Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Guy Higgins < >
  • To: Jim Fournier < >, Tom Crowl < >
  • Cc: Douglas Rushkoff < >, John Philpin < >, Jason Wong < >, David Brin < >, Micah Sifry < >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < >, ProjectVRM list < >, Andy Oram < >, Joe Trippi < >, John Battelle < >, Michel Bauwens < >, Brennan Center for Justice < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment
  • Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:30:44 -0600
I once read that humans laugh when it hurts too much to cry…

Guy

From: Jim Fournier < "> >
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 13:46
To: Tom Crowl < "> >
Cc: Douglas Rushkoff < "> >, John Philpin < "> >, Guy Higgins < "> >, Jason Wong < "> >, David Brin < "> >, Micah Sifry < "> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < "> >, ProjectVRM list < "> >, Andy Oram < "> >, Joe Trippi < "> >, John Battelle < "> >, Michel Bauwens < "> >, Brennan Center for Justice < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

Yes, black humor may be the only reasonable response to the world. If we were to boil it down to one cross-cultural principal it might be something like “protection of privilege”, then lawyers, guns and money, and politicians, are just details of implementation.

Diagnosis may be easier the a prescription for effective treatment, but it seems that the only things that really perturb the system change the game rules, like the printing press, maybe http and html, possibly blockchain, but conservation of privilege may be almost as inevitable as conservation of energy.
-j

On May 12, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Tom Crowl < "> > wrote:

Yes they do! Of course I was only making a jest... but you have the essential driving the joke.

The 'serious' goal must be to provide methods for essentially perennial (r)evolution... and a re-examination of methods and results short of Billionaire tossing.

Most "economists" (i.e. pretend scientists)... and politicians (I.e. pretend philosopher-statesmen) fall into the trap of rationalizing the advancement of their interests via dependence on ideologies rather than evidence.

And sadly, voters tend to follow them. People prefer the false certainties that fixed ideologies (and many religions) offer rather than the uncertainties and "lets see what works" approach that the pragmatist embraces.

But its important to add that the boundaries of pragmatic consideration are defined by the forces and experiences acting upon the decision maker(s)

This is why I'm so angry about the effects of big money dependence in politics... and how it has so narrowly set the limits of debate.





On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jim Fournier < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
If you substitute guillotine for volcano it sounds a bit like the French revolution… Extremely unbalanced systems get brittle, often with collateral damage.
-j


After periods of attempt at serious thought I often feel an irresistible urge to be silly... to go way out of the box. But maybe inside of the silliness there's some angle to consider.

Taking an anthropological approach (as I'm wont to do...)

Here's an idea:

Sacrifice has a long history in human civilizations. With that in mind:

Take the top 10 wealthiest, most powerful people each year, hold a big global party... and throw them into a volcano! (at least till everyone on the planet has food, a roof.. and peace)

Now I don't hold my breath for this one to become a reality. But it would do quite a bit to change motivations at the top.

Haven't had a drink.. but that's gotta be a 10 tequila shot idea! And could go quite a ways towards a more egalitarian world.



On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
I'm repeating this line. I don't want it missed. Agree or disagree.. but this is the core driver of the work I'm doing.

... this has grown out of my deep concern regarding scaling problems in human societies which I don't believe have their roots in specific ideologies or Left/Right rationalizations but arise as products of natural human drives operating in environments for which we have not evolved.

The micropayment AND the method of its implementation is certainly not some final solution to all this. But I think its a piece.



On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
David, thanks for the mention in your excellent article re the need and utility for the micropayment!

Only one clarification: Its absolutely true that my original "invention" was built on the idea of its utility in advocacy and charity... for two reasons:

1. Its the initial motivator for my interest... especially the impact of scale and low click through resistance would serve to create a better political balance and serve to remedy the disaster which the DLC and big money dependency has done to distort political decision and accelerate and wealth/power division. I also recognized it perils. This has never been an effort to create Tom Crowl's Handy-dandy website to give quarters to politicians.

2. I felt that utility in those areas could act as the catalyst for user adoption of the system... and the soliciting side's interest in its promotion.

Literally within weeks it became very clear to me that the potential was far greater... its utility in journalism became the next area where this utility was apparent and I've made that point repeatedly. But I could not afford to redo my patent application and that, in a sense, it was unnecessary for the reason below:

It quickly became clear that the needs of the micropayment (especially one-click identification) suggested that it was a natural monopoly... and that ALL micropayments would for whatever purpose utilize the same system. And have also made this point repeatedly.

This is why as far back as 2008 I was pointing out that this natural monopoly could be a key to "catalyze the net" with utility and implications far beyond the micropayment itself.

Additionally, my use of the term "moneyed Like button" was not only to simplify understanding of what I was talking about... but also to relate it to my neophyte exploration of the nature of money itself... and its relationship to intention (i.e. an idea with an objective).

And finally some points to ponder:
  • Perhaps we should NOT here automatically shy away from the idea of a "universal identity silo" (everyone in it... one user; one account)... but rather recognize that there are potentials in such a network as well as perils and consider how such a network might be managed.
  • Could there be value for it as a general feedback mechanism against wealth/power concentration  by being constructed as a "for profit" universal silo?  (i.e. one user/one share; non-transferable expiring with death)
  • Could such a network... while designed for "established" currencies... have utility in allowing other forms to evolve perhaps for local trading currencies?
  • Could "seeding" accounts be something to think about?
  • Could such a "pool" be the root for one or more public banks?
  • And the "Long Now" position: its potentials  (if things like "the end of work" , material abundance, etc. come to pass) as an apolitical vehicle for things like a guaranteed income)
And then there's this: from the start this has grown out of my deep concern regarding scaling problems in human societies which I don't believe have their roots in specific ideologies or Left/Right rationalizations but arise as products of natural human drives operating in environments for which we have not evolved.

Here's another of those biosocial issues along with the Altruism dilemma: We primates are neither fundamentally "Good" nor "Bad. What we are is this: fundamentally social mixed in with a bit of pirate.  (I haven't got a good name for that yet)

This has big implications when combined with scale, the altruism dilemma as well as the tendency towards rationalization and cognitive dissonance.*

Developing healthy politics requires a broad cultural recognition of these problems. In other words the average citizen needs to incorporate a better understanding of what humans are and are not and the implications.  And for that broad recognition to take place... we must first have some leadership form an intellectual community... somewhere.

* In fact I believe that with simply these two issue it can be shown just WHY the big banks need to be broken up for BETTER banking... and that's coming.



On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
To reply to David Brin: that's why I'm thinking to go straight to the businesses (even the big ones) that are suffering under the grow-no-matter-what paradigm, and offer them more revenue-based, circulatory solutions toward rewarding their shareholders (along with other stakeholders).

They quickly come to realize that the only thing in the way of them becoming dividend or even profit-based enterprises is a tax code that rewards capital gains and punishes dividends, payroll, and value creation. Then, they will start using their clout to lobby for the very changes that will make the economy less extractive and more generative. 

If the legislative bodies are too paralyzed by the republican party to enact anything other than 'table burning,' then we don't look to them for solutions. 



On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, John Philpin < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
This just in through Twitter : 

https://twitter.com/GillersMusicMan/status/730132524991655939

looks like Beethoven ripped off the the 5 beer concept and put it to music some 20 years later !



Interestingly, I suspect that almost the entire U.S. Constitution was a “five beers” idea — in 1783.  Those guys took a bunch of theorizing by Enlightenment philosophers, seasoned it with lots of practical experience and invented democratic government (and if we think there was agreement across the board, joe should look at the Ten Dollar bill and recall how differences were settled then — Mssrs Hamilton and Burr)

Guy

From: Jason Wong < " target="_blank"> >
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 14:04
To: David Brin < " target="_blank"> >
Cc: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank"> >, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank"> >, Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank"> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank"> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank"> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank"> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank"> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank"> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank"> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank"> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank"> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

Agree! Results count.

Disagree on the five beers. As an Asian I can't drink five beers. I think it has to do with not having a certain enzyme!

Jason D. Wong MD MPH MBA, FACOG

Instead of cludged prescription that sound really cool over one's fifth beer, how about this unique idea.  Actually restore something called "politics" as a process of sober negotiation engaged-in by adults?   
    
    Your own cynical-dismissive chuckle, upon reading the previous sentence is THE major symptom of a disease that has been deliberately inflicted upon us by those whose core aim is to stymie one of the most important problem-solving modes of the Western Enlightenment. Destroying politics as a grownup and serious process of negotiation has been nothing less than treason.

There is no pretending equality of blame. Let's take Jason's sunset clause for regulations... a real five beer proposal. How about instead responsibly auditing agencies and deliberating which ones to revise or cancel?  You might imagine republicans do this, but when they had complete control over all three branches of government -- from 2001 through 2007 -- they eliminated zero agencies and only deregulated Wall Street and resource extraction, two deregulations for which we paid trillions.

(In fairness, in 1996 the Congressional GOP did banish and eliminate their own bipartisan Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) which kept offering up inconvenient "facts.")

So which party banished the captured Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) or the captured Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) restoring competition to airlines and rails?  Who broke up AT&T's monopoly? Who deregulated GPS and who pushed through the famous bill unleashing the Internet upon the world? I could go on, but you might guess the answer by now, know it was Al Gore's bill that did that last miracle.

There is no "balance" here.  One party still wants to engage in pragmatic, negotiated politics.  The other will not sit at the table.  They have made it declared policy to burn the table.



On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 11:47 AM, Jason Wong < " target="_blank"> > wrote:


How about this- constitutional amendment every ten years for a complete top down review of all federal laws, regulations and executive directives. Mandatory cleaving of ( % ) of the above, and disestablishment of any laws greater than 50 years old.  That will solve the historical issue of empires and nations failing over due to the sheer weight of oppression. 

Jason D. Wong MD MPH MBA, FACOG

This is kind of a squirrel, but I think that some of the ideas that the illustrious Mr. Heinlein listed in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress were even more interesting:
  • Elect representatives by private sector “career” — doctors would vote for someone to represent them, engineers would vote for someone to represent them, etc.  The question of course is would there be representative for career criminals ;-)
  • Voters aggregate alphabetically rather than geographically — that would force a national legislature to view bills differently and force local councils/legislatures to focus on local issues (which my neighbors seem incapable of doing — they are far more interested in solving other peoples’ problems; sigh…)
  • Hold an election and then randomly choose 60% of the winners and fill out the legislature by choosing the remaining 40% randomly from the losers — no need for term limits there
  • Require all bills to pass by a super majority but repealed by a simple majority (or even a significant minority — say 40% +1 or some such).
Obviously all of these ideas have serious issues, but they are interesting and could generate some better way forward – some way to avoid concentrations of power.

Guy

From: David Brin < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Reply-To: David Brin < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Date: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 19:16
To: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Cc: Jason Wong < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

Guy's suggested electoral rules are tempting, though one is reminded of Heinlein's criterion for citizenship in STARSHIP TROOPERS... service first, then voting.  far better pattern was suggested in his novel DOUBLE STAR, wherein computers let us bypass the insane unfairness of electoral representation based on where you live.  The result is that 40% of Americans will never elect a representativeand congressfolk blithely ignore that 40% in their district.  A treason made worse by gerrymandering. (Which one party has refined to an art and a reflex.)

Far better for a modern era? Any 750,000 citizens can unite to "buy" or to "elect" a representative, unanimously. All the other reps must find 750,000... say among single university women or all the tuck drivers in the midwest.  If your constituency shrinks below 700K you better recruit more citizens or you are out of office and those 600,000 need to fish around and build alliances to get over the mark.

This way, no one is disenfranchised, ever!




Tom,

Thanks.  I’m sure that there are people who disagree and at least some of them will have ideas to improve my thoughts.  The important  thing, I think, is to figure out ways to keep power from concentrating on any long-term basis.  

Guy

From: Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 17:19
To: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Cc: Jason Wong < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, David Brin < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

Thank you guy! We need more concrete thought re practical solutions. Though I'm not so sure all would agree with your proposals... its necessary that we begin to think outside the boxes we're stuck in.


On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Guy Higgins < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> > wrote:
+1

This is why I think that we don’t need simple term limits, but rather something like:
  • No one can run for an office until they have completely (as in 100%) supported themselves in the private sector for a period no shorter than the term of office for which they are running
  • No one may serve in any elected (and perhaps appointed) office for any term longer than they have already supported themselves in the private sector
  • After completion of a term in elected office, every official must support themselves completely in the private sector (which means no think tanks, no consultancy, no reliance on “laundering" of government money through some official entity)
I want people in office who are dedicated to good governance – not to “helping” people.  Almost every person can solve their own problems better than they can be solved by some legislator or regulator from 1000 miles away.  

Folks in office should have to worry about living under the laws they passed and the repercussions of those laws, particularly those laws governing personal sovereignty and privacy.

Jes’ my thinkin’
Guy

From: Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 16:59
To: Jason Wong < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Cc: Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, David Brin < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

By "Altruism Dilemma" I'm referring to the unavoidable gap between biological altruism and intellectual altruism and how that will bias decision makers when in consideration of various alternatives for approach to a problem. (this isn't an argument against intellectual altruism.. we need all we can get.)

A simple way of looking at it is this:

You or most anyone will (I assert) have a stronger physical reaction to the death of a loved one (even a pet)... than the death of a hundred people you don't know. There's nothing 'evil' about this... in fact that gap is necessary for survival... (i.e. we'd be paralyzed by grief every time we watched the news.)

However this "gap" leads to problems In governance. This makes it easier (for instance) to favor personal advantage over the welfare of a constituency. Simple examples... regulatory capture... or the passivity regarding the obvious injustice of how drug laws have been enforced. Combined with rationalizations driven by their cognitive dissonance we have politicians of all Parties and stripes who actually believe that they are not affected by big money contributors while destroying the Middle Class, indenturing future generations all along enriching themselves and their contributors. (hence ideologies often become hooks for rationalization... e.g. "trickle down economics for which there is absolutely NO evidentiary support.

I briefly attempt to define it here:

Self Interest vs Altruism: Problems in Scaling the Decision Process
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/02/self-interest-vs-altruism-problems-in.html

Issues in Scaling Civilization: The Altruism Dilemma

While he doesn't address the Altruism Dilemma directly... if you happen to get Netflix I highly recommend "Requiem For the American Dream" featuring Noam Chomsky... (and frequently quoting Adam Smith in support). Particularly note his comment about the danger of this pattern of narrowly focused decision making going global.

Finally, recognizing the dilemma doesn't fix it (and in fact it can never be entirely 'fixed)... but rather hopefully will prompt construction of concrete structures to address it... i.e. meaningful mechanisms for providing 'heat-from-the-bottom and reforms of credit/currency creation along with severe restructuring of what we oxymoronically call "the financial services sector"

If what I'm saying doesn't make sense or needs clarification... I welcome critique. I'm really struggling to find my way in this area. I'm a presumptuous amateur.  But I think there's something in what I'm trying to think through

Thoughts on the Biosocial Roots of Oligarchy

If I'm wrong... I nevertheless must try to see a way to clarity. The current governing "groupthink" is on the wrong path globally.



On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jason Wong < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> > wrote:
Altruism dilemma?  Similar to tit for tat?

I thought Satoshi solved this issue more than seven years ago. Do you have another system in mind?


On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> > wrote:
Below my suggestion for topic at PDF 2016.

I persist in suggesting that the micropayment and especially its requirements is not receiving the attention it deserves.

Topic:

That there's a long standing connection between credit/currency creation, banking and political power which in combination with scale and its relation to what I call the altruism dilemma leads to wealth/power concentration. Further, that the needs of the collective micropayment (scale and one-click identification) offer a pathway made possible by the nature of the Internet to create a cross border, user-owned network with both identification and payment capabilities separate and independent from privatized banking. I believe this is a needed fundamental change in human organization... important beyond the U.S.

This network may form the root for other forms of credit/currency creation... both localized and otherwise.

The "button" (or whatever signaling method) for such a capability... because of curation requirements if for no other reason... is to a considerable degree a POLITICAL mechanism and deserves consideration.













--
----------
Douglas Rushkoff
Professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics, CUNY/Queens

My upcoming book on how growth and prosperity became disconnected in the digital economy, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus is available for pre-order! (or via Amazon or BN) 

Sign up for RushkoffMail to get updates and newest writing

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.