Re: I considered presenting

I have a hunch a lot lies in things like Payswarm and Ripple. I mean it
certainly is emotional for me. Payswarm can keep track of intentions, and
Ripple allows of decentralized payment and may keep track of intentions.
Something (experience and otherwise) is telling me to focus more on web
payments.

I've had a lot of problems with trying to look at everything to see
patterns, try to avoid reinventing the wheel. Eventually, I concluded that
to implement stuff I just needed to study more languages (but more, so it
is looking like JavaScript) and if I was bothered by the theory or wanted
help understanding how it would work best than CS stuff. It was all very
confusing.

Can I safely ditch https://www.coursera.org/course/hci (Human-Computer
Interaction), https://www.coursera.org/course/pgm (Probabilistic Graphical
Models), https://www.coursera.org/course/bigdata (Web Intelligence and Big
Data), https://www.coursera.org/course/gamification (Gamification) and put
it on the shelf for now? Clearly building a distributed economy is a
massive undertaking, and these things could certainly come into play.
Money, or at least some record of exchange, appears to be a very important
part. Knowing this to build something may not be necessary.

I'd like to commit more time to this, and obviously I have to focus in
order to do that.


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius@gmail.com> wrote:

> Creating a usable barter system also requires actions be accompolished
> *early* in time.
>
> Here is my vision of such a system:
>
> First of all, this requires something I call either a "Production Arena",
> or (less often) a "Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic".
>
> The Production Arena (or VIPM) is the interlocking Physical Sources such
> as land and water rights and plants and animals and tools and other things
> needed to create a "Basic Outcome" for all the participants.
>
> And so we attract middle-to-upper-income investors to supply the money to
> buy these Physical Sources for an advertised return of organic goods and
> services in the future - though they will actually be receiving
> co-ownership in the Production Arena, and receiving the goods and services
> as a 'side-effect' of that co-ownership.  In this way we eliminate the
> buying and selling of those goods and services.
>
> And we must also attract middle-to-lower-income investors to cross-commit
> their *future* labor in return for co-ownership in the Production Arena.
>
> By "cross-commit" I mean each worker will promise to work in a specific
> part of the Production Arena (say milking cows) in return for receiving
> co-ownership in many other parts of the Production Arena needed to supply
> him with all of his basic needs.
>
> I need to refine how I explain this, because there is a bit more to it
> that I did not include in the above...
>
> Each investors (whether committing money or future labor) will usually
> receive a 'bundle' of property-rights *and* commitments from others to
> perform the future labor necessary to accomplish that production.
>
> For example, the cow-milker would usually receive both ownership in the
> dentist office *and* commitments from the dentist to fix his teeth in the
> future when necessary.
>
> When used in conjunction these commitments create the kind of security
> that insurance pretends to deliver.  I sometimes call it "life assurance".
>



-- 
Brent Shambaugh

I've worked with polymers, I teach chemistry, I'm currently researching how
to build better economies.
Website: http://adistributedeconomy.blogspot.com