More actions
Main article: Moneyless economy based on reputation and need
We have discussed both a subjective and community-based economic system. The subjective one might be called a "gift-giving" economy and the community-based one is based a central resource pool. These two systems can converge in the following way. We would have a central pool, an online Amazon-like system, but transactions would be peer-to-peer. Individuals would make claims and producers would fulfill those claims based on ratings and their production. The system is entirely peer-to-peer. The only reason for the central pool is convenience.
It would also include an accounting system where we can track transactions and check if people are hoarding. Individuals could do this themselves for the things they produce but it would be hard for them to know if the claimant already has 40 chairs, say, from other manufacturers. Judging need is still going to be a big part of knowing whether someone really deserves what you offer.
This idea requires a change in culture because each individual is judging the “deservingness” of the claimant rather than the system doing so on the basis of a centralized community rating (which is what my system implies). This is a big difference and requires that we create a “culture of giving”. Not only that, but a culture of giving personally.
It is doable if individuals want to take on the responsibility for judging others. Admittedly this is our natural state. Originally, we humans are used to living in close-knit communities where give and take economic interactions were personal and commonplace. Although communities certainly had a shared pool of resources that everyone contributed to (and received from), most interactions were personal. Interacting face to face with many different individuals in one’s community was normal.
Nevertheless, it seems it would be hard to transform modern western society into something resembling this. We tend to value privacy more highly and are used to being alone more. Furthermore, any notion we may have once had regarding civic duties have gone by the wayside. My guess is that most people will delegate the task of deciding the merits of an economic claim to the central pool’s rating system (kind of like how it is in mine). Personally, I would just want someone else, ie the community, doing the ranking of who gets the stuff I produce. I would also want a community norm for wealth distribution which might be difficult in a peer-to-peer system.
The gift-giving system can also work for investments, where the investment request goes to the community in terms of goods/services and the providers then choose to “fund” the investment based on ratings. The “funders” can then be compensated in ratings or in terms of an “ownership stake” in the new venture. What would an ownership stake mean? It would mean that part of the production of the new enterprise is counted as their own production and thus they are rated for being more “productive”. When someone who produces in this way asks for goods/services, their rating will reflect their production and they will be seen as more deserving. Our accounting system would no doubt have to take into account this system of shared production.