22 ms·

What utility function would you propose?

dheera 6y ago
I don't have a well-defined solution, but I think the notion of companies selling shares to people in armchairs who neither necessarily use nor feel the side effects of the product is an issue. To a great degree I don't believe in 100% free market valuation of companies. Rather, I think the people most affected by the company (positively or negatively) should have the biggest say in its value. There also needs to be some adjustment to that valuation based on greater good delivered by the company. If they killed off a bunch of smaller businesses, that's a negative. If they emitted a bunch of carbon, that's a negative. If they caused injuries or deaths, that's a negative. If they contributed to open source products that enabled other companies to exist, that's a positive. Carbon taxes are one step at capturing one very small aspect of this "greater good" factor, but there need to be other adjustments as well. Another vague idea I've had is a hypothetical economic system in which the government doesn't print money (or isn't the only one printing money) but rather money is brought to existence by certain good deeds. Money can also be traded for goods and services, of course, in addition. So while you could make money by selling food or selling phones, you could also literally print your own money (translate: government hands it to you, in a controlled fashion) by sucking carbon out of the environment and proving that you did that to claim your money.
- tekknik 6y ago
  > ...but I think the notion of companies selling shares to people in armchairs who neither necessarily use nor feel the side effects of the product is an issue. Their function is to raise money, whether they use the product or not (you don’t invest in something unless you believe it will provide value to some group of people) they’ve done their job and the company can continue to advance and adapt due to the capital. Further if you set what a company can be worth you’ve limited their resources and limited their innovation as a result. You’ve also turned human labor into currency in an attempt to get rid of currency. You cannot get rid of the concept of money. Without it you must trade resources (like labor), which history has shown is a very bad idea. The idea of a government being able to print money is a very deliberate feature, not a bug. I cannot do this justice, but read up on why we have money in the first place.

I don't have a well-defined solution, but I think the notion of companies selling shares to people in armchairs who neither necessarily use nor feel the side effects of the product is an issue. To a great degree I don't believe in 100% free market valuation of companies. Rather, I think the people most affected by the company (positively or negatively) should have the biggest say in its value. There also needs to be some adjustment to that valuation based on greater good delivered by the company. If they killed off a bunch of smaller businesses, that's a negative. If they emitted a bunch of carbon, that's a negative. If they caused injuries or deaths, that's a negative. If they contributed to open source products that enabled other companies to exist, that's a positive. Carbon taxes are one step at capturing one very small aspect of this "greater good" factor, but there need to be other adjustments as well. Another vague idea I've had is a hypothetical economic system in which the government doesn't print money (or isn't the only one printing money) but rather money is brought to existence by certain good deeds. Money can also be traded for goods and services, of course, in addition. So while you could make money by selling food or selling phones, you could also literally print your own money (translate: government hands it to you, in a controlled fashion) by sucking carbon out of the environment and proving that you did that to claim your money.

tekknik 6y ago
> ...but I think the notion of companies selling shares to people in armchairs who neither necessarily use nor feel the side effects of the product is an issue. Their function is to raise money, whether they use the product or not (you don’t invest in something unless you believe it will provide value to some group of people) they’ve done their job and the company can continue to advance and adapt due to the capital. Further if you set what a company can be worth you’ve limited their resources and limited their innovation as a result. You’ve also turned human labor into currency in an attempt to get rid of currency. You cannot get rid of the concept of money. Without it you must trade resources (like labor), which history has shown is a very bad idea. The idea of a government being able to print money is a very deliberate feature, not a bug. I cannot do this justice, but read up on why we have money in the first place.