Skip to content
October 25, 2015 / paulio10

The New Economy of Natural Rule

The closer an economy comes to working like Nature’s own natural energy, the more it will thrive from fundamental principles found in nature, such as:
* self-healing (skin, flesh, plants, trees, etc.)
* cooperative living for greater accomplishments
* symbiotic or win-win relationships
* smoother expansion when the quantity of beings grows (all the people, all the plants, etc.)
* smooth contraction when the quantity of beings shrinks
* endless and limitless energy

Closed vs Open Systems

Unlike today’s closed-system monetary systems, nature operates as an open system.  There is no maximum number of ducks that can be born into the world, or people, or blades of grass, or any living thing.  Each duck, each person, each blade of grass is not dependent on all the others; it operates independently.

With money — there is a finite, maximum amount available; it is a closed system.  For me to have more, all of the people combined must have less; there’s nothing I can do to create money, no matter how hard I try.  Of course today’s economies have a government-driven entity that can inject new money into the economy (such as the Federal Reserve in the United States) which can add new dollars to the overall system and remove dollars any time they decide to. That sort of thing would be called the “single-point-of-failure” in the computer industry, where you have all your eggs in one basket; but that’s not the main problem with this system.

With energy — it is an infinite resource. There is no maximum or minimum; it is an open system.  There is no central authority controlling everything from a specific location, so there is no central point of failure.  There is no centrally-driven limitation.

Your body’s energy is a good example of Nature’s energy. Your body’s energy works exactly opposite to how money works today:

The more ENERGY you use up today, the MORE you will receive tomorrow.
* if you exercise your body, you will have more energy tomorrow; if you lay in bed doing nothing all day, you will have less energy tomorrow.  Misuse and non-use of energy provides less in the future; right use provides more in the future.

The more MONEY you use up today, the LESS you will have tomorrow.
* if you spend a lot of it today, you will have less money tomorrow; if you spend nothing all day, you will have all of it left tomorrow.

For example, if I have 50 dollars today and don’t use any of it, I still have 50 tomorrow – the world wasn’t improved by my efforts, but I was rewarded for it – I had 50 dollars the next day – when you think about it, this is just wrong!
If I have 50 dollars today and spend all of it in the best way possible to help my fellow people spontaneously, I have no money at all the next day.  This is also wrong!

It’s obvious we need a monetary system that rewards people for doing the right thing – spending their money to improve the world – rather than rewarding them for selfishness and inaction.  In economics we have the concept of the “velocity of money,” which can be measured. But what about the velocity of work being done? What about important work that has no money behind it, so that work does not get done?  Maybe we should focus on measuring the Velocity of Work Accomplished instead.

Voting-based Systems

How could we possibly invent a new economic model that more closely replicates how Natural Energy works?
One possible system could be a voting-based system.
Because the big obstacle is this: who or what is the deciding factor on how much money you should receive tomorrow, as reward for the things you did today?  It shouldn’t be you, because you are too close to the work that you did to see it clearly from a vantage point to properly judge its value.  Selfish people will try to get more than the value of the work they did.  Self-unsure people will tend to ask for less than the value of the work they did.  The bottom line is, the person doing the work is too close to the work to accurately judge its value – it needs to be measured by persons separate from them.

This problem has been solved in various ways on certain open Internet news and blogging sites today.  The creators of those sites desired something that seems impossible – a standard way of rating the quality of comments on articles written by individuals, in such a way that the “best” comments can bubble up to the top, with lesser comments following them, in descending order of “goodness”. But how can you have a standard rating system when no two people will ever agree on exactly what “good” is?  It makes you think: who is our audience, so that we can accurately measure these varying degrees of “good”ness among the tens of thousands of comments written every day?  Once we know who our audience is, that could change over time, so how do we monitor changes in our audience’s values and beliefs, so as to maintain maximum “good”ness as the dynamics of our audience change over time?  And how do we automate all this, so that no small minority of people can monopolize the system, either accidentally or intentionally misjudging comments?  If nothing else, natural human fallibility will tend to vary the comment-voting-quality over time, which will then be noticed by the people who use the system, they’ll get mad and discuss it far and wide, and the whole system will lose respect by the people as being a flawed system.

These seemingly insurmountable problems have been largely conquered in various ways on some web sites today.  My favorite system is the one implemented by Slashdot, which works roughly like this:

Anyone can sign up to be a moderator. Moderators cannot be anonymous, the web site knows who you are. Once you are granted moderator status, the web site will randomly select you once in a while to moderate a set of people’s comments.  You cannot moderate more than a fixed number of comments that the site determines, say, a random cross-section of 10 comments from various recent articles on the web site. You read the article, read the comment, and make a judgement about the comment: was it appropriate or inappropriate? Was it off-topic? Was it funny? Interesting? Insulting? Trolling or Flame-baiting? Was the comment related or unrelated to the article it was supposed to be commenting on?

[ Reference: ]

However, you may quickly discover a flaw in this system – what prevents people from incorrectly moderating comments, for their own personal biased reasons?  What if someone doesn’t believe in a particular viewpoint (say, abortion) so they intentionally down-vote any comment that shows a positive-bias towards that viewpoint?  What if a group of people secretly agree to always down-vote anything written by a particular person or of a particular topic that they dislike?  This actually happened, and so the creators of Slashdot added this rule:

Moderators occasionally will be allowed to Meta-Moderate – that is, to moderate other people’s moderations!
A moderator can choose to vote on whether other people have done a proper job of voting, or not.
Each moderator only gets a certain number of meta-moderation “points” each time period, and the times at which they can do meta-moderation are randomly chosen. They never are allowed to vote on their own moderations (only on other people’s moderations), and they don’t get to see who the person is that they’re meta-moderating – they only see the minimum information needed to make a decision.  The web site presents them with the article, one comment on the article, and the decision the moderator made about the comment — they basically just choose if the moderator made a “good decision” or “bad decision”.  Voting up or down.  The web site keeps track of how many down-votes a moderator receives from meta-moderation, and if they have too many, then their moderation status is revoked for a period of time!

Moderators automatically lose their limited power over others in this system, when others (without seeing who they are) separately come to the same conclusion that they are not doing the job properly.

This kind of organization does an amazing job at controlling itself, and growing and changing over time, as the people using it change and grow over time.  It scales up as much as needed, if you have 100 times as many people, then there’s 100 times as many moderators – each person is only doing the same amount of work to keep the system working.  It can shrink by 100 times when needed, too.  It can grow and shrink by any amount.  And there’s no central authority, no human emotion or frailty swaying the system as a whole.

A New Model for Money

Our world could create a new monetary system as a variation of Slashdot’s moderation and meta-moderation system.

A person does some work in their society – they fix someone’s car, mow someone’s lawn, teach something useful to a group of people who all met together with a common goal, pick up some trash in the neighborhood or grocery store parking lot, etc.  Other people witness this work taking place, or at the very least, evaluate it “before” and “after” the work was done to understand the type and scope of work.  Those witnesses vote on what amount of “new money” the person should receive for the work they did today, based on a set of factors that needs to be chosen.  Maybe things like:  was the work beneficial or detrimental? how many people were affected beneficially? to what degree were they benefited? are there long-term/recurring results from this work, or was the value only short-term? For example, picking up trash is fairly short term; more will appear within a day or two. But teaching someone how to repair a car could last the rest of their lives – especially if they turn around and teach it to other people afterwards!  There can be a certain amount of passive-income, so to speak, from work actions that people take, when appropriate.

Another factor that should be considered is how much the money is going to help the person or their family.  The first amount of money is the most important, since it will be used to buy food; clothing; housing; essentials.  But additional amounts of money are less important to that individual or their family, once the essentials are already taken care of. So there might be a sliding scale: if you fix 1 car today, that should cover enough for food & clothing & shelter for 1 day at least.  If you fix 10 cars today, that will not be 10 X the amount you would have gotten for that 1 car, because the need for money was so much greater for the first part, less-so for the following parts.  Kind of a decreasing curve, like a curve approaching a limit.  Maybe it would look like:

1 car repair – 1.0 units of money, enough for today only.
2 car repairs – 1.5 units of money
5 car repairs – 2.0 units of money
10 car repairs – 2.5 units of money
100 car repairs – 4 units of money
(or something like that.)

Granting other people money by way of voting about them does not subtract money from you.  The money for them is “generated from nothing” and is an infinite source.  The work they did has nothing to do with the work you’ve done, so the money is not interconnected in any way.  Like points in a game.  Where do those game-points come from?  Does the game ever run out of points to hand out?  No, game points are a truly virtual currency. There’s an infinite amount of money/points available; it only varies based on amount & quality of work performed.

How Contributions Work

The same kind of thing holds up for contributions – giving to others.  If you give 1 money-unit to a poor person who literally has nothing, that’s super valuable to them – they can buy some food and eat today – so that was worth a LOT, and you should get rewarded 2 or 3 money-units for that service to humanity.  But if you give 1 money-unit to your friend who works hard every day, maybe that’s only worth 1 money-unit that you’ll receive tomorrow.  And, if you give 1 money-unit to a super rich person, that has so little value to them, you’ll only receive .05 money units for that service tomorrow.  If you give no money to anybody today, you get no extra money tomorrow (for contribution-based income).

How Teaching Works

If you teach another person to do something, and they do useful work in society because of it, you should gain a small portion of passive-income from that – because they wouldn’t know it if it wasn’t for you.  So now, each day you work, you receive maybe 1.1 units of money; you worked for 1.0 units, and were paid a passive-income of 0.1 units from students you taught.  Maybe the percentage should go down over time, because 20 years from now they probably aren’t using as much of your knowledge as they will be 1 year from now.  But you should receive some small remuneration for the rest of that person’s work-life, for it.

How Passing Away Affects Income

Married couples and families often depend on a single individual’s income, or two individual’s income for all parties involved.  Because of this, it can be hard when one “bread winner” passes away.  Because of that, there should be a sliding scale decreasing the money coming into that family group over time.  This gives the other members time to figure out some way of generating their own work-income, rather than being hit with the financial loss all at once.  For example, suppose there is a married couple where he makes 2 money units per day and she makes 2 money units per day on average, but then he suddenly passes away.  The next day the widow should receive the full 4 units, with that number decreasing over time.  Maybe it decreases by .5 units every 6 months or so, so that only after 2-3 years she is dependent solely on her own income.  Or maybe there’s an logarithmic component to the decrease.

Satisfying Need  – Supply and Demand

There are different kinds of need in the world.  One type is manufacturing of parts to be assembled into larger items.  If you are the only one manufacturing a certain type of spring or screw or washer in the world, and those items are in great need, you are creating a huge benefit – worth lots of money-points.  If you are just one of thousands of people creating such items, or the need for those items is dwindling, that is worth less money-points.  This is the equivalent to “supply-and-demand” that we know of in today’s modern economics.  There has to be a way for Need to be met – increasing Need to be increasingly met, and decreasing Need to be decreasingly met.

So there needs to be some way of identifying the proper amount of money to associate with production of useful items and services, on any given scale small or large.  This may end up being a “big data” problem, the science for which is just now being developed in our society with software database design and analysis for Big Data.

It would be so nice to have a Big Data search engine that people could look up things in – find out the effective value of producing certain products, or providing certain services – so that they can decide whether to go into that business or not.

Large Scale Industry, Business

With such a unique monetary system as this, how can large business ever come up with large amount of funds as initial investments to get their business going?  How could a construction company begin working on a new square-mile of housing that they want to build?  Since the new money in this system is basically the energy of the people, the only way to raise money like that would be to attract thousands of people to commit their time and energy towards this useful common-goal.  If not enough people can be encouraged to do so, then something is wrong with the plan, because otherwise the workers and supporters would be there.  Humanity is quickly reaching the point where every bit of news that is interesting to an individual is available to them, without so much interference from unrelated and uninteresting bits of news.  Good projects in any category or location can be immediately known about to the masses, thanks to the Internet – increasingly so over time.  Perhaps some large-scale crowd-funding systems similar to Kickstarter or GoFundMe, but more tuned towards this new economic model.

Other Economic Areas of Interest

There are so many other areas that need consideration about how a system like this would affect them, but these can be discussed over time.  In the same way that electric cars (ala vehicles produced by Tesla Motors) have one-tenth of the moving parts of old-fashioned gasoline-engine cars – similarly, a new economy based on Natural energy may result in many complex economic elements to become unnecessary. Is it still important to consider import/export restrictions between countries? Would there need to be such things as stock markets, or Forex Trading, going forward?  What would these systems look like, how would their transformation come about?

How To Implement a new Economic Model

It can be extremely difficult to implement any revolutionary-new monetary system, especially on a world-wide scale.

First you must convince everyone about the benefit of the new model, not just those who are in the best position to implement it.  You try to understand and discuss all possible down-sides to the model, and hope you’ve thought of everything.

Then, you have to find a way to implement the new plan, by somehow shifting (as seamlessly as possible) from the current (failed) system to the new system. How do you gradually implement a new system that is completely different from the old one, and even has a variety of contradictions and conflicts with the old system?

Then, it takes lots of practice for everyone in society to become mentally and emotionally familiar with this new way of operating, with the new rules. It will take practice to stop all of our old, outdated behaviors and ways of thinking.

All of this seems like it’s too much all at once, it’s too difficult for everyone to absorb and thrive in.  The only way a completely new system can be taken on and accepted by everyone is if the old system becomes so manipulated and SO PAINFUL, it’s clear to everyone that there is no alternative but complete replacement.

The amount of work to implement and follow the new system must match the amount of pain of the old system, or people just won’t be willing to try it and keep at it until they get it.  Months and years later it will seem pretty easy to follow the new system, once the majority of people have overcome the possibly steep “learning curve” of the new system.  The people who often seek new and changing environments and circumstances will more easily adopt a new system of money than those who largely try to avoid change in their lives. But everyone will be inspired by those around them whom they see adopting the new system. When they see the benefits and reduced detriments, they’ll want that for themselves.

For example, if you need a new car because your current car is very old and is really breaking down, and you have the money to buy a new car, but you just haven’t purchased one yet because your old one still runs and you have lots of other things to do right now.  Your NEED for a new car is less than the work it takes to obtain the new car.  But then, suddenly, your old car’s engine blows up or the transmission falls to pieces. Now it’s much easier to get a new car, you’re much more motivated, because you have no way to get around!  Now the NEED is much greater than the work to get a new car – so you start shopping for one right away.

The length and depth of the current world-wide economic crisis will decide how different and how much of an improvement the new economy will be, when it is created and implemented.  The more pain now, the better the system that can be implemented in the future. It’s sad, but true.  The more painful now, the more obviously outdated and ill-fitting the current system is; the more of an overhaul it will require to get Humanity up to its next level of Finance – and greater happiness and benefit.

But, are the people in charge of the various economies today really able to feel the pain of the portion of humanity affected by that economy? They must be if they are the ones who will be replacing the old economy with a new one.  If they cannot feel this, if they cannot stay connected to what Humanity is going through, they will end up being left behind, as those who directly feel the pain work together to solve the problem their own way, as it always has been throughout history.  People naturally solve the problems and find ways to meet their needs and those of all the people around them.

In Summary

A Natural Energy economic system encourages right behavior, to maximize the benefit to all of Humanity – to provide the most to those who really need it, to create balance across all people.  Selfishness and separatism are naturally discouraged in this system, which is very good.  Right behavior is encouraged, since each person’s peers are voting on their work actions and accomplishments.

Such a system will prevent the poorest-of-the-poor conditions for all people in the world.  Such a system would help reduce excessive hoarding of funds; it would be very difficult to build up a large amount more money than you need for yourself and your family to live.  People would not care as much about the richest-people, either, since in an open system your own money is not affected by others hoarding all they can for themselves. In a closed money system, others hoarding/controlling massive amounts of money definitely affects you.

No longer are the masses struggling to “find employment”, it’s all around them all of the time.  If you can move, or even just speak, you can do work.  Whatever work you do will be rewarded by peers.  The reward to you is not subtracted from the peers – it is “generated out of thin air”.  This will help Humanity to more easily move away from being fear-driven animals of the past, towards becoming powerful Human Beings for the future.  An important accomplishment for any human being is learning the skill of not reacting blindly to waves of emotion and misdirected thoughts, but listening to all of their inputs (physical, emotional, and mental) and deciding consciously what the right thing is to do next, and doing it, despite fear-based pleadings from various internal voices.

There has never been this kind of self-healing, natural-energy-compatible monetary system on the planet before.

What would happen if a single country like Greece were to spearhead a whole new monetary system?

What level of pain are the Greek people going through now, and what level of change is required to solve the issues within this country once and for all?

Would Greece become the new world leader in modeling the next step towards happiness and success on our planet?

Perhaps the land which produced the greatest artistic Architects of the past will spawn the greatest Financial Architects of the future.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: