I omitting some details here because to big of a topic for a comment:
perceive “loss” as the measurement of things that get destroyed and cannot be reversed. Disconnect it from economic win/loss balances for now,
observe how our society is creating huge amounts of loss worldwide, natural resources are being destroyed, people are getting exploited living below their potential.
realise that life is inherently a destructive action and that our society will always create loss to continue to exists.
accept that in this measurement all life forms have a negative balance, comparable to the ecological footprint
create industries and businesses that focus on creating a stable outputs for the least loss.
distribution centers formed from current local small government ally to these new industries and can agree for a portion of the output based on the amount of people they serve and the self reported needs they have.
distribution centers pay with fountain pen money which is the system governments and banks use today to keep making new loans. It is essentially just paper money. Where we now sustain it by paying old loans back (often with new fountain pen money) in this system we simply hold a record of the economic debt creates.
Distribution centers know the needs of the population through online forms that list all the resources and stuff they have acces to. In a few rounds people choose what and how much they need (reasonable limit based on data) if demand is high the policy is to first re package in smaller portions to meet demand, or if no fair distribution can be archived to not distribute that good at all. (Skipping so much detail here)
these goods are essentially free, but the loss gets recorded, think of it as getting an infinite loan allowing you an unconditional negative balance to guarantee you a proper life on the world you live today without requiring us to solve sustainability for the long term future first. Also with the wastefullness of the current system, you’re not making a dent.
in the first stage the loss can be calculated as economic money all input resources costs as the resources will probably be bought from the current economy. The result of the cost calculation and the calculation formulas itself must be fully transparent, loss calculation is also purely additive, you cant do an action that somehow revert what got lost. Profits need to be considered their own form of loss, measured transparently beside it (the only distinction is that you can lower cost price simply by not hoarding profit while resource ingredients always contribute a fixed loss)
What is now “price of a product” becomes a reliable calculation where these industries can be properly compared to each other based on input/output and total cost all in ratio to each-other.
This is why i titled this concept “rational economy”
This economy would start small with a few products (outputs of the first ones), acces should start equally small, think hospitals, nursing homes.
You would in a transition scenario have a system where, the normal world economy is still there, but vulnerable people get acces to a second type of store that does not require payment, adjusts itself based on demand and is transparency designed to measure the exact impact loss it costs to sustain.
This is why a subtitled this concept “an arrogant retirement plan for gen z” and why its relevant to the post.
For the record i am not gen z and consider myself too old to ever see this stage. But if we start now then by the time gen z is old they may become the first post scarcity consumers.
No i am unwilling to answer the question about all the plot holes above, i have to ommit so much nuance just to type this out. Just tell me if you think it be valuable if i Finnish my book about this or not.
The main hang ups I see, is the group that determines what counts as loss and how much loss each thing has. These would be the points of attack where the powerful would seek to undermine trust/effectivity/accuracy and manipulate this new system for themselves. There would need to be rigorous safeguards in place to prevent such perversions.
That said, I like the planned economy aspect but I also feel like it could be used quite well with a smaller scale, more anarchistic society of loosely interconnected groups.
Leaving this comment as a save point for this comment (save function is finicky on piefed with voyager rn). I really like the concept and have been looking for more people with this perspective. Distribution centers for resources has always been my thought process.
I omitting some details here because to big of a topic for a comment:
perceive “loss” as the measurement of things that get destroyed and cannot be reversed. Disconnect it from economic win/loss balances for now,
observe how our society is creating huge amounts of loss worldwide, natural resources are being destroyed, people are getting exploited living below their potential.
realise that life is inherently a destructive action and that our society will always create loss to continue to exists.
accept that in this measurement all life forms have a negative balance, comparable to the ecological footprint
create industries and businesses that focus on creating a stable outputs for the least loss.
distribution centers formed from current local small government ally to these new industries and can agree for a portion of the output based on the amount of people they serve and the self reported needs they have.
distribution centers pay with fountain pen money which is the system governments and banks use today to keep making new loans. It is essentially just paper money. Where we now sustain it by paying old loans back (often with new fountain pen money) in this system we simply hold a record of the economic debt creates.
Distribution centers know the needs of the population through online forms that list all the resources and stuff they have acces to. In a few rounds people choose what and how much they need (reasonable limit based on data) if demand is high the policy is to first re package in smaller portions to meet demand, or if no fair distribution can be archived to not distribute that good at all. (Skipping so much detail here)
these goods are essentially free, but the loss gets recorded, think of it as getting an infinite loan allowing you an unconditional negative balance to guarantee you a proper life on the world you live today without requiring us to solve sustainability for the long term future first. Also with the wastefullness of the current system, you’re not making a dent.
in the first stage the loss can be calculated as economic money all input resources costs as the resources will probably be bought from the current economy. The result of the cost calculation and the calculation formulas itself must be fully transparent, loss calculation is also purely additive, you cant do an action that somehow revert what got lost. Profits need to be considered their own form of loss, measured transparently beside it (the only distinction is that you can lower cost price simply by not hoarding profit while resource ingredients always contribute a fixed loss)
What is now “price of a product” becomes a reliable calculation where these industries can be properly compared to each other based on input/output and total cost all in ratio to each-other.
This is why i titled this concept “rational economy”
This economy would start small with a few products (outputs of the first ones), acces should start equally small, think hospitals, nursing homes.
You would in a transition scenario have a system where, the normal world economy is still there, but vulnerable people get acces to a second type of store that does not require payment, adjusts itself based on demand and is transparency designed to measure the exact impact loss it costs to sustain.
This is why a subtitled this concept “an arrogant retirement plan for gen z” and why its relevant to the post.
For the record i am not gen z and consider myself too old to ever see this stage. But if we start now then by the time gen z is old they may become the first post scarcity consumers.
No i am unwilling to answer the question about all the plot holes above, i have to ommit so much nuance just to type this out. Just tell me if you think it be valuable if i Finnish my book about this or not.
The main hang ups I see, is the group that determines what counts as loss and how much loss each thing has. These would be the points of attack where the powerful would seek to undermine trust/effectivity/accuracy and manipulate this new system for themselves. There would need to be rigorous safeguards in place to prevent such perversions.
That said, I like the planned economy aspect but I also feel like it could be used quite well with a smaller scale, more anarchistic society of loosely interconnected groups.
TLDR
This is the TLDR if i ever get to put the whole thing on paper
Senpai, write the essay.
Leaving this comment as a save point for this comment (save function is finicky on piefed with voyager rn). I really like the concept and have been looking for more people with this perspective. Distribution centers for resources has always been my thought process.