Machine Economy vs. Universal Basic Income

We should be thinking about an electronic bill of rights IMO. That would be something like a personal blockchain that extends rights to other applications. Those applications could use information or scrips or whatever that we've developed only with our consent, and remuneration in the system.

As it is now, if you are a coder and develop a piece of code once it's 'out of the box' it's gone and you get absolutely no benefit. If you do get some benefit it's because you work for a corporation that sells the overall program using your code but the corporation and shareholders get the value not you individually.

This all means that our former definition of 'property rights' are fundamentally changing with technology. Therefore if we want to maintain an economic system in traditional terms we need to re-define our rights, extending into the digital realm.

We should be doing this yesterday.

I also noticed this in my former profession of engineering where the state required me to become licensed requiring a certain amount of time in education and then practice under another licensed professional. But, people who coded software that essentially did all the calculations I did were not required to be licensed nor did they have any professional liability.

This undermines personal value, worth and is another reason why wages are steadily declining in terms of the cost of living.

And engineers are not alone, this will affect everyone eventually.

Just 1 more comment, something that hasn't really been discussed yet by social programmers looking at the issue of automation is creating laws that prohibit robots from mimicking human behavior.

That is setting some kind of scale or limit and saying robotics cannot do this or that kind of activity which would replace human labor. But they might just put that under a general heading of robot taxation to then fund a UBI.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

I'm fine with the Bill of Rights we do have.

What Blockchain did was solve one of the most fundamental computer science problems in history: How do you make digital information hardware independent and as immutable as real property.

There are people who are selling virtual real estate in virtual environments powered by blockchain technologies. This is as much real property as you can possibly get. It is decentralized and because of this, no matter where you connect from, you will always be able to access your property in a virtual environment.

What blockchain has really done is make it so that a virtual world can also behave like the real world where much of the same laws apply. Look into Decentraland's experiment. I am invested in their MANA coin. I do NOT hold this coin for the money, I hold it because I want to see where this experiment will go.



This is a precursor to living in a simulation. this is pre-Type 1 civilization technology.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Are you saying there are no blockchain applications for that?

Because you would be wrong

This is just one example.

That's basically a useless technology. They're making the case that because there's 5 entities involved, and that 3 are middlemen, they're going to simplify everything by adding a 4th middleman, and 6th total party to the system.

What I was talking about was far less of an extreme example. You take your courses via VR, and store your results, diplomas and test scores via blockchain ledgers for record keeping.

There's little reason to store diplomas in a blockchain... you don't want to decentralize academic credentials, because that's how you wind up with degree's that don't require the proper coursework to obtain. Certain systems work best when they're not democratized, they're good for verifying standards have been met, payments have been made, and so on... but you do not want to set policy or credentials via such a system.

You keep making these assertions, but you don't seem to know ANYTHING about what blockchains are being used for.

That's because 95% of what it's being applied to is things which are better off without it. But people are trying out the new buzzword.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

It's not really needed. The current Bill of Rights actually covers this stuff well. Since the mid 1800's there's been a battle in the court system over the idea if electronic documents fall under the jurisdiction of a persons documents and effects, or if it only applies to physical documents. The court has been debating this point for 175 years now, going back and forth every now and then (we're due for a flip on this point soon).

I don't think it's going to be solved any time soon because it involves a battle between the government seeking power and the courts trying to reconcile that with the founders intent.

The more pressing battle, which isn't being taken up is the idea of personal data and metadata. Companies are harvesting this from customers, and basically claiming it as their own and then monetizing it. Sometimes they steal data, sometimes they "buy" your data in exchange for their service. Personal data in terms of private contracts needs to be better defined, there's the constitutional issues, but that's between us and the government. Issues between private parties are more common and more impactful.

a reply to: Aazadan

For a supposed VR developer you seen to be lacking a lot of imagination and don't seem to be really understanding where and why blockchain is being applied.

You've actually made no effort to address any points or even respond to any evidence provided for all of the false claims you've made.

I'm quite tired of your BS.

a reply to: projectvxn

Maybe that means you're failing to make your point? All I'm reading is a bunch of buzzwords.

a reply to: Aazadan


I have actually put in quite a bit of effort to respond to all of your misinformed assertions. Yet you are dismissive and continue to make unsupported assertions.

This is my last reply to you. Please go somewhere else to waste time on subjects you know nothing about, but are all to happy to give your uninformed opinion on.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: projectvxn

Do you find it draining that not many are privy to the depth of crypto that you are in?

IoT, DPoS, PoS, DAG's, DAO's and immutable ledgers are complex terms. Were still a few years for things like this being common knowledge or even common among savvy techies.

We're part of a small, niche group that tries to keep up with a technology that is still in its infancy.

It does make me chuckle to see folks try to explain it though!

I find it most draining when ignorance and false information is considered a debate tactic by some, especially since they lack all knowledge.

And you think instead of paying people to hang out they wouldn't just eliminate the people that just hang out.

a reply to: mikell

Interesting point.

What is the incentive, in that case, of a government that doles out a UBI?

At least in an automated market economy, people wouldn't be legally bound to their governments and totally dependent on global institutions for a subsistence wage.

originally posted by: projectvxn
What is the incentive, in that case, of a government that doles out a UBI?

The incentive would be that it is only a basic income and people could still make as much money as they want on top of that "basic" amount.

At least in an automated market economy, people wouldn't be legally bound to their governments and totally dependent on global institutions for a subsistence wage.

I have to say that I don't really see what the answer proposed in the OP really is.

You say that all your smart devices will contribute to the economy and you will be paid for that but what will they actually be doing?

a reply to: daskakik

The incentive would be that it is only a basic income and people could still make as much money as they want on top of that "basic" amount.

As much money as they want doing what, exactly?

You say that all your smart devices will contribute to the economy and you will be paid for that but what will they actually be doing?

I've provided several examples starting with the OP and into this thread.

The solar energy system on your house can sell excess energy to other areas that need it. The transactions would be immediate, same with your plug-in electric car, which is also a computer when it is running, so processing time can be sold as well.

Let's say you run a park and need to automate the process of cleaning all of your water fountains. You could build a drone from plans you buy on the internet and assemble the parts using your 3D printer. You install all of your sensor equipment and send it out to work.

In the course of its work cycle, it has recorded datasets on the various bacteria and other germs it encounters. Because it is connected to the internet, this data can then be sold for analysis by others who make money developing drugs, or disinfectants for water fountains. While the drone is in operation it can also bounce data signals(this is a service that can be sold). The more devices on the IoT the faster it tends to get because each machine closes the gap between the other.

Transferring the burden of labor to machines is what we've been doing since the Industrial Revolution.

A UBI is necessarily dependent on taxation in perpetuity to pay people, globally, who are not participants in the economy beyond the wage given to them by the government.

I've been a government employee, I do not want to be a permanent government employee. I do NOT have a problem with using machines I own to make money.

Concepts like this are already being implemented. For instance, the SETI @ Home program relies on distributed computing for crunching numbers. Same with LHC @ Home and similar scientific endeavors. If the value of labor is work divided by time, then this can be transferred on to an idle CPU to render a service that benefits the owner.

People have been using virtual currency to buy virtual property for decades now. The difference today is that prior to 2009, that property was not capable of being deeded, and could be copied ad infinitum, rendering the purchase essentially useless. What blockchain does it make the digital asset immutable(can't be copied or changed), so can only then be used by the owner or traded as real property.

ID's can be kept on secure blockchains(any record can be, like record of education and training certs), which would also turn your data into your legal property, which means that when your data is sold(unlike today), YOU would be in control of that and would sell or not sell that data to whichever party you interact with.

None of this would eliminate speculation, investment opportunities would still exist. Automation and AI do not equal perfection or even quality. Products would still necessarily have to rise or fall on their own merits or perceived merits(or lack thereof) and by extension, so would their manufacturers. This would still be especially true for large manufacturers. However, in the economy I'm speculating about, most consumer level manufacturing would be decentralized, with many products made in the homes where they would be used.

We have cryptocurrency, 3D printing, 3D modeling, quantum computing, immutable digital properties and records, artificial intelligence, and automated production at large scales. Expand these technologies 100 years. What do you see?

Is the answer REALLY to go down the path of a UBI? Is the answer really to confiscate private property in order to pay people in a system that does not need human labor(the most basic form of valuation)?

Why do we have to remove the human from the benefits of economic activity simply because he/she isn't performing the labor? Why can't he/she be converted from laborer to an account holder for her technological properties and simply reap the rewards of the work she transferred to machines?

The question then becomes:

If you automate industry AND the exchange of value between machines for services rendered and converted the human labor force to individual account holders for the properties they own that will render these services, then what is the daily relevance of the act of commerce for human beings?

I say it would be minimal to non-existent. At that point money as it is understood today becomes nothing more than a constantly updated ledger that tracks the exchange of goods and services for the purposes of managing resources.

This is the goal of a machine economy.

The END RESULT of a UBI is the continued slavery of mankind to money at the whims of governments who assume for themselves the stewardship of our lives; in return, we get only assurances they won't kill us.

a reply to: projectvxn
It's odd because you asked a question and then answer it yourself. "As much money as they want doing what, exactly?"

The answer is everything you said in the second part of your post, and more but, what I'm not seeing is just how everyone is going to be able to generate enough to live on using your examples.

I don't have a park with fountains or roof space for solar panels. Lets say I live in studio apartment with a single computer and a smart phone. How are those two things going to make it possible for me to make a living?

ETA: I don't think there is an end result to UBI. It is just a tool.

a reply to: daskakik

It's odd because you asked a question and then answer it yourself. "As much money as they want doing what, exactly?"

Since they won't be employed, and human labor is the current base valuation of our economic activities, then what will humans do? What I answered was to transfer that labor to the machines they already own not necessarily what humans will do themselves, because, in reality, most people will still not opt to manufacture their own drone if one for his/her purposes already exists. But there isn't a real incentive to go out and buy a shirt when you can have one built in your home. For some areas, there will be utility, for others, not so much. Design and artwork, in general, would become a large part of human economic activity again.

The answer is everything you said in the second part of your post, and more but, what I'm not seeing is just how everyone is going to be able to generate enough to live on using your examples.

If you let the government do it all the results will be what they are now, inflationary currencies that destroy the purchasing power of individuals and cheapen the rewards of labor. The key is to use a currency(or a basket of currencies) that are non-inflationary, fast, no transaction fees, scalable, modular and is interoperable across networks. This problem you illustrate is exactly why we need to protect purchasing power via non-inflationary means of exchange.

I don't have a park with fountains or roof space for solar panels. Lets say I live in studio apartment with a single computer and a smart phone. How are those two things going to make it possible for me to make a living?

Your smartphone and computer can sell their idle processing time, relay signals, allocate temporary storage space and validate transactions. Your personal computer could do the same. If your purchasing power remains stable over time, then so will your cost of living. Your devices would be working for you for as long as they are powered on. Your rent would probably be extremely low since the cost of maintenance, paperwork processing, cleaning, and groundskeeping are all automated and powered by the solar panels your apartment complex owns. You do not pay for the power, you pay for space, the power pays for itself, as any excess power is sold by the apartment complex.

Much of the costs for people is the cost of intermediaries. Insurance has destroyed the relationship between doctor and patient, real estate is expensive because of all the intermediaries between your cash and your future home. A decentralized IoT machine economy running on blockchains would remove almost all intermediaries. This lowers the cost of business altogether and creates price stability.

I don't think there is an end result to UBI. It is just a tool.

It is a poor design for a tool, that if used, would lead straight to high tech communism.

Someone in this thread said it himself, nationalization, confiscation, and redistribution by a central authority would be required. Of course, he disagreed with my characterization of the UBI(even though this was his description too). But the fact remains, as described today, the UBI would fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and government and would eliminate private property, putting the stewardship of our lives squarely in the purview of a central force.

a reply to: projectvxn

I think UBI means different things to different people. As far as I am concerned UBI can be taken out of the discussion for the moment.

My question is what if they don't own any machines or the machines they own can't provide enough to live on?

I just looked up paid distributed computing and the pay is 10 to 40 cents per hour (depending on the computer). So lets say my computer would get $0.20/hr and I leave it on all the time to make as much as I can. Now, after paying for electricity I end up with $0.18/hr. $4.32 a day, $30.24 a week.

And that is without 7 billion people selling the same thing.

a reply to: daskakik

Denominated in dollars you would always lose money to depreciating value. Don't ignore the details in my posts, I addressed this quite clearly and it seems like you're only responding to the criticisms of the UBI.

To be frank, it seems to me like you're using a lot of what-ifs to narrow the scope in which you can poke a hole.

Fine, you have no machines and live in the middle of nowhere in a world that won't exist for another 100 years.

You would be making no money and would exist completely out of the economy anyway, so it's a moot point.

The FACT is, that automation and digitization of all things are coming. So either we figure out a way to communicate value as individuals in a machine economy or someone else(government) will do it for us(the UBI).

The UBI does have a few different interpretations. But the ones with the most government and institutional backing(such as the one discussed by the Futurism.com infographic in my OP) requires what I and others have stated in this thread. I don't care what Steve down the road things a UBI is, I care what my government thinks a UBI is because that is the only interpretation that will have a direct impact on the lives of people.

In short order, that number of people will likely be more than 10-14 billion people. We will have spread to the moon and will have continued on to Mars and other colonizations endeavors in our solar system.

I believe an automated transfer of value in a machine economy would free us from the constraints of labor for money that we live in today. I also believe the ultimate goal of money should be its own obsolescence as we understand it today.

a reply to: projectvxn
It is denominated in dollars to show what the current ROI is for selling your extra cycles. You say it like that should be enough to earn a living and it isn't.

I saw them but they seem pretty optimistic to me and you are using a lot of what-ifs to make it seem doable.

Why would the owner of the building and the solar panels just give me unlimited power to make money instead of metering out just enough for my needs and charge me for anything over a certain amount? Why would computer makers even sell machines if that is the only way to make money. They would be better off buying surplus energy from my landlord and earning the money themselves.

So now I have a computer and a thingable maker (stuff, food, etc.) and no feed stock so how do I buy that? It is easy to say you won't buy a t-shirt because you can just print one but you still have to buy the raw materials. With what money and from who?

a reply to: daskakik

Money can come from any production or service.

I think you're getting stuck in some of the illustrative concepts ideas I used. I obviously have no crystal ball and cannot predict where the economy will go in the future.

I many ways I am relying on what ifs. However, I am also using a lot of scholarly sources for my speculative posts. This isn't just my puking this into a board, necessarily. In fact, it was the UBI that inspired me to even write about this idea.

Full disclosure, I'm writing a paper exactly on this topic for school. Your feedback is quite helpful.

As far as who do you buy raw materials from? Its a decentralized economic model concept, you buy it from whoever has it for sale.