I posted a stupid question a couple of weeks ago and got some good feedback.
Runnable Code - fork it and mess around with it:
I'd love some more feedback and opinions.
A couple of other things for context:
hypercapital.info - all about hypercapitalism
Overcoming bias about our money
Information Theory and the Economy
Care to find a different name for it?
"Capitalism" is a term often incisive and having mind-killer effects for everybody who dislikes it, plus everybody who dislikes it will instantly misunderstand your idea just based on the title, as its critics to understand capitalism as something based on extracting rents from the the monopolization of the usage of a resource (i.e. own more land you can personally till, that kind of private property) instead of the exchange and transaction based ideas you have here.
Hayes used the word catallaxy for "the... (read more)
I don't understand how your hypercapitalism works (and I have looked at the links). I am also not sure of the point -- are you trying to force each buy/sale transaction to become an investment? to give consumers a long-term interest in the well-being of their counterparty?
It doesn't help that you don't use the standard economic terminology. For example, I think what you mean by "rent" is usually called "productivity" while the word "rent" has a different meaning in economics.
Especially upvoted for a) actually taking and acting on advice and b) for building an executable and thus testable model.
You could (also) post this in the group rationality thread.
Why is money that decays (aka negative interest) a good thing? It seems to me that positive interest is a desirable feature of the capitalist system.
It seems to me that your system involves a serious loss of privacy. Does it? If so, do you think that's a problem?
I love information and economics... so I read through some of your material... but I'm really not sure what problem you're trying to solve.
I had serious trouble distinguishing where the presentation of the idea starts and background introduction ends.
It all kinda had a vibe "ideas that I think are cool and solve things" rather than being a solution candidate to a problem.
It also seemed that people that get the most ripped off receive the biggest bonuses, which kinda makes sense as those are preciously the victims of vacous money generation. But I am suspecting that the argument how transaction volume somehow correlates with most potential to make value isn't as waterproof as it shou... (read more)
This seems to me that it significantly raises transaction costs without significantly creating benefits. The value paid in cash in our real economy today will be equal to the sum of the cash payment plus the net present value of risk-discounted future payments in your model. That means that there is zero benefit to the parties involved, but introduces a transfer of risk, and increases the complexity of the transaction.
The place the rubber hits the road on this problem is that companies who would receive payment under this approach will not sign up to a sys... (read more)
What happens in a steady-state or shrinking economy as opposed to an expanding one?
I don't think your model gets to the important differences between hyper and normal capitalism. In normal capitalism, people buy from the company that offers them the best deal on the present transaction, whereas in hypercapitalism they're going to buy based on both the present deal and the value of prefs. As I understand it, your model has no concept of present deal, as all rent (in your terms) is captured by the producer.
You could patch this by e.g. splitting the rent between consumer and producer to simulate the producer lowering prices to attract busin... (read more)