Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (7855)	12/21/2005 7:44:23 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541965

That additional data would be enormously hard to figure. Not letting people bypass the system for their transactions would require strong controls. Imposing the cost entailed in that "additional data" would in and of itself amount to a large state intervention. I don't get it, a product code and amount is all that is needed. That's trivial. Marketplaces are not about imposing a fine based on real, potential or imagined social, environmental, or even economic costs of the future results of today's actions on to the actor. Its not a fine. Its an economic legacy. It has value which might be positive or negative. When I buy the shares of a company the current price clearly includes the market assessment of the companies future potential. As a first step think of what would happen in stocks if corporate bankruptcy were eliminated and shareholders held responsibility? If a company craters and owes suppliers, they dip into the shareholders pockets to cover their debts. How would that affect market dynamics, and in particular the way in which shareholders would view boards, and officers? The value of some benefit, and the cost of some harm, is in many ways subjective. If I want to sell something I can give you the price and you can decide if you want to pay it or not. If the price is subjected to retro-active adjustment you do a great deal of damage to the pricing mechanism and thus to the economy. If people don't know what they have to pay for something the market lacks transparency. Risk is greatly increased The price is always set by the present view of the situation. It is always up to both parties to decide what their short or long term interests are. This happens by the billions of shares every trading day in the USA. Buying a share today at price X in no way provides any safety as to what that price is tomorrow. This is different only in the sense that we allow negative numbers as well. One would expect the fast bulk of ones economic legacy to be zero of course. Suppose you have 100K. You might buy some real estate, you might invest in stocks, or T-bills, or buy carbon bonds in S. American, or even plant your own little forest, or you might spend it all on very expensive wines which you consume or say perhaps hookers, or maybe you pay for the education of a medical student through med school (a cheap med school :)). Metamoney would simply make all of those more liquid. Some of them will have good value for later in your life or for your heirs, while others are likely to have zero or perhaps somewhat negative value. The point is, at anytime you could sell or buy other metamony in the marketplace. The point of having metamargin (perhaps a poor term) is to prevent any entity from getting too toxic. Basically a margin cost would be tacked on to transactions for someone with poor risk, which would make it difficult for anyone to economically acquire too much risk. Of course the perception of risk is subject to fluctuation, which is a risk in itself. Also its not just the level of cost that is an issue but who should pay it. Every transaction is monetorized. For all economic entities. The data would track the type of transaction, say resale, vs. final consumption. All metamoney can be traded in the marketplace. Risk or reward for any transaction is assigned only in the marketplace. You may buy or sell at any time. I have to know the cost of my purchases, not later find out that I have to pay 20 times as much. There will always be a current market rate. You can buy or sell at the current rate. When you buy a gallon of gas, you can immediately sell the legacy, at whatever the current market rate is. Buyer and seller always agree on the current price, but must disagree on the relative merits of the transaction, at least from their own circumstances. 2 - What if they are revised to the extent that I am destitute and die, and then we find out it was an error and my actions where actually positive? Do I care if my heirs get millions? What if I don't have heirs? During your own life, you can constantly reevaluate your situation and take actions accordingly. Conditions are not likely to change radically on short notice, so those who stay awake, and avoid risky things, will do OK. On aggragate, this system is no different then the risk the nation faces anyway going into the future. It simply monetorizes all behavior, rather than using an asymmetric socialized risk, individualized reward system which we have now. The integral of risk/reward for the nation is still identical, so the GDP is going to be the same. If anything GDP will go up because we've created an entire new field of employment and engine of wealth: trading metamoney. 3 - If I am dead the adjustment can't be applied to me. My heirs are not me and it is an injustice to apply the costs to them for something they didn't do. As I pointed out to kholt, you don't have a problem with your heirs and positive numbers. Get rid of the asymmetry with respect to negative ones.