[Home]RoadMap

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 1,54c1,58
[笔记本]
[双色球]
[妇科]
[网站排名]
[网站优化]
[google代理]
[google广告]
[google左侧优化]
[搜索引擎排名]
[搜索引擎优化]
[google排名]
[网站优化]
[google右侧排名]
[google优化]
[数据恢复]
[留学]
[商标]
[鲜花]
[翻译公司]
[翻译]
[旅游]
[美容]
[机票]
[拓展训练]
[笔记本]
[驾校]
[服装]
[印刷]
[香港六合彩]
[香港六合彩]
[六合彩]
[六合彩]
[注册公司]
[公司注册]
[注册公司]
[公司注册]
[代办公司]
[代办执照]
[公司注册]
[注册公司]
[注册上海公司]
[上海公司注册]
[租礭
[上海租礭
[监控]
[招聘]
[减肥]
[对讲机]
[gps]
[注册]
[数据恢复]
[网站推广]
[google排名]
[翻译]

The Big Three




Right now, you're probably jumping up and down, fuming or laughing, and saying "this is ridiculous.'' Because you recognise three gaping holes that the model needs to address before it becomes interesting.

* Money
* Human Nature
* Innovation

We worry about these things too, so here are some initial thoughts.

Money




Like everyone, we assume Barter is an inefficient version of exchange. (Though the model may surprise us.) So getting a version of money working is my priority. We have a first draft of MoneyAgent which treats money as another resource except :
* agents don't spontaneously get or consume it
* MoneyAgents will not barter, only exchange money for other resources.

Probably, for a money economy to be really effective, we'll have to introduce the idea of "traders" : agents which try to buy more than they need, in order to resell, thus moving resources further through the social network. When we do, we really ought to have an equivalent for barter so there is a fair comparison. Possibly ProfitSeekingBarterAgents are already doing a small amount of this.
Maybe we should have "charity" agents, who collect surplus and redistribute it on a gift basis too.

How are prices to be set? At the moment, a local auction mechanism. Is the current one the right one to be using?

Things we'd like to test with a more sophisticated notion of money :

* the effect of a universal minimal income.
* We'll implement discretionary lending of money, and so compare lending for interest with InterestFreeMoney.

Psychology




But people are selfish, right? Only a model which treats agents as selfish utility maximizers has any validity.

Let's answer that in two parts :

* people are selfish : Well it looks like that ... if you're going to squint a bit and make rough generalizations. It can also look like people are generous and give gifts when they have the chance. (Which they do during a large part of their lives. GiftGivingNow)

: But in general, while no one is going to build accurate models of human nature, we think we can look at some aspects of psychology.

: We can look at societies where behaviour is "learned" from neighbours and the viability and sustainability of altruistic behaviours in these contexts. (By analogy, much work on altruism takes the form of game-theoretic investigations of the prisoner's dilemma. And discusses when co-operation can invade defection.) Given some hypotheses (criticisable as always) about how behaviour can be passed from one agent to another, we can look at the viability and sustainability of altruistic economic behaviours.

* Only a model which treats agents as selfish utility maximizers has any validity.
: Even when we accept people are selfish, we can still question whether the current economic system is the only organization available to rational self-agrandizers. Simulation can tell us whether there are others, equally compatible with the "selfish" view of human nature, which are nevertheless fairer and more productive.

A second problem of human psychology is laziness. See WhyWork?

Innovation




These economies look at a fixed number of resources. But isn't the real essence of modern capitalism creative destruction? In other words, don't we need to incentivate people to invent new types of products and eliminate others, not just pass the existing ones around?

Well, exactly what motivates people to be creative is a question of human psychology. With our model, we can at least start with agents which can introduce new resources. We can tinker with the rules for introducing them. For example, if innovation is considered to be a function of spare surplus, free to be invested in innovation, is it better that this free surplus is concentrated or distributed?

Other Burning Questions




Other things we are particularly keen to look at :

* LocalCurrencies : what might be the benefit of introducing multiple kinds of money. For example, if neighbourhoods can add a second type of money (cheaper to create or borrow) can this improve economic activity in an area?

* RedistributiveTaxation? : does this have any beneficial effect? Can an exchange economy with redistributive taxation out-perform one without? Under what conditions?

* Globalization : what happens when separated markets, clusters of agents previously using different currencies or within zones of redistributive taxation are "opened" amd able to trade freely with each other?

The Big Three

Right now, you're probably jumping up and down, fuming or laughing, and saying "this is ridiculous.'' Because you recognise three gaping holes that the model needs to address before it becomes interesting.

We worry about these things too, so here are some initial thoughts.

Money

Like everyone, we assume Barter is an inefficient version of exchange. (Though the model may surprise us.) So getting a version of money working is my priority. We have a first draft of MoneyAgent which treats money as another resource except :

Probably, for a money economy to be really effective, we'll have to introduce the idea of "traders" : agents which try to buy more than they need, in order to resell, thus moving resources further through the social network. When we do, we really ought to have an equivalent for barter so there is a fair comparison. Possibly ProfitSeekingBarterAgents are already doing a small amount of this. Maybe we should have "charity" agents, who collect surplus and redistribute it on a gift basis too.

How are prices to be set? At the moment, a local auction mechanism. Is the current one the right one to be using?

Things we'd like to test with a more sophisticated notion of money :

Psychology

But people are selfish, right? Only a model which treats agents as selfish utility maximizers has any validity.

Let's answer that in two parts :

But in general, while no one is going to build accurate models of human nature, we think we can look at some aspects of psychology.

We can look at societies where behaviour is "learned" from neighbours and the viability and sustainability of altruistic behaviours in these contexts. (By analogy, much work on altruism takes the form of game-theoretic investigations of the prisoner's dilemma. And discusses when co-operation can invade defection.) Given some hypotheses (criticisable as always) about how behaviour can be passed from one agent to another, we can look at the viability and sustainability of altruistic economic behaviours.

Even when we accept people are selfish, we can still question whether the current economic system is the only organization available to rational self-agrandizers. Simulation can tell us whether there are others, equally compatible with the "selfish" view of human nature, which are nevertheless fairer and more productive.

A second problem of human psychology is laziness. See WhyWork?

Innovation

These economies look at a fixed number of resources. But isn't the real essence of modern capitalism creative destruction? In other words, don't we need to incentivate people to invent new types of products and eliminate others, not just pass the existing ones around?

Well, exactly what motivates people to be creative is a question of human psychology. With our model, we can at least start with agents which can introduce new resources. We can tinker with the rules for introducing them. For example, if innovation is considered to be a function of spare surplus, free to be invested in innovation, is it better that this free surplus is concentrated or distributed?

Other Burning Questions

Other things we are particularly keen to look at :


HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited March 14, 2005 12:32 am by RichardP (diff)
Search: