14 ms·
This seems roughly equivalent to paying laborers with equity so they have a claim on the full benefit of their labor. One difference is that this hypercapitalis
by natrius 12y ago
This seems roughly equivalent to paying laborers with equity so they have a claim on the full benefit of their labor. One difference is that this hypercapitalism scheme spreads the claims on rents across the economy rather than just within one company. That could be solved by paying laborers with a broad index fund.
Of course, they'd have to sell most of their income to pay for things. Only their savings would remain as equities. This seems equivalent to being paid in the prevailing currency and using your savings to invest, which is the current system. It also doesn't require anyone to force people to use a currency with demurrage fees, which no one would voluntarily choose.
Very interesting read, though. If you're going to implement this as an experiment, you'll probably have better luck building on Ethereum than a Bitcoin fork. The downside is that Ethereum isn't architecturally stable yet, which makes development a little rough. The upside is network effects and a blockchain you don't have to build or get people to mine.
- skilesare 12y agoI isn't roughly like that though. In fact, as a laborer, you must pay your employer in stock for them to have the privilege of paying you. The stock is going in the other way. I also don't spread it across the whole economy, but a specific part of the economy that the laborer interacts with. (after a few iterations you get a six degrees of Kevin Bacon effect, but most of the benefit is local.) But yes, the goal is the full benefit of labor. I'm going to start on bitcoin because of the infrastructure. The experiment won't be distributed, but it will get there if it is successful. Multi-sig is enough for us to establish the distributed accountability that we need.