This page describes some ongoing, and continuously revised thoughts ...
- right now, the absolute productivity of the economy is pretty much dependent on how many agents it manages to keep alive. Because giving to the most needy is the most effective way of doing this, the gift economy still outperforms other kinds. If we think this is incorrect, we need a new idea of what productivity is.
- The abs productivity is dependent on the number of agents *and* the mean productivity of agents. If one half of the population is completely dependent on the other half, producing nothing of its own...
- Perhaps allowing successful agents to reproduce (at some cost) would address this?
- critics of communism say that centralized allocation of resources is inefficient. Currently the GiftAgents could be described as using a decentralized version of "from each according to his powers, to each according to his needs" which seems to be pretty effective. Must critics fall back to "can't enforce" / "against human nature" arguments?
- How about incorporating some of Adam Smith's ideas about specialization? For example, simulate the benefits of a factory. A factory needs 50 resources to set-up (accumulated either by a group or an individual), and 5 resources per time-step to maintain, but doubles the productivity (RGC) of 20 worker-agents. The owner(s) of the factory employs 20 workers (chosen by mutual consent), and demand a portion of the increased output of the workers as a condition of employment. The downside is that if the owners cannot supply the maintenance resources, then the entire investment is lost. - Rujith (unashamedly libertarian). http://home.earthlink.net/~rujith/
- interesting. In the GiftAndSelfishForaging experiment I speculate about the role of division of labour. But modelling this kind of specif situation is definitely a direction Optimaes could be taken. (Thoughtful libertarians are very welcome here.) -- PhilJones
- Have you ever thought about moddeling some of our current systems (I say some because the economics, for example, in the U.S. and in Europe differ.)? Of course, this is a complex task, but actually if we can manage it to simulate the thinking of today's people, we can take this as a basis and can be surer that we have something realistic thinking algorithm. Of course, the question would stay, how much would people differ and a complete differrent society. -- Frithjof
- I would have to say that any kind of planned economy is infringing on someones freedom. Would not a better approach be to point out defects in common habits and propose new better ways that benefit everyone? I guess that is probably your aim, so I'll throw my two cents in; Usary is bad, it causes suffering and dilutes money - better option micro float shares in an activity or person, worst case is the sell themselves out completely and become a slave not much different to a mortage ;) Smart people will keep a majority share so they retain control. Gold makes a nice non inflationary money and given https://1mdc.com has no fees uses gold and can make micro payments we just need a really easy and open sharemarket to sell our own futures (hmm that sounds bad, acurate but still sounds bad) -- AndrewMcMeikan?
- some interesting points. Examining InterestFreeMoney is one of our big missions here at Optimaes. -- PhilJones