5 ms·

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from

by uhwhat 11y ago

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

clavalle 11y ago
I've thought about this, too but I can't figure out how you'd prevent those tokens from being bartered for more traditional currency outside of the necessary conversion by landlords and grocers and other providers. With ubiquitous computing now available to everyone we might be able to fully track that sub set of transactions with 'currency with state and history' as opposed to traditional 'dumb dollars' but I think it would be a hard problem getting it to play nice with the traditional currency economy.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  It won't. The more industrious will barter at a gain while others will barter at a loss. Consider food stamps. Some will trade them $2 of stamps for $1 of cash. But others will buy food, cook and then sell the food, bringing in $2 dollars of cash for $1 of stamps.
- uhwhat 11y ago
  Food stamps are a decent example. It's not perfect yes, but it basically becomes undesirable to trade the cash of the WANT economy for the goods of the NEEDs economy.
tarblog 11y ago
Maybe, but there's strong evidence (from the field of macroeconomics) that allowing people to just receive money (rather than payments in kind) makes them even better off. Although you may fret about people using the money for bad things, in reality mostly they don't, but they are better at allocating resources than a central planner. Think of it this way, to the citizen who actually wants to be better off, would you rather be able to cut your spending in order to make a smart investment or not be able to do so?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  They can also better fit their own needs. Maybe a smaller worse shelter wouldn't be an issue for them, but they would much prefer to have warmer clothing (smaller and warmer in comparison to peers in the same location). Maybe they forgo milk to buy even more lentils.
pjlegato 11y ago
The problem is the intractable dispute about what things should go into which category. Empirically, there has been a strong historical tendency to move things into the "NEED" category that were traditionally in the "WANT" category. For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building codes) that have switched it to a "NEED". The same thing happend with indoor heating systems. As for food, most medieval European peasants considered themselves lucky if they got a bowl of thin gruel every day. Asian peasants thought they were lucky to get a bowl of rice. Many didn't get anything on many days. Now in the US the government is talking about "food deserts" and shifting many previously "luxury" fresh nutritious foods into the "NEED" category.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building codes) that have switched it to a "NEED". The same thing happend with indoor heating systems. Yes, we rather do like preventing dysentery, bubonic plague, and flu epidemics. Public health is indeed a necessity rather than a luxury.
  - pjlegato 11y ago
    This is precisely my point. For almost all of human history, public health was indeed a luxury rather than a necessity. In many parts of the world, it still is today. The details of a specific proposal are not relevant. No matter what specific items you choose for these categories, eventually people will want things you say are "extravagant luxuries" and call them "needs".
- sbov 11y ago
  Progress will always shift things from "WANT" to "NEED". If you want to play that game living past your 30's is a "WANT" rather than a "NEED". You probably won't find many people who think this particular "WANT" isn't a "NEED".
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Is physical intimacy (no, this doesn't mean sex, though that is one form) a want or a need? Consider the mortality rate of infants who receive no physical touch but have all their classical needs met compared to infants who are held and cared for.

by uhwhat 11y ago

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

clavalle 11y ago

I've thought about this, too but I can't figure out how you'd prevent those tokens from being bartered for more traditional currency outside of the necessary conversion by landlords and grocers and other providers. With ubiquitous computing now available to everyone we might be able to fully track that sub set of transactions with 'currency with state and history' as opposed to traditional 'dumb dollars' but I think it would be a hard problem getting it to play nice with the traditional currency economy.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
It won't. The more industrious will barter at a gain while others will barter at a loss. Consider food stamps. Some will trade them $2 of stamps for $1 of cash. But others will buy food, cook and then sell the food, bringing in $2 dollars of cash for $1 of stamps.
uhwhat 11y ago
Food stamps are a decent example. It's not perfect yes, but it basically becomes undesirable to trade the cash of the WANT economy for the goods of the NEEDs economy.

tarblog 11y ago

Maybe, but there's strong evidence (from the field of macroeconomics) that allowing people to just receive money (rather than payments in kind) makes them even better off. Although you may fret about people using the money for bad things, in reality mostly they don't, but they are better at allocating resources than a central planner. Think of it this way, to the citizen who actually wants to be better off, would you rather be able to cut your spending in order to make a smart investment or not be able to do so?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
They can also better fit their own needs. Maybe a smaller worse shelter wouldn't be an issue for them, but they would much prefer to have warmer clothing (smaller and warmer in comparison to peers in the same location). Maybe they forgo milk to buy even more lentils.

pjlegato 11y ago

The problem is the intractable dispute about what things should go into which category. Empirically, there has been a strong historical tendency to move things into the "NEED" category that were traditionally in the "WANT" category. For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building codes) that have switched it to a "NEED". The same thing happend with indoor heating systems. As for food, most medieval European peasants considered themselves lucky if they got a bowl of thin gruel every day. Asian peasants thought they were lucky to get a bowl of rice. Many didn't get anything on many days. Now in the US the government is talking about "food deserts" and shifting many previously "luxury" fresh nutritious foods into the "NEED" category.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building codes) that have switched it to a "NEED". The same thing happend with indoor heating systems. Yes, we rather do like preventing dysentery, bubonic plague, and flu epidemics. Public health is indeed a necessity rather than a luxury.
- pjlegato 11y ago
  This is precisely my point. For almost all of human history, public health was indeed a luxury rather than a necessity. In many parts of the world, it still is today. The details of a specific proposal are not relevant. No matter what specific items you choose for these categories, eventually people will want things you say are "extravagant luxuries" and call them "needs".
sbov 11y ago
Progress will always shift things from "WANT" to "NEED". If you want to play that game living past your 30's is a "WANT" rather than a "NEED". You probably won't find many people who think this particular "WANT" isn't a "NEED".

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Is physical intimacy (no, this doesn't mean sex, though that is one form) a want or a need? Consider the mortality rate of infants who receive no physical touch but have all their classical needs met compared to infants who are held and cared for.