Economics Without Material Scarcity

Economics
1

Preface:

I do not posit this scenario as a ‘gotcha’ against Objectivism, or any such negative. I present it as a serious inquiry into a situation I need to address in the here and now.

Scenario:

A well-established nanotech civilization in which the manipulation of matter on a molecular level can provide all men with the material means for their survivial (food, shelter, etc) with essentially no cost. Such a civilization would have virtually no manual labor requirements whatsoever. Most forms of material trade would cease (because nanomachines would ‘grow’ most of the things you need). Thus the values of society would become predominantly intellectual values. An example from today would be computer software. The physical cost of software (the disk, burning, etc) is relatively small. The value of the software is derived from the intellectual content realized in thhat physical medium. The value provided by the designer/programmer of that software. A nanotech society would be one where the skyscraper itself cost virtually nothing to build, but the knowledge of how to build such a skyscraper with nanites is of great value.

Question:

What would men be able to use as ‘money’ - as a measure of value - when trading intellectual property, if no *particular* form of matter can fulfill that role (ex - gold - or diamonds - etc are made easily from molecular slurry, and thus are not scarce, thereby making them as useless as seashells as a store or measure of value)?

Potential Solution:

Much of the trade which occurs today is trade of physical property for physical property (with money representing an intermediate physical property in the exchange). Since personal or utility nanomachines would render most such trades obsolete, the trading of intellectual property or intellectual services would make up the vast majority of human interaction and exchange. But no one or few intellectual properties could serve as an intermediate property to be exchanged amongst everyone (I can explain why if necessary).

It occurs to me though, that one intellectual thing does exist, possessed by everyone, which is valued and which most would like to see increased as much as possible: Reputation. Even today, reputation in business is of great value. And it is a commodity which can be increased or decreased based upon one’s own actions. In addition, those actions - what one offers intellectually to others and their evaluations of its value to them - is also embodied in that reputation (as is the value of your efforts in any trade as repressented by the gold or other monetary forms you receive in exchange).

As such, in a nanotech society, one in which value is primarily intellectual, I wonder if ‘reputation’ accounts and ‘reputation’ stock markets and the like would become the medium of exchange when men seek to pursue the most productive efforts and seek to interact with other productive members of society.

When first considering this issue, I was worried that it might be too second-hand in approach to the issue. But the more I considered the concept of money, the more I realized it is no more second-hand valuation than the valuation of gold or whatever material value is used as money.

–

Would anyone care to comment on the feasibility or advisability of an economic system based on reputation?

Or - does anyone have an idea for some form of ‘currency’ other than reputation, which would not involve material values?

I would be very interested in your comments or ideas.

2

You don’t need material scarcity to establish values. You just need the alternative of life or death. That can reduce values to the ultimate measurable units of value: the finite minutes, hours, and days of a human life.

I can see people buying and selling claims on other people’s time, as specified in contracts, quantified in units of exchange, and tracked on computer systems just like we track bank and credit card accounts.

(Sounds like your idea continues to “amuse.” :smiley: )

3

One cannot own any part of another’s reputation. It is not transferable.

Potentially, however, securities (stocks, bonds, options, futures) can be used as money. They are already used as a store of value to a great degree and they are traded all the time in securities markets. All that’s required is turning them into a convenient currency - much like the progression from lumps of gold to minted coins.

4

Scenario:

A well-established nanotech civilization in which the manipulation of matter on a molecular level can provide all men with the material means for their survivial (food, shelter, etc) with essentially no cost.  Such a civilization would have virtually no manual labor requirements whatsoever.  Most forms of material trade would cease (because nanomachines would ‘grow’ most of the things you need).  Thus the values of society would become predominantly intellectual values.  An example from today would be computer software.  The physical cost of software (the disk, burning, etc) is relatively small.  The value of the software is derived from the intellectual content realized in thhat physical medium.  The value provided by the designer/programmer of that software.  A nanotech society would be one where the skyscraper itself cost virtually nothing to build, but the knowledge of how to build such a skyscraper with nanites is of great value.

Question:

What would men be able to use as ‘money’ - as a measure of value - when trading intellectual property, if no *particular* form of matter can fulfill that role (ex - gold - or diamonds - etc are made easily from molecular slurry, and thus are not scarce, thereby making them as useless as seashells as a store or measure of value)?

I don’t think such a scenario is ever possible.

To take the skyscraper example. A skyscraper requires tons of material and a lot of energy to build. Even if we had a source of free energy, material and transportation restrictions will never permit anyone to manufacture skyscrapers at the near 0 costs. And even if the cost does fall so low, the demand will automatically increase since everyone many want a bigger space to live. This would result in a shortage of building materials and the cost will go up.

Secondly, I don’t think gold can be manufactured from molecular slurry. The last time I heard, it requires high speed particle accelerators which are not easy to build.

Even if nanomachines are able to ‘grow’ a lot of things that we need, they would require an input of material first which will cost money. And they will require a nanomachine manufacturer too. I don’t think that most trade will cease because of machines that can make anything.

Even machines that can make everything cannot provide us with basic necessities at near 0 cost.

Lastly, I don’t think any company will want to implement a program which eliminates most of the material trade unless of course the government intervenes.

5

Betsy

I know you don’t need material scarcity to establish values. :slight_smile:

My point was, when dealing with a material medium of exchange, relative scarcity (as opposed to abundance) is one of the prime factors which makes a physical commodity a good currency. And, in a civilization in which material abundance is fairly universal, there would not appear to be one or a few physical materials which would fit the requirements for a good physical currency. That is all I meant by scarcity here.

Now - considering your ‘time’ currency, that thought had occured to me as well. With the ‘reputation’ currency, you are buying people’s time too, just as you do with a metal-based currency. But what confuses me about a time currency is what is it you are buying/trading exactly?

Say I want to hire you as a designer for one part of my new widget project. With a time currency, what exactly are I giving you in return for you time and you effort on your project? I can’t literally extend your life. So what is it I are trading you for your time (and what does it cost me to give it to you)? Also, say that someone else also wants to hire you at the same time, for a similar project. What is it either of us are offering you of this ‘time’ currency - and how would you decide between us based on what we offer?

Yes - amusement does continue :wink:

–

y

You say one cannot own any part of another’s reputation. This is correct. However, your OWN reputation is affected both positively and negatively by what you choose to do and whom you choose to do it with. Thus one can increase or decrease the value of one’s reputation without need of such ownership of someone else’s reputation. Remember, when you buy something from someone with gold, you are ‘voting’ on that person and/or product. You are saying you believe in this product or person as opposed to that product or person. If you got rid of the gold, every interaction with such persons or products would still be such a vote. That is what a ‘reputation’ economy would consist of.

For instance, suppose Hank Reardon hires young newcomer Bob to work for him on a project. Hank’s reputation is very great. The fact that he has taken Bob on means that Hank is placing the value of his reputation on Bob. Hank is risking his reputation on Bob - that Bob will do a good job and perform to Hank’s standards of excellence. As such, Hank’s estimation (based on an assesment of Bob’s talents and person) confer upon Bob an increase in Bob’s reputation (*because* of Hank’s good reputation). Again, this is what you do every time you buy something, or go to work for someone.

Now, consider the opposite situation. Suppose Wesley Mooch hires Bob. Mooch’s reputation is very bad. The fact that Bob went to work for Mooch says alot about Bob’s talents and person. As such, Mooch’s reputation causes a decrease in Bob’s reputation (*because* of Mooch’s bad reputation).

Thus, while it is impossible to own another person’s reputation, it is indeed possible to have someone else’s reputation affect your own. Therefore you would choose your actions and associations very carefully, so as to increase the value of your reputation, as opposed to decreasing it. The reason for this is - the better your reputation, the more options you will have to work on better projects with better people, who are much more likely to achieve better ends. (Of course, just as with money, you will have choices to work on less ‘reputation’ rich projects, if you so choose - seeking instead to derive value from some other aspect of the endeavor)

As to ‘securities’ currency, I am not certain how this would meet the qualifications of a medium of exchange. Could you elaborate, perhaps explaining how or why one security would become the means of exchange over all the others. Or are you suggesting more of a barter type system, where securities are exchanged for other securities?

–

tommy’s objections are either inaccurate or do not apply to the scenario I have created. As such, I am not addressing them. I am making this note, simply so others do not think the objections are valid and I have no answer to them. My purpose here is not to answer such challenges, but simply to search for answers to the question I have posed.

6

Are you describing networking - for the purpose of networking?

Reputation is not quantifiable, it is very difficult to exchange (assuming your scenario). Because it is not quantifiable, it cannot be used as a unit of account (ie, prices cannot be set in relation to it), and because it is very difficult to exchange, one cannot use it to make everyday purchases. I find it difficult even to imagine such a system. Perhaps one’s reputation is a store of value; but I cannot see a scheme in which it can be cash.

I don’t have fully thought-out objections; so you won’t find them posted here (as they don’t exist). But I have never heard of such a thing, and I can’t see how it replaces the dollar bill.

It is very easy electronically to instruct the bank where one has his securities accounts to debit his account and credit a vendor’s account some quantity of stock in an accepted-as-currency market-wide index fund, or for the banks to print notes backed by shares in that fund, or for credit cards to be another mechanism of selling short. In such a scheme, a select set of securities can be as liquid as cash.

7

tommy’s objections are either inaccurate or do not apply to the scenario I have created.  As such, I am not addressing them.  I am making this note, simply so others do not think the objections are valid and I have no answer to them.  My purpose here is not to answer such challenges, but simply to search for answers to the question I have posed.

I’m sorry I didn’t understand your argument at first.

Do you mean to say that on what basis will trade take place in universal prosperity when material items will be abundant and will be available at virtually no cost?

In other words what non-material value will one person be able to provide to another person as the value of material will be very small due to vast abundance?

How will we be able to add on to each other’s life through trade?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

8

Networking? I don’t think that describes it. If you don’t have a specific material reward for the work you are doing, there has to be some way for you to determine what projects or what people you are going to work for (IF you are going to work for someone else) - ie which are going to produce greater value compared to others. In other words its more about what you are going to do, with whom, and why.

As to reputation, Im not so sure that reputation couldn’t be quantified in some fashion. It could be similar to a futures quantification (but would also include a quantification of past reputation - ie how many people ‘voted’ for you/your product by use of it).

Now, about the securities, I understand how they may be debited and credited electronically etc. But my point is, WHAT are they exactly? They are the value or future value of a given project/company. That begs the question though - value as embodied in or by what - other companies? That is just an empty circle. What exactly do you get for your share if you want to buy a nanopattern or design - a share in some other pattern, design, project? As I said, that seems more like a barter system - ie you have done away with a medium of exchange entirely. And in doing so, I think you do away with some of the distinct benefits inherent in a system which uses a medium of exchange.

9

The securities could be stakes in art or scientific designs like a program. Couldn’t one trade the ownership electronically, and have the versatility of a medium of exchange? Or was it other values that you see come from a medium of exchange, and what are those values?

10

Not that I want to avoid commenting on your interesting projections, but I think that material scarcity will never go away. I would bet that your scenario seems as futuristic to us as our current lives would seem to a cave man. What cave-dweller would imagine that some day it would not only be possible to avoid skinning an animal for this year’s winter fashions, but that there would be a way to produce thousands of garments per day; something they might regard as a limitless supply, forever ending the need to expend labor to create clothing. I wish I could just go pick out a free pair of running shoes every so often(!) but unfortunately, I still need to use my labor-earned money on them.

Every age so far has had its own relative material scarcities, and it might turn out that nano-manufacturing certain materials is more difficult, or requires more energy because of the nature of the atomic bonds involved, or whatever (we will probably still not be able to make gold in any significant quantity - pesky element). Every age also seems to simply raise the bar on what we want to do with our time and materials, rather than eliminating materials as a factor in our lives altogether. I think because we will still live in the material world, the future will be similar.

11

A well-established nanotech civilization in which the manipulation of matter on a molecular level can provide all men with the material means for their survivial (food, shelter, etc) with essentially no cost.

This statement requires the assumption of a Marxian falliacy that only direct human labor “puts value into” something and thus the cost to the buyer of the end good should only be equal to the ammount of “value put into” the good by the direct involvement of human labor. If this is the case then it is easy to see that something being made entirely by automated machines sholud cost nothing.

A rational basis for cost is marginal utility. The basic idea of marginal utility is that the utility (meaning usefulness or value) that an individual places on any particular good is based on: 1, the relationship of the need the good fulfills to their other needs; and 2, the level of fullfillment of that particular need.

In other words at any one moment a person will have certain recognized needs. Each need will be satisfied to some level. The marginal utility of a good is the vaule of additional satisfaction that will be received from obtaining the good taking into account all other needs left in their current state.

Now, a good way to picture an economic system is to look at it as an individual. (Keep in mind, though, that it is made up of individuals and that it is actually the sum of all those within the system and NOT an individual itself. This is just an analogy.) The system has at any one point in time certain needs that are fulfilled to a certain point. The price of a good (or the cost of a good) is simply the economic system’s “marginal utility” of that good; more on this below.

Such a civilization would have virtually no manual labor requirements whatsoever.

To the contrary, it would require a vast ammount of human labor. One can see that simply running the machines and directing them to their desired ends would be an enormous task. Just because it might require only the pushing of a button instead of swinging a heavy hammer against hard rock for twelve hours does not mean that no labour would be required. The majority of the work would be in figuring out what ends the machines should be directed towards. I believe that the philisophical mistake here is a mind body dichotomy and then taking the side of the body.

Most forms of material trade would cease (because nanomachines would ‘grow’ most of the things you need).

I fail to see how material trade would cease. First of all, the machines are growing _material_ things which would be traded. Even if everybody had their own army of “nanomachines in a can” that could do their bidding there is, again, the problem of directing them to our desired ends which would mean a thriving trade in programs that built a new dresser or home or whatever. Also, there needs to be a material input for the machines to work on. Just as man cannont make steel without iron ore, the machines could not make a skyscraper out of thin air. This means that the initial materials of the finished product must all be at the site ready for the mahines to start working. Again, there would be a thriving trade but this time in providing the materials that machines have to work with. Finally the machines themselves would need to be made. They most certainly would need to be made out of _something_ and would be traded as well as transported. This means that there would still be a transportation industry which would need capital in the form of trucks or whatever the “nano-society” would have to transport all the starting materials and machines.

Thus the values of society would become predominantly intellectual values.  An example from today would be computer software.  The physical cost of software (the disk, burning, etc) is relatively small.  The value of the software is derived from the intellectual content realized in thhat physical medium.  The value provided by the designer/programmer of that software.

Again, the mind body split shows up. You have: 1, assumed the mind is unreal; 2, say that we would value the mind; 3, make the implication that we would value something that is unreal.

A nanotech society would be one where the skyscraper itself cost virtually nothing to build, but the knowledge of how to build such a skyscraper with nanites is of great value.

The sky scraper would still cost something to build. Keep in mind that when one says that something “costs” what one is saying is that “at any one time there is only one use for something and this means that I will have to leave other needs unfulfilled.” Capital would have to be withdrawn from other uses to build the skyscraper. This would be in the form of using the raw materials and machines for the skyscraper instead of for something else, say, a factory to build more machines. It is because other alternatives were forgone in constructing the skyscraper that it cost something. In fact, the its cost would be the economic system’s “marginal utility” of the sky scraper.

Question:

What would men be able to use as ‘money’ - as a measure of value - when trading intellectual property, if no *particular* form of matter can fulfill that role (ex - gold - or diamonds - etc are made easily from molecular slurry, and thus are not scarce, thereby making them as useless as seashells as a store or measure of value)?

They would still use gold. The first thing to notice is that there would still be things of value that would have a cost. This means that there would still be a need for a medium of exchange. Second, the machines could not just “make gold out of nothing.” Gold is an element and would require nothing less than gold as its own starting raw material to make. Even if the machines were capable of “making more gold” because they have nano-nuclear-reactors or something, it would still require the withdrawl of capital from elsewhere in the economic system to make the gold. This means that the gold would cost something to make and thus why it would not be made to the point of lowering its value to the point of near nothingness. Also, any gold that was made would have to also fight for its own use. There are more uses for gold than just money and each use would be in competition as to which use the gold would go to. Finally, since gold would be used as money this would automatically keep gold’s value high enough that only something that were better at being used for money than gold could take its place.

…

It seems as if you are asking what happens when material scarcity does not exist. There will always be material scarcity because man has an unlimited need for wealth. This can be seen in how it doesn’t matter how much money one makes one could still find employments for it. This is because man’s mind is unlimited in its range and scope of thoughts that it can have. Since man has a need to see his thoughts completed in the physical world he has a need of unlimited wealth as the means to experiencing his unlimited mind. This is why even taken in the context of the entire universe there will still be scarcity.

12

Some here seem to misunderstand the purpose of this thread. It is to ANSWER the question I have asked. As I have ALREADY STATED, my purpose here is NOT to discuss challenges to the scenario I have presented. Some don’t seem to respect that intention.

IF you do not have suggestions as an answer to the question, then you have no response. And IF you cannot restrain yourself from CHALLENGING the scenario, then PLEASE present your disagreements in a DIFFERENT thread, so that I CAN deal with the scenario I have presented HERE - ie so I can FOCUS on what I was SEEKING to focus upon.

Im sorry if this sounds TESTY, but I already stated this once.

In SPECIFIC response to neme, please do NOT presume you know my assumptions nor my premises. You are WRONG in almost every one of them, beginning with your VERY FIRST SENTENCE. No marxist assumptions have been made. However, I am NOT here to explain to you WHAT assumptions HAVE been made NOR to what end. It is YOU who have made UNWARRANTED assumptions - assumptions which stand in direct opposition to my EXPLICIT statements, I might add. I will ask you NOT to repeat that behavior.

13

RadCap’s question has plenty of merit. Soon enough, we will be able to grow gold in vats, and a return to the gold standard would be a quick way to set prices in the quadrillions. More generally, the trend will be to shift resources from the production of material values to the production of “spiritual” economic values - eg, stable software, customer service, and other as-yet-unheard-of things; the cause of it is easily seen and it has borne out in history.

RadCap, all value is measured relative to other values. Money is simply a sort of common ratio, against which it is easier to quantify value. What better standard to set prices against than the market?

Also, before you analyze securities or reputation as currency in a futuristic economy, analyze them in this economy. Could you use your reputation as cash in this economy? Could you use securities you own as cash? If so, how easily?

14

y

Yes, I know that all value is measured in relation to other values. When making a direct trade (barter), one is trading one value for another value. No money is involved.

Money is an intermediate commodity - an intermediate value - used to make exchanges easier to facilitate (so long as it is easily divisible, relatively valuable as a commodity in its own right, and has stability of value). The reason for this is, without an intermediate commodity, it can be exceedingly difficult to find someone who has the values you are looking for, who is willing to trade them for the values you are willing to give up.

As I said, it seems that your are arguing for a situation where money is not used - an intermediate vallue is not first traded - but barter instead is used. If I am misunderstanding your position, please let me know.

As to your second question, securities ultimately rest on the value (current or anticipated) of the material goods and material values possessed by the company in question. Since my scenario posits a future in which such values are reproducable with virtually no cost, it is not possible to compare the situation today to the situation in the scenario. Otherwise, the question itself would not arise.

Now, again, if I am missing something or not understanding an argument being made, please let me know.

As it stands, the reason I have focused on reputation as an apparently viable alternative is that it DOES have value (less than it shouldd in today’s market because of govt interference in the economy). And that value represents more than just the material value embodied in its stock or its facilities. That is why I think it could used a new form of currency.

I believe, in an economy in which much if not most of its value is derived from its intellectual property, that some form of currency based on intellectual commodities or some form of intellectual valuation, rather than physical commodities or physical values, is necessary if a medium of exchange is going to be used.

Something like a Reputation Quotient (RQ) might fit that bill. Companies/organizations/associations would have combined RQs of the people who work for them, combined with the Rpoints of the number of uses of their product, pattern, design, etc.

Note: this has almost all been literally off the top of my head as I write this.

Another reason I think a reputation currency would be good is that nanotech, if not handled properly could be very dangerous. Knowing reputation concretely could in fact serve to make the tech safer because fewer people will take risks dealing with those who do not have good RQs, leaving such a person with fewer opportunities to wreak havoc with the advanced technology.

15

I am not arguing for barter. Using shares of an index fund as currency is not barter - the shares are an intermediate commodity which presumably everyone is willing to tender and receive. It is no different from a banknote backed by gold - it is a banknote backed by the property the firms own.

The value of a firm is not merely the value of the material goods it possesses. It is the value of all the salable values it possesses - or, it is the present value of the firm’s future profitability. That’s a frozen abstraction you have.

16

I know that a firm is not merely the value of the material goods it possesses. I thought I made myself understood in that respect, but apparently not. So rest assured I do understand the value in question.

Now, as you point out, these ‘index fund banknotes’ are backed by the property the firm owns. As I pointed out though, in most cases, the property which is owned has little or no trade value - because it is easily reproduced or replaced by comparable values.

Furthermore, this assumes also long term existence of a firm (for its future profitability). But nanotech will decentralize production - even of intellectual property. And firms will likely come into existence and pass out of existence because the individuals working on them will desire to move onto new projects and work with new people involved in such projects. Cookie cutter mass production will be a thing of the past in most (but certainly not all) instances. As such, the longevity needed to build progressively bigger and better products (which require greater and greater accumulations of capital) will not be necessary in virtually all cases. The value of a company truly will be its people (not its ‘factories’ or buildings or stocks of products). And each one of them will be a free agent.

So what you will ultimately be trading is the value of the people and the value of their intellectual property. And your index fund is simply a piece of paper upon which this value is printed (or electronically registered or whatever) and then traded. This sounds very similar to what I am proposing with the RQ, except that the values in mine are tied directly to the individuals, as well as to the companies. Thus Im not sure that we are far off from each other.

A thought occurs to me. Consider blogs for a moment. Men and women engage in what they consider a productive endeavor - recording ideas and information readily available for download and use by others. In most if not all cases, money is not what drives them - and there is usually none to make. Now - what is the ‘currency’ on blogs. That which people consider to be good ideas or information. People are voting as to the value of the blog by their continued visits - as well as their referrals to others. This is what builds their reputation. And it is reputation - reputation for being useful and valid etc - which makes their efforts more and more productive. Links on the side are also ways of boosting reputation (or killing it, depending upon the link) because reputation is affected by the knowledge and value of these other places as well, which reflects upon the person making the link. So some blogs become more read and more useful - which in turn increases their reputation - while others have little reputation or actually lose reputation because of bad turns or decisions etc.

Im rambliing a bit here but I think (hope) you get the idea of what I am trying to convey. Reputation can be quantified to a good degree and can be used to enhance or destry one’s own reputation - thus encouraging better or more useful activities (ie the increase of values)

BTW - please do not take any of my arguments as aspersions upon your ideas. They are indeed very helpful. Trying to present other ideas - and trying to knock mine down - is helping spur my thoughts on the matter. You are helping me hone in my mind not just the answers, but also the scenario/question as well.

Thank you. :slight_smile:

17

Now - considering your ‘time’ currency, that thought had occured to me as well.  With the ‘reputation’ currency, you are buying people’s time too, just as you do with a metal-based currency.  But what confuses me about a time currency is what is it you are buying/trading exactly?

You would be trading for a claim on someone else’s time. It might be a “You help me plow my field and I’ll help you put up your barn” kind of bartering for labor that has been used when people are mostly self-sufficient and there isn’t much of a circulating medium of exchange.

Such “promises” could be transferrable and an object of bidding just as potential employers bid now for the services of workers and put a monetary value on those services based on the quality of an individual’s work. This could get rather complex and the “labor” market could get to look like a combination of a stock exchange, banking system, credit card system, and eBay, but computer systems could handle it.

Say I want to hire you as a designer for one part of my new widget project.  With a time currency, what exactly are I giving you in return for you time and you effort on your project?

You would pay me in “dollars” – a unit of exchange that people widely accept in accordance with prior contractual agreements. In this sense, it is like the way a fiat currency works now EXCEPT the government or a private individual would have no right to counterfeit or inflate the currency. The only things someone could exchange for “dollars” would be his own labor and the things he could produce or trade for.

So what is it I are trading you for your time

“Dollars.”

(and what does it cost me to give it to you)?

What YOU have to do to earn those “dollars.”

Also, say that someone else also wants to hire you at the same time, for a similar project.  What is it either of us are offering you of this ‘time’ currency - and how would you decide between us based on what we offer?

They would offer me “dollars” too and I would decide which one I wanted to work for based on many factors including the money offered.

18

“You would be trading for a claim on someone else’s time. It might be a “You help me plow my field and I’ll help you put up your barn” kind of bartering for labor that has been used when people are mostly self-sufficient and there isn’t much of a circulating medium of exchange.”

Ah - I was trying to avoid a barter system, for numerous reasons, including some I identified in previous posts. What’s more, while I agree a computer system could handle the ‘promises’, there is one aspect I don’t find attractive and believe most would not care for either. Others could bid on your services, and you would have to work for them whether you found such work or such persons objectionable or not. For instance, a Wesley Mooch could decide to buy up your labor time - or a Dr. Statler - or even Red Herring. :slight_smile:

Thus, I don’t think ‘promises’ trading is so promising, since it seems like there would be numerous caveats, restrictions, etc placed on individual bits of ‘currency’ - ie labor promise dollars.

So - any thoughts on the concept of Reputation as currency?

19

So - any thoughts on the concept of Reputation as currency?

RadCap,

Thanks for posting interesting food for thought. I think a future nanotech society would still have to use energy as the ultimate non-reducible resource. Future currencies would derive from “energy”, in whatever forms energy can be measured (brain/thought power, computation power, nano-assembly power et cetera).

I also agree that “reputation” would be a good unit for a currency. But it would have to include many “sub-reputations”, otherwise it would probably exclude “the lonely inventor” and other people who spend more time producing, inventing and thinking in their own minds rather than building reputations in other people’s minds. At this point, I don’t see the proper device(s) for measuring reputations objectively.

The suggested idea of using “time” as a currency is perhaps better than “reputation”. However, it is limited to physical systems only. Consider: What happens if we place your question in the context of a “virtual world” instead of a “nano world”, i.e. a simulator system where people (connected to it) would build (and own as property) digitally created structures, actions and environments? Time would then be a secondary parameter, derived from computation power.

20

RedCap,

Discussion and thought about a situation that is impossible (lack of material scarcity) is worthless. If that was your intention, then I do not respect you or the thread you started. Trying to learn something about economics by discussing and thinking about an impossible situation is like trying to learn about human motion by discussing and thinking about how humans fly by flapping thier arms.