting from it. That's why charity didn't work. You're asking people who, themselves, in their world, are often struggling to make ends meet, to help out. It's a hard sell.
This is almost the opposite - help the needy by ending up with more for youself
"Economic Stimulus Through Guaranteed Income"?
Needs more punchiness. This has to stick in the heads of Daily Mail readers and Walmart shoppers. One or two words preferably that dumbs down the concept and sounds wicked snappy. "iStim" or "Kardkashian" or some shit...
"Demand Incentive"
"DemInce"
Counterfitness - it's a license to print your own money
Band Aid Plus - This time we feed the world and get paid for it
Pile up economics - because we all know it doesn't trickle down
Occupy the food chain
I like "pile up".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2014, 05:03:42 PM
I like "pile up".
Not sure I do. Just hoping to keep riff/jamming until something looks good. Does Gogira still hang around here? I think some kind of infographic may helpn and she's wicked at that shit
Mountains out of manholes :lulz:
Thread started in projects... (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,36244.0.html)
Sounds like the Basic Income Guarantee. It's an idea that has been around for a while and has been tried on a limited scale in several places. Canada called it the Mincome. The results when it has been tried have always been good.
Hmm. It might be a good idea to frame it in terms of freedom, as in freedom to fail(or, more specifically, freedom to survive failure). Generally speaking, this smacks of socialism, and the exact people who are most likely to oppose that are libertarians. It might help to highlight the liberating effect this should have on the poor, and the idea that a stronger safety net will encourage people to take risks(starting businesses, etc.)
Though one thing nags at me. Wouldn't printing lots of money cause massive inflation? Or are you talking about redistribution?
Quote from: President Television on March 02, 2014, 03:12:12 AM
Hmm. It might be a good idea to frame it in terms of freedom, as in freedom to fail(or, more specifically, freedom to survive failure). Generally speaking, this smacks of socialism, and the exact people who are most likely to oppose that are libertarians. It might help to highlight the liberating effect this should have on the poor, and the idea that a stronger safety net will encourage people to take risks(starting businesses, etc.)
Though one thing nags at me. Wouldn't printing lots of money cause massive inflation? Or are you talking about redistribution?
I'm thinking it would be a prudent idea to phase in gradually, otherwise humanity in general might not be able to deal with it. Right now nobody is thinking in terms of "There's plenty of everything for everyone" Needs are more than satisfied. Wants will never be, simply because everyone wants a yacht but, collectively, we can't make enough to go round. There is enough food for every man, woman and child on this mudball to eat like fucking kings and queens but we assume food is hard to come by, because we have to pay for it. It's first degree circular logic.
Problem is, we (collectively) need to do shit to sustain this abundance. We need to work. Capitalism pays us for working and we spend that shit on food and stuff. If we didn't need and want all this shit, would we, collectively, just stop working or would we, collectively see sense and not fuck everything up completely? If you are convinced you know the answer, bear in mind that the question is hypothetical. We won't know until we try it.
However, just in case the answer is negative, cash could be pumped into the bottom in a steady stream letting it trickle up gradually, elevating standards of living, across the board. Right now our economy is set up between having billions in the bank and able to aquire anything and everything and starving to death at the other end of the scale. We don't
need to take filthy rich off the table, per se. Money junkies could still be able to book trips into space and crash a Lambo every month or so or whatever the fuck they do with all that shit but there's no reason the bottom end of the scale couldn't be somewhere around what we'd term "Middle class".
Or does the global economy require the poor and starving? I know it categorically and absolutely must have a ready supply of poor and dying people, to exist in it's current, utterly retarded form but perhaps it could function more efficiently if we made all the poor and dying a fully productive resource, working 9-5 to produce more food and stuff for a fair share of the gravy?
P3nT, have you seen this thing about "AuroraCoin" yet? Read the front page manifesto.
http://auroracoin.org/
Seems like a great vector for your idea.
So I started googling post scarcity and, as usual, it turns out a bunch of people have already worked this out. Including David Wong, back in 2010
QuoteHuman society only exists because we need the things other humans produce. Mutual need is what made us gather and share resources and form the first villages. We need things, and we need other people to need the things we make so they'll be willing to give us the things we need. It's a cycle that has been running for thousands of years, and it's about to stop.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html (http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html)
Quote from: Telarus on March 02, 2014, 06:01:43 PM
P3nT, have you seen this thing about "AuroraCoin" yet? Read the front page manifesto.
http://auroracoin.org/
Seems like a great vector for your idea.
I'm going to dig into this more today. Iceland has done some seriously impressive things over the years and this probably deserves some attention. Almost anywhere else I'd have sniggered and shoved it into the bitcoin fuckery thread.
Although that said, it may end up there after all:
http://www.coindesk.com/icelands-auroracoin-passes-litecoin-becomes-third-largest-altcoin-market-cap/
QuoteAuroracoin, the digital currency launched this February for use by the citizens of Iceland, has now passed litecoin to become the third-largest digital currency by market capitalization.
At press time, auroracoin had a total market capitalization of $515m, roughly $162m more than litecoin's $353m, according to data from Coinmarketcap. The price of auroracoin (AUR) currently stands at $47.08 on the company's website.
The quick spike in interest from investors has surprised even its creator Baldur Friggjar Óðinsson who has mixed sentiments about his coin's meteoric rise.
Speaking to CoinDesk, Óðinsson indicated that he believes the high value could be key to convincing more Icelanders to claim and use the 31.8 auroracoins his team will disperse to citizens later this month.
Cynical aside, if I was to try a pump and dump operation with crypto-currency, then it would probably look disturbingly like this.
QuoteFifty per cent of all auroracoins have been pre-mined, and will be given out via an 'Airdrop' to citizens on 25th March. Claimants will be required to use state-issued ID numbers in order to receive the coins.
Another eyebrow raised. Data protection issues anyone?
QuoteCommunity members have been noticing the resulting fluctuations, indicating that the price has been unpredictable in light of this increased attention.
On these issues too, Óðinsson chose to take a balanced view. He recognizes that part of his goal with auroracoin was to open up Icelandic commerce to the rest of the world, and that such additions, while troubling for operations in the short-term, are necessary.
"Auroracoin must grow bigger than just to serve the domestic economy. This is already happening," he said.
Emphasis mine. Those points set a particularly worrying trend as there still seems to be little information on how this would interact with the economy of the rest of the world. Price jumps linked in the article indicate that fuckery on some scale is already occuring. With few actual regulations in place I'm finding it hard to see how this won't suffer the exact same problems as bitcoin. The key difference here is a lot of people get some to begin with.
P3nt,
QuoteOr does the global economy require the poor and starving? I know it categorically and absolutely must have a ready supply of poor and dying people, to exist in it's current, utterly retarded form but perhaps it could function more efficiently if we made all the poor and dying a fully productive resource, working 9-5 to produce more food and stuff for a fair share of the gravy?
There's a couple of answers to that. The first is "Soylent Green". The others are worse.
More seriously, I've been thinking around the idea of "trickle-up" economics. By which I mean shove a bunch of money at the bottom of the pile knowing it will be spent on whatever but that invariably the cash will still filter back up. Ford used to give workers silly discounts on cars to the point where you couldn't not buy one. I'm thinking something like that on a nation wide scale similar to the above coin idea only with actual currency.
Take a number out of my arse - £10,000.
Lets say you give every citizen of the UK £10K, today, no question, no obligation. Minimal cost based on population = 63,705,000 (approx)
63,705,000 X 10,000 = £637,050,000,000
Assume another 2% admin and corruption cost = £650000000000 ish. Now Six hundred and fifty billion-ish is a fair wedge of cash to throw around, I'd concede. Naturally prices in would inflate across the board. Past a certain point of wealth £10K doesn't mean much. To most other people it's a serious fucking help. It would directly impact the numbers of homeless and starving people. It would directly save lives. It would mean those in better circumstances get another holiday or whatever too so the pot is pretty sweet for the majority of the population. There's just that thorny issue of cost.
Can we afford to spunk six hundred and fifty billion on such a spurious exercise?
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/what-is-the-cost-to-the-uk-taxpayer-of-supporting-our-banks/
QuoteThe National Audit Office
The NAO has weighed into the debate this week and offered this opinion. UK taxpayers might like to make sure they are sitting down before they read this bit.
At its peak, support for the banks totalled more than £1 trillion.
Actually it peaked according to the NAO at £1.162 trillion. However then it presents some much more palatable news.
I would suggest that if we can find the cash to support corrupt casino banking systems, purchase and scrap countless IT systems (Capita ALONE must have cost the UK several billion. G4S? Atos? Numberous millions each. Tax avoidance from Vodaphone, Starbucks, Amazon and more? Billions. Literally billions.) Not to mention Trident or any number of other very fucking expensive jokes.
So with everyone 10K richer, how will the economy fare? Well it won't suffer any kind of slump. A lot of cash would get spent and substantial amount would end up back in the system where it began. The government of the day would be the most popular in decades and be able to pass any laws if felt inclined to.
I appreciate that this is totally impractical, will never happen etc, etc, I just wanted to point out how affordable it would actually be to do something like this.
I see bitcoins and copycats as a symptom. The very fact people are fast recognising that capitalist economics isn't working. These alternatives are kinda bodges and hacks that are largely ineffective are open to a bunch of exploits and abuse. Hopefully this will change at some point and someone will come up with one that manages to supplant economics 1.0. The Napster of economics if you like.
Make no mistake - our economy will be destroyed at some point in the future. Sooner the better from where I'm sitting, given that right now, I'm pretty sure we'd be better off without it. 5 or 10 years from now, it won't be a matter of "can we survive without it?" and more a case of "You're still using money, WTF??"
As I write this I do so as one of a small minority who thinks we've probably reached post scarcity already. Another couple of years and it'll be glaringly fucking obvious, when manufacturing employment is practically nil and there's still tons of stuff being made. Once we've stopped paying for matter, that only leaves IP and that's always been a shitty parody at the expense of a crap joke anyway, hopefully it won't last the decade but, it could end up making a nuisance of itself for a few more years yet.
Probably need to re-read thread, could you expand on the post-scarcity stance? In some respects I can agree (cracked did an article a while ago about how porn is essentially post-scarcity) but in the standard needs department large parts of the world lack, for instance, water.
Food in the western world could be considered post scarcity, but this is made possible by vast inequalities with large parts of the rest of the world. Where food is often something of an issue.
Even assuming there is enough of everything for everyone, you now have the problem of distribution on a constant enough basis to meet the needs of everyone. Stopping people starving for a while is great but pretty fucking pointless unless the infrastructure is sustainable enough to meet those needs on a consistent basis.
Probably shouldn't fuck off to meetings mid reply. Tangent almost inevitable.
Post scarcity is pretty much enough of everything to go round. The holy grail is star trek replicators, this is still a couple of years off by even the most optimistic forecasts but, meantime, we have a halfway stage where basic needs can be met. That's enough food, water, clothing and shelter that no one needs to go without. Think about that for a second - right now tons of people are dying of starvation or curable diseases, and we have all the food and medicine they need.
Capitalism muddies the waters and makes it look like there isn't enough production or transportation to stick a burger in everyone's mouth but that's all down to the sole contribution of economics to 21st humanity - artificial scarcity - demand goes down so production lays off labour who can't afford to buy as much so demand goes down...
Hypothetically we can stick a couple of grand in the bank accounts of everyone who has nothing and give them the means to purchase stuff - last years smartphone and an internet connection ought to cover it. My bet is demand would rise as these people came online and started ordering up food and medicine and whatever else they need to survive til the end of the month. Production would have to scale up to meet this sudden increase in demand, resulting in hiring more workers. These new workers would now have a bit more bank and so would start buying some more luxuries. As luxury demand rises, production would have to scale up...
At the back end of production scale up, transportation and logistics would get a bite of the action. Right now global logistics is the one sector that's really coining it in from third world outsourcing with practically all "Made in America" goods being made in component form on the other side of the world then shipped back for final assembly. Most of the time they don't even bother with this nod and wink to homegrown, they'll just slap a "made in china" sticker on the box and fuck the western sweatshop premiums. My point is, usually the flow of gods is predominantly one way. The ships and planes are flying over there empty. In a world that was worth it's weight in anything other than dildoes, they would be full of burgers and penicillin.
Money is a great idea but the implementation is a throwback to the caveman days. They tried basing it on gold which was awesome until we progressed technologically to the point where there was more production than gold, so they scrapped that and based it on imaginary bullshit that still struggled to keep pace with the ever increasing levels of abundance. It's ass backwards. In order for the world to work optimally we need an infinite supply of money. Problem is we (collectively) are probably waaaay to retarded to absorb this transition overnight. The whole human race would, in all likelihood, just completely melt down and cease to do anything. Phasing it in by injecting controlled amounts into the pockets of the most needy members of our race, we might be able to effect the transition gradually from the bottom up.
Failing that we play it out to the fast approaching endgame and then hit the reset button with one of those window licking revolutions talking apes seem to love so much and then carry on repeating the whole fucking abortion all over again.
Unfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.
QuoteUnfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.
I can agree with large chunks of that, but I have to counter this with "Zimbabwe". Not alone in creating cash to try and raise living standards but the end result was less than pleasant. Brazil managed to deal with the same kind of problem with the introduction of the Real(?) and had a good degree of success.
There's another potential issue with where exactly the neediest people are located. A line of thinking could end up with "So if they lived over there, shit will be better for them". Which again, in Africa has had unfortunate consequences.
While the above may sound a little shitty, I'd rather cover as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Last thing that anyone really wants is a system that fucks up in the exact same ways.
Yeah, I hear you. My thinking is if you can target the completely fucked, the slightly less fucked will suddenly find themselves with opportunities to work, like a kickback. Post scarcity is not utopia, we still need to do stuff we don't want to, in order to keep the whole state of abundance rolling.
I also prefer to think of this globally but I'm aware the apes are still stuck in their tribalist mindset. Say, we choose a country that really needs humanitarian intervention and start with them, what's to stop those filthy ruskies or chinks undercutting us and taking all the cash we've pumped into the developing economy? Maybe some kind of trade agreement would be necessary to restrict buying to US goods only.
It stinks of narrow minded selfish bullshit but that's a massive part of what humanity is, I guess.
http://higherperspective.com/2014/03/switzerland-pay-basic-income-2500-francs-per-month-every-adult.html
http://rt.com/news/swiss-adult-minimum-wage-794/
Hrm, Ok... so it's interesting that it's being proposed to the Swiss government, but I think this the first article (Especially considering the sources cited) twists it back into the old knee-jerk reaction memes of 'ruining the economy', etc
Switzerland has to propose something like this. Otherwise, pretty much everyone who keeps the country running, the shopkeepers, cleaners, nurses etc wont be able to afford to live there, and will move to France or Germany or something, leaving the bankers and diplomats and school teachers in charge of everything. It's ridiculously expensive to live there, and a good quarter of the labour force are of non-Swiss origin.
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 04, 2014, 05:16:08 PM
QuoteUnfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.
I can agree with large chunks of that, but I have to counter this with "Zimbabwe". Not alone in creating cash to try and raise living standards but the end result was less than pleasant. Brazil managed to deal with the same kind of problem with the introduction of the Real(?) and had a good degree of success.
There's another potential issue with where exactly the neediest people are located. A line of thinking could end up with "So if they lived over there, shit will be better for them". Which again, in Africa has had unfortunate consequences.
While the above may sound a little shitty, I'd rather cover as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Last thing that anyone really wants is a system that fucks up in the exact same ways.
Economics 1.0 is fucking over Zimbabwe. A result of Artificial Scarcity is not an argument against Post-Scarcity Economics.
Many other problems can be prevented by not singling out the poor. I think this can only work if everyone social stratum gets it.
It needs to become as much a Right as breathing.
Quote from: :regret: on March 05, 2014, 11:22:42 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 04, 2014, 05:16:08 PM
QuoteUnfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.
I can agree with large chunks of that, but I have to counter this with "Zimbabwe". Not alone in creating cash to try and raise living standards but the end result was less than pleasant. Brazil managed to deal with the same kind of problem with the introduction of the Real(?) and had a good degree of success.
There's another potential issue with where exactly the neediest people are located. A line of thinking could end up with "So if they lived over there, shit will be better for them". Which again, in Africa has had unfortunate consequences.
While the above may sound a little shitty, I'd rather cover as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Last thing that anyone really wants is a system that fucks up in the exact same ways.
Economics 1.0 is fucking over Zimbabwe. A result of Artificial Scarcity is not an argument against Post-Scarcity Economics.
Many other problems can be prevented by not singling out the poor. I think this can only work if everyone social stratum gets it.
It needs to become as much a Right as breathing.
My thinking, right now is that cash doesn't trickle down, it flows up. Pump it in at the bottom and everyone will end up better off. The priority is humanitarian - elevate the lowest out of poverty but, in doing so should elevate everyone's standard of living. So we will still be better off than the third world by roughly the same factor. The only difference is now the third world have food, water, housing and maybe one or two luxury items.
Next we decide do we want to stop there or do we want to see it through to it's logical conclusion and keep making the ones at the bottom better off, given that we are all made better off as a direct result? I'm assuming the bottom tier of humanity will end up developing their own socio-economic thing, once all their time isn't taken up with the business of starving to death. I could be wrong but, if I'm not, then some sort of equilibrium may be achievable where the whole world is split into comfortably well off and filthy rich.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 12:58:55 PM
Quote from: :regret: on March 05, 2014, 11:22:42 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 04, 2014, 05:16:08 PM
QuoteUnfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.
I can agree with large chunks of that, but I have to counter this with "Zimbabwe". Not alone in creating cash to try and raise living standards but the end result was less than pleasant. Brazil managed to deal with the same kind of problem with the introduction of the Real(?) and had a good degree of success.
There's another potential issue with where exactly the neediest people are located. A line of thinking could end up with "So if they lived over there, shit will be better for them". Which again, in Africa has had unfortunate consequences.
While the above may sound a little shitty, I'd rather cover as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Last thing that anyone really wants is a system that fucks up in the exact same ways.
Economics 1.0 is fucking over Zimbabwe. A result of Artificial Scarcity is not an argument against Post-Scarcity Economics.
Many other problems can be prevented by not singling out the poor. I think this can only work if everyone social stratum gets it.
It needs to become as much a Right as breathing.
My thinking, right now is that cash doesn't trickle down, it flows up. Pump it in at the bottom and everyone will end up better off. The priority is humanitarian - elevate the lowest out of poverty but, in doing so should elevate everyone's standard of living. So we will still be better off than the third world by roughly the same factor. The only difference is now the third world have food, water, housing and maybe one or two luxury items.
Next we decide do we want to stop there or do we want to see it through to it's logical conclusion and keep making the ones at the bottom better off, given that we are all made better off as a direct result? I'm assuming the bottom tier of humanity will end up developing their own socio-economic thing, once all their time isn't taken up with the business of starving to death. I could be wrong but, if I'm not, then some sort of equilibrium may be achievable where the whole world is split into comfortably well off and filthy rich.
I get that, I just assumed the not-dead-poor people wouldn't allow it unless they were directly getting something out of it as well. Besides, the not-dead-poor faction is tiny in comparison so it won't cost all that much. It is much easier to sell a 10 billion plan that helps everyone than a 8 billion plan that only helps the poor (directly). Most people that would actually benefit don't consider themselves poor so won't accept this plan. A lot of poor people who do admit their poorness will vote against it because they don't want the loss of status.
The not dead poor people will be offered paid employment. In order to service a couple of million new orders, production apparatus needs to scale up, ie. hire more labour.
The money we give to the totally fucked will end up flowing through the pockets of the partially fucked anyway.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 01:33:54 PM
The not dead poor people will be offered paid employment. In order to service a couple of million new orders, production apparatus needs to scale up, ie. hire more labour.
The money we give to the totally fucked will end up flowing through the pockets of the partially fucked anyway.
That serves as an incentive to exaggerate your fuckedness, it also adds a layer of beaurocracy to determine who deserves to be paid and who doesn't.
Paying everyone is simpler and likely to receive broader support.
You might well be right.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 12:58:55 PM
Quote from: :regret: on March 05, 2014, 11:22:42 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 04, 2014, 05:16:08 PM
QuoteUnfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.
I can agree with large chunks of that, but I have to counter this with "Zimbabwe". Not alone in creating cash to try and raise living standards but the end result was less than pleasant. Brazil managed to deal with the same kind of problem with the introduction of the Real(?) and had a good degree of success.
There's another potential issue with where exactly the neediest people are located. A line of thinking could end up with "So if they lived over there, shit will be better for them". Which again, in Africa has had unfortunate consequences.
While the above may sound a little shitty, I'd rather cover as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Last thing that anyone really wants is a system that fucks up in the exact same ways.
Economics 1.0 is fucking over Zimbabwe. A result of Artificial Scarcity is not an argument against Post-Scarcity Economics.
Many other problems can be prevented by not singling out the poor. I think this can only work if everyone social stratum gets it.
It needs to become as much a Right as breathing.
My thinking, right now is that cash doesn't trickle down, it flows up. Pump it in at the bottom and everyone will end up better off. The priority is humanitarian - elevate the lowest out of poverty but, in doing so should elevate everyone's standard of living. So we will still be better off than the third world by roughly the same factor. The only difference is now the third world have food, water, housing and maybe one or two luxury items.
Next we decide do we want to stop there or do we want to see it through to it's logical conclusion and keep making the ones at the bottom better off, given that we are all made better off as a direct result? I'm assuming the bottom tier of humanity will end up developing their own socio-economic thing, once all their time isn't taken up with the business of starving to death. I could be wrong but, if I'm not, then some sort of equilibrium may be achievable where the whole world is split into comfortably well off and filthy rich.
It occurs to me that maybe we've been looking at the economy backwards all along, if we're to use the flowing of water as a model for the movement of money. It isn't a pyramid, with the wealthy elite at the top and the workers at the bottom, and the money running downhill. It's a funnel. The narrow point may be the top of the social hierarchy, but I find the model is far more intuitive the other way around.
I mean, maybe that's what we should call this. Funnel economics. It still trickles down, but from the wide end.
I still think of it as bottom - top pyramid but whatever works for you. When I see a pyramid I see the guys at the top trying to reach higher by stealing bricks from the bottom.
That's basically economics 1.0 in a nutshell
Quote from: President Television on March 06, 2014, 09:52:08 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 12:58:55 PM
Quote from: :regret: on March 05, 2014, 11:22:42 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 04, 2014, 05:16:08 PM
QuoteUnfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.
I can agree with large chunks of that, but I have to counter this with "Zimbabwe". Not alone in creating cash to try and raise living standards but the end result was less than pleasant. Brazil managed to deal with the same kind of problem with the introduction of the Real(?) and had a good degree of success.
There's another potential issue with where exactly the neediest people are located. A line of thinking could end up with "So if they lived over there, shit will be better for them". Which again, in Africa has had unfortunate consequences.
While the above may sound a little shitty, I'd rather cover as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Last thing that anyone really wants is a system that fucks up in the exact same ways.
Economics 1.0 is fucking over Zimbabwe. A result of Artificial Scarcity is not an argument against Post-Scarcity Economics.
Many other problems can be prevented by not singling out the poor. I think this can only work if everyone social stratum gets it.
It needs to become as much a Right as breathing.
My thinking, right now is that cash doesn't trickle down, it flows up. Pump it in at the bottom and everyone will end up better off. The priority is humanitarian - elevate the lowest out of poverty but, in doing so should elevate everyone's standard of living. So we will still be better off than the third world by roughly the same factor. The only difference is now the third world have food, water, housing and maybe one or two luxury items.
Next we decide do we want to stop there or do we want to see it through to it's logical conclusion and keep making the ones at the bottom better off, given that we are all made better off as a direct result? I'm assuming the bottom tier of humanity will end up developing their own socio-economic thing, once all their time isn't taken up with the business of starving to death. I could be wrong but, if I'm not, then some sort of equilibrium may be achievable where the whole world is split into comfortably well off and filthy rich.
It occurs to me that maybe we've been looking at the economy backwards all along, if we're to use the flowing of water as a model for the movement of money. It isn't a pyramid, with the wealthy elite at the top and the workers at the bottom, and the money running downhill. It's a funnel. The narrow point may be the top of the social hierarchy, but I find the model is far more intuitive the other way around.
I mean, maybe that's what we should call this. Funnel economics. It still trickles down, but from the wide end.
I love this imagery. It completely turns the typical imagery (of the rich being at the "top", and all the metaphorical association that entails) on its head.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 01:33:54 PM
The not dead poor people will be offered paid employment. In order to service a couple of million new orders, production apparatus needs to scale up, ie. hire more labour.
The money we give to the totally fucked will end up flowing through the pockets of the partially fucked anyway.
Well yeah, but they won't see it that way.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 05, 2014, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 01:33:54 PM
The not dead poor people will be offered paid employment. In order to service a couple of million new orders, production apparatus needs to scale up, ie. hire more labour.
The money we give to the totally fucked will end up flowing through the pockets of the partially fucked anyway.
That serves as an incentive to exaggerate your fuckedness, it also adds a layer of beaurocracy to determine who deserves to be paid and who doesn't.
Paying everyone is simpler and likely to receive broader support.
Both good points.
I love love love the funnel economics image!
That image went through my head as well.
Funnel economics posters and other assorted tomfoolery could be the next PD project.
Flyers, animated gifs, memebomb stickers, pictures of cute animals with misinformation on them, infographics, etc. etc.
(https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1743557_10151975274645669_1880895014_n.png)
https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1743557_10151975274645669_1880895014_n.png
(Because Facebook photos tend not to render for me, in case anyone needs a link.)
"Give money to low income people and it stays in the local economy. Give money to the rich and it goes to the Cayman Islands..."
-Wisconsin State Senator Fred Risser
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 10:24:27 PM
Wouldn't the cheap shit just cost more, and everything the cost of everything else scales up from there?
I'm not sure on how well regarded he is these days, but I believe that Adam Smith would say that the cost of everything rises, but the cost of essentials (Bread and milk etc) stays the same.
It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of essentials went down over time. We are constantly optimising our production of any goods or services and that includes food chain among everything else we'd consider essential. We can produce and distribute more food, less expensively over time. Less farmers and cheaper more efficient machinery required to provide everything we need to eat.
As far as the ease of feeding the world, especially since Soylent Green was mentioned, I thought you might find this interesting:
soylent.me (add the http://)
(Note, it is not made of people)
I first heard of this via crowd-sourcing (kickstarter-ish websites), and if I wasn't so broke I actually spend LESS than $255 per month on food, this is what I would be living off of. The biggest downside to something like this going to the poor, especially in the Third World, is that it requires clean water.
I recall this coming up a while ago in the prototype stages. I didn't consider it as a starvation cure but that certainly seems a viable option. As much as "provide a form of nutrition to the malnourished" goes anyway.
I've no idea what a reasonable $ figure/head is on aid in any given country dependent on aid. Between corruption/grift and the water problems it's certainly a potential help to the problem but there's the usual clusterfuck of shit to deal with first.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 09, 2014, 08:31:14 AM
I recall this coming up a while ago in the prototype stages. I didn't consider it as a starvation cure but that certainly seems a viable option. As much as "provide a form of nutrition to the malnourished" goes anyway.
I've no idea what a reasonable $ figure/head is on aid in any given country dependent on aid. Between corruption/grift and the water problems it's certainly a potential help to the problem but there's the usual clusterfuck of shit to deal with first.
Indeed. I know Soylent is $255 per month per person with a subscription, if you plan to live 100% entirely off of it.
I'm not sure how feasible that price point is for feeding the poor, but it would definitely cut down on prison costs while increasing prisoner health.
Quote from: trix on July 09, 2014, 12:03:42 AM
As far as the ease of feeding the world, especially since Soylent Green was mentioned, I thought you might find this interesting:
soylent.me (add the http://)
(Note, it is not made of people)
I first heard of this via crowd-sourcing (kickstarter-ish websites), and if I wasn't so broke I actually spend LESS than $255 per month on food, this is what I would be living off of. The biggest downside to something like this going to the poor, especially in the Third World, is that it requires clean water.
There are some threads about Soylent kicking around here.
Here are a few thoughts about Soylent, summarized from the previous conversations:
1. It is not a new concept. http://www.soyinfocenter.com/HSS/meals_for_millions.php
2. It is made from highly-processed food, and is highly wasteful.
3. For the above reason, it is far, far more expensive than equivalent nutrition derived from staple foods such as rice, beans, and collards.
4. It's basically a glorified protein shake.
5. For the most part, people other than weird autistic engineers have zero interest in subsisting entirely on bland processed gruel, to the degree that in many places it is considered inhumane treatment to give prisoners such a diet.
Ah, I hadn't seen the threads and yeah all of that makes sense. I would say more than weird autistic engineers could have interest in consisting mostly (though I'd never suggest never eating again) off of something like Soylent. I have lived in households where getting everybody fed that day was enough of a challenge that I believe Soylent would have been gladly accepted by us. Maybe not in place of eating regular food entirely, but probably enough so to be reasonably considered "living off of" Soylent.
My take is very subjective though, and I agree your final point could very well be true, generally.
Was the challenge in getting everyone fed primarily financial or did it have a large "I don't have time to assemble a nutritious meal" because if the available time is less of a factor, Nigel's point about equivalent nutrition being gained from rice, beans and collards may make that a preferable option?
Quote from: Pæs on July 14, 2014, 01:11:24 AM
Was the challenge in getting everyone fed primarily financial or did it have a large "I don't have time to assemble a nutritious meal" because if the available time is less of a factor, Nigel's point about equivalent nutrition being gained from rice, beans and collards may make that a preferable option?
Primarily financial, and of course you are correct. Here in real life present time rice beans and other options are much cheaper and more useful in that sort of situation. I was for some reason comparing free Soylent to having to buy food, and yeah i suppose that's pretty obviously going to weigh in the favor of anything free.
Thinking about this further, I guess I'm probably just one of the weirdos that would pay $255 a month if I had it, to replace most of the food I eat and ensure I have all the nutrition I need. I find myself becoming more and more afraid of my own mortality as I get older, and wanting to maximize my time here. This seems a much simpler solution than the crazy lists I was making when trying to learn what to eat and what to avoid for maximum nutrition and minimum get-sick-and-die.
I'll admit I haven't looked into it too much. I would be interested in how it compares to the health benefits of a varied diet which I recall being raised in another thread as for whatever reason being better for people than any 'ideal superfood'.
Quote from: Pæs on July 14, 2014, 02:12:04 AM
I'll admit I haven't looked into it too much. I would be interested in how it compares to the health benefits of a varied diet which I recall being raised in another thread as for whatever reason being better for people than any 'ideal superfood'.
I would too, but everything I've been able to find has been extremely subjective, and ranged from "I went from wimp-tastic to MACHO MAN! Also it turned me smarter faster and cooler than ever before!" to "I lost ALL THE FATS!!1!" to "This stuff made me sick and fart so much after one gulp i'm never touching it again!"
There are many people living off of it and reporting good things though, and I can't find any evidence of things having gotten medically unsafe or anything from anyone living on 100% soylent.
Indeed a nutrition study of something like Soylent vs a varied traditional "nutritious" diet, would be interesting to see.
Quote from: trix on July 14, 2014, 01:42:45 AM
Quote from: Pæs on July 14, 2014, 01:11:24 AM
Was the challenge in getting everyone fed primarily financial or did it have a large "I don't have time to assemble a nutritious meal" because if the available time is less of a factor, Nigel's point about equivalent nutrition being gained from rice, beans and collards may make that a preferable option?
Primarily financial, and of course you are correct. Here in real life present time rice beans and other options are much cheaper and more useful in that sort of situation. I was for some reason comparing free Soylent to having to buy food, and yeah i suppose that's pretty obviously going to weigh in the favor of anything free.
Thinking about this further, I guess I'm probably just one of the weirdos that would pay $255 a month if I had it, to replace most of the food I eat and ensure I have all the nutrition I need. I find myself becoming more and more afraid of my own mortality as I get older, and wanting to maximize my time here. This seems a much simpler solution than the crazy lists I was making when trying to learn what to eat and what to avoid for maximum nutrition and minimum get-sick-and-die.
Your digestive system/immune system needs a good punch in the nuts every once in a while to stay strong. Too much regularity kills.
I was looking into the possibility a couple of months back. Best info I got was "eat lots of plants" Ssrsly. Diet is much more plant filled now. Effects are slight but noticable. All positive.
Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2014, 08:27:13 PM
I'm honored you think I'm an economist, but I'm really not.
Narrator:
He really was an economist, though.Nobody understands what LMNO does for a living. Not even his boss. They just know he does stuff and then staggers out with a nosebleed, looking for the Gay Bar, mumbling about "the right kind of sacrifices". And the economy works and LMNO's boss gets a fat bonus and nobody questions it. Except the missing interns, obviously, but it's not like they weren't replaceable. Also maybe the janitors don't like it because chanting comes out of his office on the weekend when there's nobody in the office except the janitors. And those
stains.
Protip:
(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/361516267912-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)