Friam

The case for universal basic income UBI

Classic

List

Threaded

124 messages Options

1234567

gepr

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Prof David West

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

In all three societies mentioned there are very few free riders, and persistent ones are shunned. Shunning is an extremely powerful means of social "control." Similarly, shunning is the way that any 'criminal" or outrageously non-conformist behaviors are dealt with. I use outrageously deliberately because all of these cultures tolerated a lot of diversity.

The initially small number of free riders is partly accounted for because all of those cultures had very explicit "opt in" practices, often with periodic renewal. The most famous example is Amish Rumspringa. Circa age 18, Amish youth leave the community and sample the large world around them: sex, drugs, rock & roll, and materialism galore. They then choose, consciously and deliberately to return and adopt standard practices and cultural norms, or not. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the return rate is close to 90%.

The primary "societal structure" regulating resource allocation is "group over individual." Only when and if the group has the resources sufficient (including saving for a rainy day) for it to thrive (not just subsist) does the issue of allocating resources to individuals arise — an on such occasions it is a consensus decision on how and where and why.

davew

On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:

Dave, Very interesting example. As you said, "the "economy" of these cultures is based on a mixture of balanced and general reciprocity."

That works only if there are no (or very few) free-riders. How can that rule be enforced? (It's certainly not "natural.") Either it's enforced individually, i.e., everyone was "indoctrinated" to believe it through strict training, or society came down strongly (either by normative practice or by formal enforcement authorities) on those who violated the rules.

In either case, some societal structure eliminates the need for a more market-oriented mechanism for allocating resources.
On Sun, May 9, 2021, 8:14 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

With one slight modification, I agree completely with glen's five principles. The exception: "there is nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built on science." The closest thing to a "cultural universal" (a practice, norm, technology, custom, etc. that is shared by all cultures) is a belief in a supernatural. I see no problem in basing a "solution" — a non-money-based social structure — on such a belief.

The most prominent examples of societies/cultures that do not use money internally, would be the Mennonites and the Amish. Both do use money externally, i.e. for interactions with outsiders. An example that I am more familiar with is the United Order established by Brigham Young.

Orderville is a small town about 20 miles south of where I live and was the last community to practice the United Order. Just before its demise, the community numbered in several thousands and engaged in enterprises that included mining, ranching, lumber mill, textile and garment manufacturing, cotton growing, mercantile and trade, etc. The geographic range of the community covered all of Arizona north of the Grand Canyon, as far as present day Las Vegas, and the southern third of Utah.

It was a Mormon community and all shared a common belief in a 'supernatural' and that belief played an integral role in the organization of the community. For example, the Bishop's Storehouse — both literal and metaphorical — was the repository of all goods and produce from the community and the Bishop, a religious leader, was charged with protection and distribution of contents among the populace according to need. But a Bishop is not a full-time religious figure — the church, even today, has less than 100 people who are 'paid clergy' — and not an authoritarian figure. Although there was a division of labor (men seldom worked in the communal kitchen and women seldom engaged in ranching or mining) it was primarily an egalitarian society. Women also tended to exert civil and social authority over the community while men exercised religious authority.

Everyone, including children from age 8 and older (age of baptism), had direct access to the supernatural (to God) and was expected to use that access to determine correct actions and make decisions with regard every aspect of life.

All of this functioned (internally) without any form of money (or similar abstraction).

Orderville was disbanded when the US Government took control of Utah, took away women's right to vote, confiscated property of anyone with any connection to polygyny, and imposed a Washington-based civil authority.

Because the "economy" of these cultures is based on a mixture of balanced and general reciprocity, there is no need for money within the society.

There is no reason that these cultures could not scale to at least 'national' scales except, perhaps, those like the Amish that eschew technology and the "modern."

for what it is worth,

davew

On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 5:27 AM, ⛧ glen wrote:
> It's not clear to me why my attempt to answer hasn't impacted the way
> you repeated the question. So I've copied it below. What I outline is a
> hand wave at a future structure not entirely without money, but with an
> augmented money.
>
> I think these 5 principles also model the non-moneyed organizations
> Dave references.
>
> I understand that these answers aren't *complete*. But your repeating
> your same question without incorporating the attempts to answer it is
> worriesome.
>
>
> On May 5, 2021 5:17:00 PM PDT, "uǝlƃ ↙↙↙" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >Well, there are smarter people than me, who know more about Marxism
> >than I do, on this list. But it seems there are ~5 principles to guide
> >it:
> >
> >• civilization is already a cooperative enterprise, it's just a matter
> >of cooperation's extent/ubiquity
> >• there's nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built on
> >science
> >• innovation, technology, culture, etc. are limited only by nature; so
> >in principle the things we build (including governments) can be as big
> >and complex as the natural world
> >• class is a cultural construct; we create it; hence we can eliminate
> >it
> >• the spectral signature of organization sizes is present in nature and
> >should be mirrored in society (e.g. power laws for org sizes, small
> >world networks, etc)
> >
> >None of this implies the elimination of money. Reduction to a single
> >dimension is just fine *when* it works. But when it doesn't work, it
> >has to be "fleshed out" with other structure. Contracts are such a
> >structure. We use contracts all the time to flesh out our money-based
> >transactions. And contracts need not be simply pairwise (as Pieter
> >seemed to imply with his conception of a free market). Contracts can be
> >between any number of groups or individuals ... they nest.
> >
> >The trick is with the legal system and spatiotemporal extension. When
> >the lawyers draw up a contract and the courts judge an alleged breach,
> >there's spatial extent that we can't codify (unintended consequences,
> >externalities). And do contracts have higher order effects (extend to
> >descendants, siblings, business partners, etc.)? Designing a legal
> >system to align with the 5 basic principles above would, I think,
> >produce something very unlike capitalism ... but maybe not whatever it
> >is the Marxists imagine would emerge.
> >
> >I'm sure the above is too vague. But it's the best I can do. As I tried
> >to make clear *I* have no idea what could replace capitalism. I don't
> >even understand socialism. Smarter people than me would have to work it
> >out.
> >
>
> On May 7, 2021 10:43:35 PM PDT, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >Further illustration of my ignorance in these areas.
> >
> >This discussion originated with the idea that we are oppressed by
> >capitalism and money. My question still is, what is the (or at least
> >*our*)
> >alternative? Can you imagine converting our society into one without
> >money?
> >What could it possibly look like? Simply saying, *replace our culture
> >with
> >that of the Incas* doesn't help me to see any real alternative to where
> >we
> >are -- or a viable path from here to a non-monetary world.
> >
> >-- Russ Abbott
> >Professor, Computer Science
> >California State University, Los Angeles
> >
> >
>
> --
> glen ⛧
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Prof David West

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by gepr

I cannot make any general comments re the role of pervasive access to the supernatural in a society because my direct experience is limited to one instance. In fact, I know of only two extant examples within the Judaeo-Christian tradition (Mormons and the Society of Friends/Quakers) and one extinct example (Gnosticism).

You are absolutely correct vis-a-vis defectors. I am certain that there are more Mormon sects, many of which are no larger than an extended family, than in any other religion, including 2000 year old Catholicism. Absolutely sure on an per-capita basis.

Surprisingly, perhaps, there has been but one schism in Mormonism, the founding of the Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints, and that was more of a succession issue (Brigham Young won and 95% of the church membership followed him to Utah).

The doctrine of polygyny offers further illustration of the issue.

Within Mormonism, there was access to a transpersonal objective truth; at least in the sense that it would have been "surprising" if different people talking to the same God, received significantly variable revelations. Brigham Young excoriated those that did not study and pray and understand doctrinal matters; but who simply obeyed whatever the leadership revealed to them.

Most of the really interesting examples and issues and resolutions occurred before Utah statehood, and you would be hard pressed to find even vestiges in the Church and Church Membership today. And, as I said at the beginning one example, however interesting is insufficient basis for generalization.

davew

On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 4:31 PM, ⛧ glen wrote:

> Hm. OK. The problem I see with allowing a supernatural component into
> the legal system is a lack of access to a "touchstone", a transpersonal
> objective truth. Supernatural access, even if such exists, is
> notoriously exploitable by defectors, perhaps including a cabal of
> crony Bishops. By disallowing it, we scope the legal system to some
> ground truth, some universally verifiable fact.
>
> I know you have myriad arguments against our current attempts at ground
> truth (aka science). And as a pluralist and agnostic, I'm sympathetic.
> But such skepticism doesn't give us the justification for ignoring how
> helpful such a ground truth would be in limiting defection in a
> multidimensional "market".
>
> On May 9, 2021 8:13:24 AM PDT, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >With one slight modification, I agree completely with glen's five
> >principles. The exception: *"there is nothing supernatural, so all
> >solutions have to be built on science."* The closest thing to a
> >"cultural universal" (a practice, norm, technology, custom, etc. that
> >is shared by all cultures) is a belief in a *supernatural*. I see no
> >problem in basing a "solution" — a non-money-based social structure —
> >on such a belief.
> >
> >The most prominent examples of societies/cultures that do not use money
> >internally, would be the Mennonites and the Amish. Both do use money
> >externally, i.e. for interactions with outsiders. An example that I am
> >more familiar with is the **United Order** established by Brigham
> >Young.
> >
> >Orderville is a small town about 20 miles south of where I live and was
> >the last community to practice the United Order. Just before its
> >demise, the community numbered in several thousands and engaged in
> >enterprises that included mining, ranching, lumber mill, textile and
> >garment manufacturing, cotton growing, mercantile and trade, etc. The
> >geographic range of the community covered all of Arizona north of the
> >Grand Canyon, as far as present day Las Vegas, and the southern third
> >of Utah.
> >
> >It was a Mormon community and all shared a common belief in a
> >'supernatural' and that belief played an integral role in the
> >organization of the community. For example, the Bishop's Storehouse —
> >both literal and metaphorical — was the repository of all goods and
> >produce from the community and the Bishop, a religious leader, was
> >charged with protection and distribution of contents among the populace
> >according to need. But a Bishop is not a full-time religious figure —
> >the church, even today, has less than 100 people who are 'paid clergy'
> >— and not an authoritarian figure. Although there was a division of
> >labor (men seldom worked in the communal kitchen and women seldom
> >engaged in ranching or mining) it was primarily an egalitarian society.
> >Women also tended to exert civil and social authority over the
> >community while men exercised religious authority.
> >
> >Everyone, including children from age 8 and older (age of baptism), had
> >direct access to the supernatural (to God) and was expected to use that
> >access to determine correct actions and make decisions with regard
> >every aspect of life.
> >
> >All of this functioned (internally) without any form of money (or
> >similar abstraction).
> >
> >Orderville was disbanded when the US Government took control of Utah,
> >took away women's right to vote, confiscated property of anyone with
> >any connection to polygyny, and imposed a Washington-based civil
> >authority.
> >
> >Because the "economy" of these cultures is based on a mixture of
> >balanced and general reciprocity, there is no need for money within the
> >society.
> >
> >There is no reason that these cultures could not scale to at least
> >'national' scales except, perhaps, those like the Amish that eschew
> >technology and the "modern."
> >
> >for what it is worth,
> >
> >davew
> >
> --
> glen ⛧
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

Russ Abbott

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by gepr

Sounds utopian: from everyone according to his abilities; from everyone according to his meds.

On Sun, May 9, 2021, 2:47 PM ⛧ glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

But reciprocity need not be merely dyadic, as I tried to point out with my post about N-ary contracts in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Dave alludes to such a legal system by using the term "balance". Defectors in a multidimensional "market" are *easier* to coerce than in a unidimensional "market". To boot, the coercion can be even more adaptive. So your assertions of indoctrination or harsh punishment is an artifact of the overly reductive system we currently have.

On May 9, 2021 10:18:44 AM PDT, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Dave, Very interesting example. As you said, "the "economy" of these
>cultures is based on a mixture of balanced and general reciprocity."
>
>That works only if there are no (or very few) free-riders. How can that
>rule be enforced? (It's certainly not "natural.") Either it's enforced
>individually, i.e., everyone was "indoctrinated" to believe it through
>strict training, or society came down strongly (either by normative
>practice or by formal enforcement authorities) on those who violated
>the
>rules.
>
>In either case, some societal structure eliminates the need for a more
>market-oriented mechanism for allocating resources.
>
>On Sun, May 9, 2021, 8:14 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> With one slight modification, I agree completely with glen's five
>> principles. The exception: *"there is nothing supernatural, so all
>> solutions have to be built on science."* The closest thing to a
>"cultural
>> universal" (a practice, norm, technology, custom, etc. that is shared
>by
>> all cultures) is a belief in a *supernatural*. I see no problem in
>basing
>> a "solution" — a non-money-based social structure — on such a belief.
>>
>> The most prominent examples of societies/cultures that do not use
>money
>> internally, would be the Mennonites and the Amish. Both do use money
>> externally, i.e. for interactions with outsiders. An example that I
>am more
>> familiar with is the *United Order* established by Brigham Young.
>>
>> Orderville is a small town about 20 miles south of where I live and
>was
>> the last community to practice the United Order. Just before its
>demise,
>> the community numbered in several thousands and engaged in
>enterprises that
>> included mining, ranching, lumber mill, textile and garment
>manufacturing,
>> cotton growing, mercantile and trade, etc. The geographic range of
>the
>> community covered all of Arizona north of the Grand Canyon, as far as
>> present day Las Vegas, and the southern third of Utah.
>>
>> It was a Mormon community and all shared a common belief in a
>> 'supernatural' and that belief played an integral role in the
>organization
>> of the community. For example, the Bishop's Storehouse — both literal
>and
>> metaphorical — was the repository of all goods and produce from the
>> community and the Bishop, a religious leader, was charged with
>protection
>> and distribution of contents among the populace according to need.
>But a
>> Bishop is not a full-time religious figure — the church, even today,
>has
>> less than 100 people who are 'paid clergy' — and not an authoritarian
>> figure. Although there was a division of labor (men seldom worked in
>the
>> communal kitchen and women seldom engaged in ranching or mining) it
>was
>> primarily an egalitarian society. Women also tended to exert civil
>and
>> social authority over the community while men exercised religious
>authority.
>>
>> Everyone, including children from age 8 and older (age of baptism),
>had
>> direct access to the supernatural (to God) and was expected to use
>that
>> access to determine correct actions and make decisions with regard
>every
>> aspect of life.
>>
>> All of this functioned (internally) without any form of money (or
>similar
>> abstraction).
>>
>> Orderville was disbanded when the US Government took control of Utah,
>took
>> away women's right to vote, confiscated property of anyone with any
>> connection to polygyny, and imposed a Washington-based civil
>authority.
>>
>> Because the "economy" of these cultures is based on a mixture of
>balanced
>> and general reciprocity, there is no need for money within the
>society.
>>
>> There is no reason that these cultures could not scale to at least
>> 'national' scales except, perhaps, those like the Amish that eschew
>> technology and the "modern."
>>
>> for what it is worth,
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 5:27 AM, ⛧ glen wrote:
>> > It's not clear to me why my attempt to answer hasn't impacted the
>way
>> > you repeated the question. So I've copied it below. What I outline
>is a
>> > hand wave at a future structure not entirely without money, but
>with an
>> > augmented money.
>> >
>> > I think these 5 principles also model the non-moneyed organizations
>> > Dave references.
>> >
>> > I understand that these answers aren't *complete*. But your
>repeating
>> > your same question without incorporating the attempts to answer it
>is
>> > worriesome.
>> >
>> >
>> > On May 5, 2021 5:17:00 PM PDT, "uǝlƃ ↙↙↙" <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>> > >Well, there are smarter people than me, who know more about
>Marxism
>> > >than I do, on this list. But it seems there are ~5 principles to
>guide
>> > >it:
>> > >
>> > >• civilization is already a cooperative enterprise, it's just a
>matter
>> > >of cooperation's extent/ubiquity
>> > >• there's nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built
>on
>> > >science
>> > >• innovation, technology, culture, etc. are limited only by
>nature; so
>> > >in principle the things we build (including governments) can be as
>big
>> > >and complex as the natural world
>> > >• class is a cultural construct; we create it; hence we can
>eliminate
>> > >it
>> > >• the spectral signature of organization sizes is present in
>nature and
>> > >should be mirrored in society (e.g. power laws for org sizes,
>small
>> > >world networks, etc)
>> > >
>> > >None of this implies the elimination of money. Reduction to a
>single
>> > >dimension is just fine *when* it works. But when it doesn't work,
>it
>> > >has to be "fleshed out" with other structure. Contracts are such a
>> > >structure. We use contracts all the time to flesh out our
>money-based
>> > >transactions. And contracts need not be simply pairwise (as Pieter
>> > >seemed to imply with his conception of a free market). Contracts
>can be
>> > >between any number of groups or individuals ... they nest.
>> > >
>> > >The trick is with the legal system and spatiotemporal extension.
>When
>> > >the lawyers draw up a contract and the courts judge an alleged
>breach,
>> > >there's spatial extent that we can't codify (unintended
>consequences,
>> > >externalities). And do contracts have higher order effects (extend
>to
>> > >descendants, siblings, business partners, etc.)? Designing a legal
>> > >system to align with the 5 basic principles above would, I think,
>> > >produce something very unlike capitalism ... but maybe not
>whatever it
>> > >is the Marxists imagine would emerge.
>> > >
--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

I meant it seriously. Thank you for taking me seriously.

I agree that those extra "dimensions," rules, norms, laws, etc. are very important. Do you believe they could all exist without a framework of money to refer to, e.g., for penalties (e.g., for when an agreement is not met), awards (e.g., as incentives for improved or more timely performance), contracts, arbitration decision, etc? I'm skeptical. It's widely agreed that one of the primary values of money is to facilitate trade between people/organizations that don't have specific items to exchange. E.g., person A wants/needs something person B has "for sale" (whatever that means in a non-money environment), but person B doesn't want/need anything person A has "for sale," even though there are others who do want/need what person A is "selling." Money makes such exchanges possible. How do you see it happening without money?

More generally, how will society allocate human effort and physical resources without money? (I'm surprised I hadn't thought of this earlier. It seems like the core question. I know I mentioned it last time. I surprised myself by finding it.) It doesn't seem feasible to me to have the kinds of agreements/contracts you mentioned at the individual level for each individual. It's still not clear to me how you see it all working.

-- Russ

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:02 AM ⛧ glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

No. We already have N-ary obligations in our current markets. So it's anything but utopian. You asked how to get there from here. I'm taking you seriously and trying to answer your question. Maybe I'm being naive in doing so.

But, take a look at the research tabs on any modern trading app. What you see are the extra dimensions like recent contracts, mergers, acquisitions, what State governs the agreements, a standard arbitration method, etc. These ad hoc, band-aid, artifacts are there to assist with reciprocity and balance. And they all *inform* the market *price*. Further, our laws (at various scales) help ensure reciprocity in rules for disclosure, breach, etc. And this applies not only for publicly traded companies, but privately valued ones as well.

A gradual, increasing encoding of such extra dimensions can approach what you snarkily dismiss, without immediately abandoning money as one of the tools in the kit.

On May 9, 2021 6:38:41 PM PDT, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Sounds utopian: from everyone according to his abilities; from everyone
>according to his meds.
>
>On Sun, May 9, 2021, 2:47 PM ⛧ glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> But reciprocity need not be merely dyadic, as I tried to point out
>with my
>> post about N-ary contracts in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Dave
>alludes
>> to such a legal system by using the term "balance". Defectors in a
>> multidimensional "market" are *easier* to coerce than in a
>unidimensional
>> "market". To boot, the coercion can be even more adaptive. So your
>> assertions of indoctrination or harsh punishment is an artifact of
>the
>> overly reductive system we currently have.
>>

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

Yes, I agree it's difficult. And I'm not suggesting I have any knowledge or expertise. But the principles I listed were intended as a foundation. Given that foundation, it's difficult for me to imagine *not* having anything other than money in common with any other trader. That extreme case, where one party has *zero* commonality with another party prevents us from realizing that in the overwhelming majority of concrete situations, there's significant commonality between the parties.

So, that's not the problem. The problem is in the quantification of goods/skills being traded. While it's reasonable to, say, trade a pickup truck for an espresso machine, matching pickup trucks to espresso machines (rust spots vs pressure specs, etc.), the measure that is money allows us to quantify them. E.g. my pickup truck is worth 10 of your espresso machines. That's the technology we call money.

A significant other aspect is that money (at least fiat) can be trasnmitted at light speed, which allows me to trade 1 *virtual* pickup truck for 10 *virtual* espresso machines and TRUST that reciprocity exists.

But both quantification and virtuality can be (are regularly) implemented in other dimensions. Money isn't absolutely, unquestionably necessary for them. (Though it's important that money may, in fact, be the best, most efficient/effective for some trades.)

And to go back to the extreme case, where the parties have 0 in common, literally *any* other dimension can be used as a 3rd, connective, material. Gold is a good one. Wooden chits might work. Marks on a wooden stick, maybe? 8^D All these are "money", writ large. But we don't have to think of them that way. They are reservoirs of value. Even if I don't actually *want* 10 espresso machines, I might trade my truck for them because I know 10 locals who do want them. 5 of those 10 locals will give me, say, playstation DVDs. 2 of them will give me coffee they've roasted. Etc. The 10 espresso machines act as money.

To see this happening today, consider options trading. You're buying the *rights* to some thing/action, virtualized things/actions. You might also see it in contract clauses like "right of first refusal". Any mediating reservoir of value might play the role played by money.

On 5/10/21 7:35 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> I agree that those extra "dimensions," rules, norms, laws, etc. are very important. Do you believe they could all exist without a framework of money to refer to, e.g., for penalties (e.g., for when an agreement is not met), awards (e.g., as incentives for improved or more timely performance), contracts, arbitration decision, etc? I'm skeptical. It's widely agreed that one of the primary values of money is to facilitate trade between people/organizations that don't have specific items to exchange. E.g., person A wants/needs something person B has "for sale" (whatever that means in a non-money environment), but person B doesn't want/need anything person A has "for sale," even though there are others who do want/need what person A is "selling." Money makes such exchanges possible. How do you see it happening without money?
>
> More generally, how will society allocate human effort and physical resources without money? (I'm surprised I hadn't thought of this earlier. It seems like the core question. I know I mentioned it last time. I surprised myself by finding it.) It doesn't seem feasible to me to have the kinds of agreements/contracts you mentioned at the individual level for each individual. It's still not clear to me how you see it all working.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

As you say, your alternatives are "money writ large." So how does that eliminate money? It just changes its form.

I don't understand how options further your position. How do you trade them without something like money?

-- Russ

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:03 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yes, I agree it's difficult. And I'm not suggesting I have any knowledge or expertise. But the principles I listed were intended as a foundation. Given that foundation, it's difficult for me to imagine *not* having anything other than money in common with any other trader. That extreme case, where one party has *zero* commonality with another party prevents us from realizing that in the overwhelming majority of concrete situations, there's significant commonality between the parties.

So, that's not the problem. The problem is in the quantification of goods/skills being traded. While it's reasonable to, say, trade a pickup truck for an espresso machine, matching pickup trucks to espresso machines (rust spots vs pressure specs, etc.), the measure that is money allows us to quantify them. E.g. my pickup truck is worth 10 of your espresso machines. That's the technology we call money.

A significant other aspect is that money (at least fiat) can be trasnmitted at light speed, which allows me to trade 1 *virtual* pickup truck for 10 *virtual* espresso machines and TRUST that reciprocity exists.

But both quantification and virtuality can be (are regularly) implemented in other dimensions. Money isn't absolutely, unquestionably necessary for them. (Though it's important that money may, in fact, be the best, most efficient/effective for some trades.)

And to go back to the extreme case, where the parties have 0 in common, literally *any* other dimension can be used as a 3rd, connective, material. Gold is a good one. Wooden chits might work. Marks on a wooden stick, maybe? 8^D All these are "money", writ large. But we don't have to think of them that way. They are reservoirs of value. Even if I don't actually *want* 10 espresso machines, I might trade my truck for them because I know 10 locals who do want them. 5 of those 10 locals will give me, say, playstation DVDs. 2 of them will give me coffee they've roasted. Etc. The 10 espresso machines act as money.

To see this happening today, consider options trading. You're buying the *rights* to some thing/action, virtualized things/actions. You might also see it in contract clauses like "right of first refusal". Any mediating reservoir of value might play the role played by money.

On 5/10/21 7:35 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> I agree that those extra "dimensions," rules, norms, laws, etc. are very important. Do you believe they could all exist without a framework of money to refer to, e.g., for penalties (e.g., for when an agreement is not met), awards (e.g., as incentives for improved or more timely performance), contracts, arbitration decision, etc? I'm skeptical. It's widely agreed that one of the primary values of money is to facilitate trade between people/organizations that don't have specific items to exchange. E.g., person A wants/needs something person B has "for sale" (whatever that means in a non-money environment), but person B doesn't want/need anything person A has "for sale," even though there are others who do want/need what person A is "selling." Money makes such exchanges possible. How do you see it happening without money?
>
> More generally, how will society allocate human effort and physical resources without money? (I'm surprised I hadn't thought of this earlier. It seems like the core question. I know I mentioned it last time. I surprised myself by finding it.) It doesn't seem feasible to me to have the kinds of agreements/contracts you mentioned at the individual level for each individual. It's still not clear to me how you see it all working.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

Here is the Cliff Notes introduction to Money.

Money is often defined in terms of the three functions or services. Money serves as a medium of exchange, as a store of value, and as a unit of account.

Money's most important function is as a medium of exchange to facilitate transactions. Without money, all transactions would have to be conducted by barter, which involves direct exchange of one good or service for another. The difficulty with a barter system is that in order to obtain a particular good or service from a supplier, one has to possess a good or service of equal value, which the supplier also desires. In other words, in a barter system, exchange can take place only if there is a double coincidence of wants between two transacting parties. The likelihood of a double coincidence of wants, however, is small and makes the exchange of goods and services rather difficult. Money effectively eliminates the double coincidence of wants problem by serving as a medium of exchange that is accepted in all transactions, by all parties, regardless of whether they desire each others' goods and services.

As a medium of exchange, I think of money as something like a ruler. You can use it to measure things, to compare the measurements, and to exchange things for tokens of units of such measurements. Certainly, such a measurement is not a complete description of the thing measured. Is claiming that a measurement of a thing is equivalent to the thing itself what you are referring to as reduction? I doubt that anyone would take that position. So if you are arguing against that, I think it is something of a red herring. No one seriously takes such a position.

Still, money is extraordinarily useful for facilitating exchanges that would be very difficult to arrange otherwise. Of course, if it's a complicated exchange one generally needs more than a ruler. That's why we have contracts, laws, etc., to spell out the additional details. I certainly agree with you about that. But I still don't see how a complex society can get along without something like a money-like ruler as a way to establish basic comparisons as at least the starting points of many if not most exchanges.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:21 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Using wooden chits *and* US dollars limits overly reductive conceptions of money. It's fine to play word games and point out ambiguity in the usage of the term "money". But it should be clear that, like with languages, having diverse types of money is less reductive than 1 type of money. I'd no more want to rid the world of Yen than I'd want to rid the world of, say, Farsi. Here lie many of our disagreements about hooking one nation's money to another nation's money.

Options are contracts. You can trade contracts without money. We do it all the time with, say, "quit claim" deeds. While the overwhelming majority of these trades use money, my claim is that money isn't *necessary*. Of course, it may be effective and efficient.

This conversation is about the accumulation of capital and UBI as a band-aid to help maintain a society under the tendency to accumulate capital. In that larger conversation, reduction to a singular, grand unified measure like a single money, like USD, washes away the variation in ways to store value. Storing value in Yuan, as opposed to Euros, actually means something (at least Putin thinks so). Similarly, storing value in a .25 acre plot of land with a fairly maintained building on it is different from storing value in gold. Although they can all be *thought of* as money, only a capitalist does so. The rest of us think, say, our espresso machine, is different fundamentally from our pickup truck.

On 5/10/21 8:22 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> As you say, your alternatives are "money writ large." So how does that eliminate money? It just changes its form.
>
> I don't understand how options further your position. How do you trade them without something like money?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

Sounds like we're not disagreeing too much. You wrote, "By saying the purpose of contracts and laws is to spell out additional details of money-facilitated transactions ... that that's the purpose of laws, etc. is putting the cart before the horse. We've gone too far, put too much emphasis on the money and not enough emphasis on the otherwise mediated relationships between various parties. Money is a means, not an end, a tool, not the purpose to which a tool is put."

If I said, "purpose," I should have said "function."

Laws typically trump money: OSHA, etc. A company can't (honestly) buy its way out of providing safe working conditions or selling contaminated food. I think that's appropriate. It's not clear to me that I'm "putting the cart before the horse" as you say.

-- Russ

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:15 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

No, I'm not *quite* complaining about the reduction of money to a quantifier. My objection extends further to the ability of any particular money (e.g. wooden chits) to stand in, as a mediator, for what it helps trade. Your espresso machine is not *merely* worth $1000. That is the reduction I'm complaining about, a reduction that the accumulation of capital relies on.

And, as I've qualified several times, mediating value stores *do* facilitate transactions, perhaps even to an extent that we will *never*, could never, eliminate it. As I've said since the beginning of the UBI thread, I don't *know* if we can eliminate money. But it would be useful if we could reintroduce more diversity into our media of exchange.

But, I object to your assertion that we have contracts, laws, etc. to flesh out the details that money doesn't cover. That's not *why* we have contracts, laws, etc. We have those things to support the larger *foundations* of society. That they support money-facilitated transactions is a symptom, not a cause.

Socially responsible mutual funds are one example of reintroducing variables into the calculus by which we accumulate capital. Pressuring Georgia-based corporations into making public statements about voter suppression in Georgia is *another* example. Actually attending annual shareholder meetings for publicly traded corporations, and expressing your opinions about the company's activities is yet another way. Carbon offsets are yet another example. Dave's mention of shunning is another. The examples of introducing these variables are everywhere. That you don't acknowledge them when they're pointed out is worriesome. You asked how we can trade contracts without money. I provided an answer. You go on to cite a definition of money. Weird. It's like a laser-focused attention on money to the exclusion of all else.

Anyway. My only point, here, is to push against the tendency to do what you've just done. By saying the purpose of contracts and laws is to spell out additional details of money-facilitated transactions ... that that's the purpose of laws, etc. is putting the cart before the horse. We've gone too far, put too much emphasis on the money and not enough emphasis on the otherwise mediated relationships between various parties. Money is a means, not an end, a tool, not the purpose to which a tool is put. And like any tool, it sits in a (large) equivalence class of particular tools, each of which can play the role. And which tool you choose biases what happens as a result. And if you don't deliberately *choose* the tool, just fall into using it by accident, then you'll be biased in a cryptic way.

If you still don't see how a complex society can get along with *fewer* money-facilitated transactions, then I'm tilting at windmills. How many fewer? I don't know. But some, at least. Asserting that because we can't eliminate it all doesn't argue that we can't eliminate most of it. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

On 5/10/21 10:34 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> As a medium of exchange, I think of money as something like a ruler. You can use it to measure things, to compare the measurements, and to exchange things for tokens of units of such measurements. Certainly, such a measurement is not a complete description of the thing measured. Is claiming that a measurement of a thing is equivalent to the thing itself what you are referring to as reduction? I doubt that anyone would take that position. So if you are arguing against that, I think it is something of a red herring. No one seriously takes such a position.
>
> Still, money is extraordinarily useful for facilitating exchanges that would be very difficult to arrange otherwise. Of course, if it's a complicated exchange one generally needs more than a ruler. That's why we have contracts, laws, etc., to spell out the additional details. I certainly agree with you about that. But I still don't see how a complex society can get along without something like a money-like ruler as a way to establish basic comparisons as at least the starting points of many if not most exchanges.
> _
> _
> __-- Russ Abbott
> Professor, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:21 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Using wooden chits *and* US dollars limits overly reductive conceptions of money. It's fine to play word games and point out ambiguity in the usage of the term "money". But it should be clear that, like with languages, having diverse types of money is less reductive than 1 type of money. I'd no more want to rid the world of Yen than I'd want to rid the world of, say, Farsi. Here lie many of our disagreements about hooking one nation's money to another nation's money.
>
> Options are contracts. You can trade contracts without money. We do it all the time with, say, "quit claim" deeds. While the overwhelming majority of these trades use money, my claim is that money isn't *necessary*. Of course, it may be effective and efficient.
>
> This conversation is about the accumulation of capital and UBI as a band-aid to help maintain a society under the tendency to accumulate capital. In that larger conversation, reduction to a singular, grand unified measure like a single money, like USD, washes away the variation in ways to store value. Storing value in Yuan, as opposed to Euros, actually means something (at least Putin thinks so). Similarly, storing value in a .25 acre plot of land with a fairly maintained building on it is different from storing value in gold. Although they can all be *thought of* as money, only a capitalist does so. The rest of us think, say, our espresso machine, is different fundamentally from our pickup truck.
>
> On 5/10/21 8:22 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > As you say, your alternatives are "money writ large." So how does that eliminate money? It just changes its form.
> >
> > I don't understand how options further your position. How do you trade them without something like money?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

I went looking for your 5 principles.

• civilization is already a cooperative enterprise, it's just a matter of cooperation's extent/ubiquity

Agree. That's one of the reasons Trump's norm-breaking was so destructive.

• there's nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built on science

Agree there is no supernatural. I don't see that implies that "all solutions have to be built on science." Most of our norms are not science-based.

• innovation, technology, culture, etc. are limited only by nature; so in principle the things we build (including governments) can be as big and complex as the natural world

Is this controversial?

• class is a cultural construct; we create it; hence we can eliminate it

Is this controversial?

• the spectral signature of organization sizes is present in nature and should be mirrored in society (e.g. power laws for org sizes, small-world networks, etc)

Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that it's important to be aware of advances in our understanding of complex organizations, I certainly agree.

-- Russ

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:53 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK. If you changed that to say that one of the functions social mechanisms like contracts happen to implement are money-facilitated transactions, then that would've been fine. But by proposing the 5 principles I did, I was attempting to answer your question of what a society might look like without (or with drastically fewer) money-facilitated exchanges. I know we can go a lot farther than we have, including relying more on co-ops and less on for-profits, including drastically increasing contractual tools (like the "plain language" movement), like adding ethical sections to standard artifacts like research publications, ensuring publicly funded research is freely accessible to the public that funded it, etc.

Can we push that to an ultimate limit where no money is ever used? IDK. Just because I can't yet envision its practical details doesn't mean we can't build it up from principles. I'd enjoy doing that and Dave's provided a good start by outlining prior cultures, even if those particular ones don't scale. Would we want to completely eliminate money? Probably not. I don't toss obsolete tools from my toolbox just in case they're not as obsolete as I thought.

The question is less about eliminating money and more about relying on a reductive hyper-focus on money and being led by our noses into ad hoc responses like UBI. UBI is like tossing a hammer to someone who needs to change a tire. Wrong tool, dude. But thanks. Maybe I can trade it for a lug wrench?

On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Sounds like we're not disagreeing too much. You wrote, "By saying the purpose of contracts and laws is to spell out additional details of money-facilitated transactions ... that that's the purpose of laws, etc. is putting the cart before the horse. We've gone too far, put too much emphasis on the money and not enough emphasis on the otherwise mediated relationships between various parties. Money is a means, not an end, a tool, not the purpose to which a tool is put."
>
> If I said, "purpose," I should have said "function."
>
> Laws typically trump money: OSHA, etc. A company can't (honestly) buy its way out of providing safe working conditions or selling contaminated food. I think that's appropriate. It's not clear to me that I'm "putting the cart before the horse" as you say.
> _
> _
> __-- Russ
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:15 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> No, I'm not *quite* complaining about the reduction of money to a quantifier. My objection extends further to the ability of any particular money (e.g. wooden chits) to stand in, as a mediator, for what it helps trade. Your espresso machine is not *merely* worth $1000. That is the reduction I'm complaining about, a reduction that the accumulation of capital relies on.
>
> And, as I've qualified several times, mediating value stores *do* facilitate transactions, perhaps even to an extent that we will *never*, could never, eliminate it. As I've said since the beginning of the UBI thread, I don't *know* if we can eliminate money. But it would be useful if we could reintroduce more diversity into our media of exchange.
>
> But, I object to your assertion that we have contracts, laws, etc. to flesh out the details that money doesn't cover. That's not *why* we have contracts, laws, etc. We have those things to support the larger *foundations* of society. That they support money-facilitated transactions is a symptom, not a cause.
>
> Socially responsible mutual funds are one example of reintroducing variables into the calculus by which we accumulate capital. Pressuring Georgia-based corporations into making public statements about voter suppression in Georgia is *another* example. Actually attending annual shareholder meetings for publicly traded corporations, and expressing your opinions about the company's activities is yet another way. Carbon offsets are yet another example. Dave's mention of shunning is another. The examples of introducing these variables are everywhere. That you don't acknowledge them when they're pointed out is worriesome. You asked how we can trade contracts without money. I provided an answer. You go on to cite a definition of money. Weird. It's like a laser-focused attention on money to the exclusion of all else.
>
> Anyway. My only point, here, is to push against the tendency to do what you've just done. By saying the purpose of contracts and laws is to spell out additional details of money-facilitated transactions ... that that's the purpose of laws, etc. is putting the cart before the horse. We've gone too far, put too much emphasis on the money and not enough emphasis on the otherwise mediated relationships between various parties. Money is a means, not an end, a tool, not the purpose to which a tool is put. And like any tool, it sits in a (large) equivalence class of particular tools, each of which can play the role. And which tool you choose biases what happens as a result. And if you don't deliberately *choose* the tool, just fall into using it by accident, then you'll be biased in a cryptic way.
>
> If you still don't see how a complex society can get along with *fewer* money-facilitated transactions, then I'm tilting at windmills. How many fewer? I don't know. But some, at least. Asserting that because we can't eliminate it all doesn't argue that we can't eliminate most of it. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
>
>
> On 5/10/21 10:34 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > As a medium of exchange, I think of money as something like a ruler. You can use it to measure things, to compare the measurements, and to exchange things for tokens of units of such measurements. Certainly, such a measurement is not a complete description of the thing measured. Is claiming that a measurement of a thing is equivalent to the thing itself what you are referring to as reduction? I doubt that anyone would take that position. So if you are arguing against that, I think it is something of a red herring. No one seriously takes such a position.
> >
> > Still, money is extraordinarily useful for facilitating exchanges that would be very difficult to arrange otherwise. Of course, if it's a complicated exchange one generally needs more than a ruler. That's why we have contracts, laws, etc., to spell out the additional details. I certainly agree with you about that. But I still don't see how a complex society can get along without something like a money-like ruler as a way to establish basic comparisons as at least the starting points of many if not most exchanges.
> > _
> > _
> > __-- Russ Abbott
> > Professor, Computer Science
> > California State University, Los Angeles
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:21 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
> >
> > Using wooden chits *and* US dollars limits overly reductive conceptions of money. It's fine to play word games and point out ambiguity in the usage of the term "money". But it should be clear that, like with languages, having diverse types of money is less reductive than 1 type of money. I'd no more want to rid the world of Yen than I'd want to rid the world of, say, Farsi. Here lie many of our disagreements about hooking one nation's money to another nation's money.
> >
> > Options are contracts. You can trade contracts without money. We do it all the time with, say, "quit claim" deeds. While the overwhelming majority of these trades use money, my claim is that money isn't *necessary*. Of course, it may be effective and efficient.
> >
> > This conversation is about the accumulation of capital and UBI as a band-aid to help maintain a society under the tendency to accumulate capital. In that larger conversation, reduction to a singular, grand unified measure like a single money, like USD, washes away the variation in ways to store value. Storing value in Yuan, as opposed to Euros, actually means something (at least Putin thinks so). Similarly, storing value in a .25 acre plot of land with a fairly maintained building on it is different from storing value in gold. Although they can all be *thought of* as money, only a capitalist does so. The rest of us think, say, our espresso machine, is different fundamentally from our pickup truck.
> >
> > On 5/10/21 8:22 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > > As you say, your alternatives are "money writ large." So how does that eliminate money? It just changes its form.
> > >
> > > I don't understand how options further your position. How do you trade them without something like money?
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Smart-Contracts: was UBI

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen (et al) -

I wonder if we (collectively) can discuss *how* smart contracts as being built on top of blockchain implementations can be independent of "money" as you properly (IMO) apprehend it (and it's limits).

I've been studying the Cardano ecosystem (weakly by the standards of more astutely technical of you here) *because* it is not conceived or designed to (merely) be the vehicle for managing an aspiring cryptoCurrency Bubble as the others seem to be (with smart-contracts an afterthought or inner-machinery exposed for civilian use.

As I understand it, cryptoCurrency (ADA in this case) is the "reference app" of choice on Cardano for lots of reasons (explicitly) other than creating and inflating a crypto¢bubble, though I can't articulate them well myself. My NREL colleague and I are exploring how the Ouroborous (protocol/blockchain machinery) of Cardano and the Smart Contract language/environment (Plutus) and other fairly *technical* things about collaborative problem-solving environments. FWIW, his design/implementation environment of choice is Haskell. His teenage son taps the family $$ resources via a webapp which implements a smart-contract that captures the family values around "allowance" or more aptly "allowable expenses". I share this only for "flavor", not with an indication that it is anything more meaningful than a novelty reflecting his investment in understanding-by-application.

However... I'm fundamentally *more* interested in how the same concepts (and machinery ultimately) can help us move on past a post-capitalistic socio-Economy toward something closer to it's close cousin Ecology which I believe would have a much stronger flavor of reciprocity, gifting and gratitude vs the nearly *required*??? U-O-Me nature of Money (conceived as IOUs, but distorted to UOMes by ?greed?).

- Steve

On 5/10/21 12:13 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

No, I'm not *quite* complaining about the reduction of money to a quantifier. My objection extends further to the ability of any particular money (e.g. wooden chits) to stand in, as a mediator, for what it helps trade. Your espresso machine is not *merely* worth $1000. That is the reduction I'm complaining about, a reduction that the accumulation of capital relies on.

And, as I've qualified several times, mediating value stores *do* facilitate transactions, perhaps even to an extent that we will *never*, could never, eliminate it. As I've said since the beginning of the UBI thread, I don't *know* if we can eliminate money. But it would be useful if we could reintroduce more diversity into our media of exchange.

But, I object to your assertion that we have contracts, laws, etc. to flesh out the details that money doesn't cover. That's not *why* we have contracts, laws, etc. We have those things to support the larger *foundations* of society. That they support money-facilitated transactions is a symptom, not a cause.

Socially responsible mutual funds are one example of reintroducing variables into the calculus by which we accumulate capital. Pressuring Georgia-based corporations into making public statements about voter suppression in Georgia is *another* example. Actually attending annual shareholder meetings for publicly traded corporations, and expressing your opinions about the company's activities is yet another way. Carbon offsets are yet another example. Dave's mention of shunning is another. The examples of introducing these variables are everywhere. That you don't acknowledge them when they're pointed out is worriesome. You asked how we can trade contracts without money. I provided an answer. You go on to cite a definition of money. Weird. It's like a laser-focused attention on money to the exclusion of all else.

Anyway. My only point, here, is to push against the tendency to do what you've just done. By saying the purpose of contracts and laws is to spell out additional details of money-facilitated transactions ... that that's the purpose of laws, etc. is putting the cart before the horse. We've gone too far, put too much emphasis on the money and not enough emphasis on the otherwise mediated relationships between various parties. Money is a means, not an end, a tool, not the purpose to which a tool is put. And like any tool, it sits in a (large) equivalence class of particular tools, each of which can play the role. And which tool you choose biases what happens as a result. And if you don't deliberately *choose* the tool, just fall into using it by accident, then you'll be biased in a cryptic way.

If you still don't see how a complex society can get along with *fewer* money-facilitated transactions, then I'm tilting at windmills. How many fewer? I don't know. But some, at least. Asserting that because we can't eliminate it all doesn't argue that we can't eliminate most of it. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

On 5/10/21 10:34 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:

As a medium of exchange, I think of money as something like a ruler. You can use it to measure things, to compare the measurements, and to exchange things for tokens of units of such measurements. Certainly, such a measurement is not a complete description of the thing measured. Is claiming that a measurement of a thing is equivalent to the thing itself what you are referring to as reduction? I doubt that anyone would take that position. So if you are arguing against that, I think it is something of a red herring. No one seriously takes such a position.

Still, money is extraordinarily useful for facilitating exchanges that would be very difficult to arrange otherwise. Of course, if it's a complicated exchange one generally needs more than a ruler. That's why we have contracts, laws, etc., to spell out the additional details. I certainly agree with you about that. But I still don't see how a complex society can get along without something like a money-like ruler as a way to establish basic comparisons as at least the starting points of many if not most exchanges. 
_
_
__-- Russ Abbott                                      
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:21 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:

    Using wooden chits *and* US dollars limits overly reductive conceptions of money. It's fine to play word games and point out ambiguity in the usage of the term "money". But it should be clear that, like with languages, having diverse types of money is less reductive than 1 type of money. I'd no more want to rid the world of Yen than I'd want to rid the world of, say, Farsi. Here lie many of our disagreements about hooking one nation's money to another nation's money.

    Options are contracts. You can trade contracts without money. We do it all the time with, say, "quit claim" deeds. While the overwhelming majority of these trades use money, my claim is that money isn't *necessary*. Of course, it may be effective and efficient.

    This conversation is about the accumulation of capital and UBI as a band-aid to help maintain a society under the tendency to accumulate capital. In that larger conversation, reduction to a singular, grand unified measure like a single money, like USD, washes away the variation in ways to store value. Storing value in Yuan, as opposed to Euros, actually means something (at least Putin thinks so). Similarly, storing value in a .25 acre plot of land with a fairly maintained building on it is different from storing value in gold. Although they can all be *thought of* as money, only a capitalist does so. The rest of us think, say, our espresso machine, is different fundamentally from our pickup truck.

    On 5/10/21 8:22 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
    > As you say, your alternatives are "money writ large." So how does that eliminate money? It just changes its form. 
    >
    > I don't understand how options further your position. How do you trade them without something like money?

gepr

Re: Smart-Contracts: was UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by gepr

I am appreciating Russ's inlining observations/questions of Glen's 5points.

Supernatural:

I think Russ's and DaveW's points about the role of the Super/Supra Natural in any human project is important and may well be the fulcrum that balances our never-ending Metaphor-Flogging. I'm still on the other side of the fulcrum from Glen (as I understand it) but I feel like all of that is getting more clear as we stir the already muddy water (yay for floculants!)

Constraints:

Two "truisms" I operate by:

1) Constraint Provides Form;

2) When a problem seems intractable, add another degree of freedom (e.g. level of indirection)

Engineering vs Evolution:

As technophiles (Engineers, aspiring Engineers, latent Engineers) it is natural for us to hold up Engineering as the Ultimate and in fact often to believe that that is our ONLY toolkit.

As complexicists (practicing, groupie, aspirant, acolyte, etc.) we have a more sophisticated toolkit which "adds a level of indirection" which reduces in some sense to "attempting to design the elements in a complex-adaptive-system" and (perhaps) apply the Scientific Method in that context.

Class:

Class is a cultural construct. We can (maybe) eliminate it, or at least it's overt indicators. As Glen gestures at, gradients of ability and relevance of abilities exist in any cultural context. We can choose to arrange for these gradients to be enhanced or suppressed. If "the Rich get Richer" is a truism when expressed in terms of any rational conception of "money", we can *still* change the *rate-at-which* the Rich-get-Richer and/or the Asymptote of Wealth that constrains that truism. (e.g. I believe in the Mondragon Communities Wages are constrained to remain under 3:1).

Structure-at-all-scales: "The spectral signature of organizational size..." nature, etc. Hear Hear! If we *must* engineer everything from the top-down then we should *at-least* inspect the spectral signature in several dimensions to see if it even begins to approach natural systems which *might* be recognizeable similar enough to compare (if not actually inspire). Is Biomimicry an Engineering Discipline or Tool yet? I'll have to look back into the publishing record and see if/when it might have become more than a neologism.

Carry On,

- Steve

On 5/10/21 1:58 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:


On 5/10/21 12:10 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

    • civilization is already a cooperative enterprise, it's just a matter of cooperation's extent/ubiquity

        Agree. That's one of the reasons Trump's norm-breaking was so destructive.

    • there's nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built on science

        Agree there is no supernatural. I don't see that implies that "all solutions have to be built on science." Most of our norms are not science-based.

That's a reasonable point, as was Dave's w.r.t. belief in the supernatural being an encoding for norms. But norms aren't good enough. What's needed is more like what EricS invoked way back when in the context of economic mobility. We need an (maybe more than a few) error correcting mechanisms for when the norms are shown inadequate or obsolete. And it seems to me that scientific knowledge is the most stable kind of knowledge. Not "stable" in the sense of never changing, but stable in the sense of being *founded* ... on solid ground. A constitution is pretty good. But, again, our current problems with "originalism" and "living document"-ism show explicitly how that can fail.

    • innovation, technology, culture, etc. are limited only by nature; so in principle the things we build (including governments) can be as big and complex as the natural world

        Is this controversial?

Yes. On the one hand, there are credible arguments that the technology "stack", as it were, increases degrees of freedom versus decreases degrees of freedom. So, perhaps in the vein of von Hayek (and Pieter), any bureaucracy we put in place might be, necessarily, a limiting structure rather than a freeing structure. It would be arrogant to assume an engineered structure does a better job at some objective than a "natural" structure. This principle takes the stance that our structures can increase the degrees of freedom.

    • class is a cultural construct; we create it; hence we can eliminate it

        Is this controversial?

Yes. There is a significant number of us who believe in meritocracy, where poverty can be an *indicator* for something you deserve ... even to the extent that some people seem to believe you might have done that in a *past life* or somesuch nonsense. This principle attempts a kind of "blank slate" or "universally capable" conception of initial conditions. The principle isn't well-worded, though, like the rest of these. It partly implies that, e.g., if you're born blind, the world and our society are complex enough so that you can be just as, if not more, productive and meritorious as a sighted person.

    • the spectral signature of organization sizes is present in nature and should be mirrored in society (e.g. power laws for org sizes, small-world networks, etc)  

        Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that it's important to be aware of advances in our understanding of complex organizations, I certainly agree.

Yeah, I don't like the wording of that, either. What I'm going for is a generalization of "to each according to need, from each according to ability", which I don't like at all. I'd like to formulate more like the definition of an "ecology", where the waste of one is the food for another ... or along the lines of the eukaryotic perspective on trees Roger forwarded.

Steve Smith

Re: Smart-Contracts: was UBI

In reply to this post by gepr

Yes! I'd love it if someone more knowledgeable would deign to chip in. As I understand it, smart contracts would do the banal computation showing how various agreements intertwine. So, if I've signed 5 NDAs with 5 different companies, 2 of which were founded by the same yahoo, 1 of which is a deep pocketed hydra like SAIC, 2 of which are mid-sized startups, all of which have different terms, what are the implications of signing a 6th with a new one? Trying to "calculate" all the different domain crossover, especially given that I'm only called to participate in a handful of domains, is a PITA.

I think this would be a good early application. I will keep my eyes open in the Catalyst portion of Cardano (where they solicit project proposals) for anything afoot related to that. I depend entirely too much on good faith, best intentions, and low-probability-of-occurence in such things (NDAs) and could easily find myself turned into a pretzel if they ever collided.

But I haven't followed the smart contracts area at all. So I don't even know if the current meaning of "smart contracts" means what (I thought) it used to. I know nothing about Cardano.

I would say that smart-contracts are more technical and specific than your examples imply, but both *could* be built on top of such... and as always significant adoption would take time. So far I can barely sign most of the contracts I need to electronically... it feels so absurd to print a PDF, sign the paper and rescan it as a PNG. I was warned by one client that I must NOT affix a scanned signature to the signed document, and being the scofflaw that I can, "printed to image" the PDF, gimped my signature onto the doc, and sent it back. If their tech people might have been able to see fingerprints of my methods, I was sure the bureaucrats couldn't. Of course it flew through.

A similar *feeling* project was GitLaw, where laws were written with explicitly detailed, traceable revisioning.

The late 70's DoD High Order Language effort was trying to initiate this with their straw/wood/tin/steelman thing as well as coining Ada (a pun on the Cardano cryptocoin).

 The open government project back in Portland was great in the sense that they would hold hack-a-thons to assemble data from various Portland municipal data sources into a kind of dash board for citizens, all open source, of course. I only went to one, though, for logistics problems.

It is satisfying that such projects are underway even if/when/as I cannot (logistically) participate (fully).

Today I went "shopping" for seeds at the Tewa Women's Council Seed Library in Espanola. I wasn't sure what they were offering though I did read their website thoroughly. The "contract" I signed to be allowed to take seeds from the Library was pretty explicit about a bunch of things that could have been considered obvious "norms" and "best intentions" and "polite generosity", but the spirit with which it was all handled left me feeling good (not merely "OK") about signing it. My hope was to be able to return more seeds than I took at the end of my growing season (or before next planting season). The majority of the seeds were prepackaged from a variety of heirloom/indigenous seed companies from the southwest (Seeds of Change, Native Seeds Search, etc.), but a few were clearly locally grown and hand-packaged. Even if I fail to grow these out well (I have a brown thumb and adobe soil) and return much if any seeds into the (re)generative effort, I am very happy they exist and are aspiring to what they are. Even negative results (with me anyway) are a contribution. It is a good example of a "gift" economy where reciprocity is assumed and there is enough leverage (one corn seed can yield several ears of hundreds of seeds each...) to make it easy for virtuous cycles to emerge.

I don't expect anyone (else) to be familiar with Cardano yet, but I think it will become more and more relevant as the myriad *closed* blockchain implementations (and cryptos) gain steam based on rampant speculation (crypto¢ and shameless promotion (NFT auctions)) and more attention comes to smart-contracts, etc. I am putting my energy into it (Cardano) because I suspect it could well be in the same league say as BSD Unix, GNU, and Linux in the OS world.


On 5/10/21 1:36 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Glen (et al) -

I wonder if we (collectively) can discuss *how* smart contracts as being built on top of blockchain implementations can be independent of "money" as you properly (IMO) apprehend it (and it's limits).  

I've been studying the Cardano ecosystem (weakly by the standards of more astutely technical of you here) *because* it is not conceived or designed to (merely) be the vehicle for managing an aspiring cryptoCurrency Bubble as the others seem to be (with smart-contracts an afterthought or inner-machinery exposed for civilian use.  

As I understand it, cryptoCurrency (ADA in this case) is the "reference app" of choice on Cardano for lots of reasons (explicitly) other than creating and inflating a crypto¢bubble, though I can't articulate them well myself.   My NREL colleague and I are exploring how the Ouroborous <https://cardano.org/ouroboros/> (protocol/blockchain machinery) of Cardano and the Smart Contract language/environment (Plutus <https://developers.cardano.org/en/programming-languages/plutus/overview/>) and other fairly *technical* things about collaborative problem-solving environments. FWIW, his design/implementation environment of choice is Haskell.  His teenage son taps the family $$ resources via a webapp which implements a smart-contract that captures the family values around "allowance" or more aptly "allowable expenses".    I share this only for "flavor", not with an indication that it is anything more meaningful than a novelty reflecting his investment in understanding-by-application.

However... I'm fundamentally *more* interested in how the same concepts (and machinery ultimately) can help us move on past a post-capitalistic socio-Economy toward something closer to it's close cousin Ecology which I believe would have a much stronger flavor of reciprocity, gifting and gratitude vs the nearly *required*??? U-O-Me nature of Money (conceived as IOUs, but distorted to UOMes by ?greed?).

- Steve

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: Smart-Contracts: was UBI

Steve,

I think not.

Smart Contracts and Crypto Currencies are almost a dream come true for anarcho-capitalists; you don't need the state to have both secure contracts and money.

What I say now is not to be take too seriously, I exaggerated to make a point: smart contracts and crypto currencies are good for peer-to-peer transactions in the spirit of "fuck the world, this contract/transaction is between consenting adults, so don't interfere".

Let me add some detail in support of this.

First let me address cryptos and smart contracts.
The way I see it is crypto currencies and smart contracts ARE capitalism. It's dna is to reduce the influence of the state and to have contracts and money that do not rely on the state and central institutions. One of its main features is that two or more parties can transact without any personal trust between them - the personal trust is replaced by mathematics.

Now let's address post-capitalistic socio-Economy.

Well we don't have a good model for this yet (that I know of) but the way I see it is that things like the list below will play a much more central role:
* personal trust between all,
* to do things without expecting anything in return,
* use a handshake rather than a math formula for contracts and
* to have a trusted central government enforcing an accepted social contract that is almost universally accepted

* to not have money

Conclusion

Instead of focusing on what is bad about capitalism and money, it's maybe good to drop the labels and ask what is a good system for social good and ecology. Ask how to fix the world, if capitlism and money plays a role in it, so be it. What is wrong if it is good for the people and the environment and there is a strong capitalist component and money plays a central role?

My point is that money and capitalism are not inherently bad and/or evil. If you start by accepting that you have to choose between capitalism and a system that "fixes the world" you might not succeed?

If it turns out that there is a system that "fixes the world " without money or capitalism, good.

But if it turns out that the best system to "fix the world" includes capitalism, also good.

IMO Scandinavian countries are very both capitalist and also relatively good for "fixing the world"

Now my very last word (for now). What do I support?
I support a strong but very limited central government with the following functions:
a) Have and enforce rules to protect individuals and the environment.
b) Raise taxes for this and for UBI
c) Within these constraints, the government should not be involved in the economy
d) The government should not protect people from their own stupidity.
e) The government should allow smart contracts and crypto currencies.
f) Provided I don't harm others or hurt the environment and pay taxes to support the limited government and UBI, the government should leave me alone and let me do as I like and engage in activities with others on a free-to-engage-with-adults-to-do-whatever-we-like-to-do.
g) If you want to be woke, fine, but the government should not be woke and the government should not force me to be woke.
h) Society could be woke and put pressure on others to also be woke, but government should keep out of it.

Pieter

On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 03:19, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yes! I'd love it if someone more knowledgeable would deign to chip in. As I understand it, smart contracts would do the banal computation showing how various agreements intertwine. So, if I've signed 5 NDAs with 5 different companies, 2 of which were founded by the same yahoo, 1 of which is a deep pocketed hydra like SAIC, 2 of which are mid-sized startups, all of which have different terms, what are the implications of signing a 6th with a new one? Trying to "calculate" all the different domain crossover, especially given that I'm only called to participate in a handful of domains, is a PITA.
I think this would be a good early application. I will keep my eyes open in the Catalyst portion of Cardano (where they solicit project proposals) for anything afoot related to that. I depend entirely too much on good faith, best intentions, and low-probability-of-occurence in such things (NDAs) and could easily find myself turned into a pretzel if they ever collided.
But I haven't followed the smart contracts area at all. So I don't even know if the current meaning of "smart contracts" means what (I thought) it used to. I know nothing about Cardano.
I would say that smart-contracts are more technical and specific than your examples imply, but both *could* be built on top of such... and as always significant adoption would take time. So far I can barely sign most of the contracts I need to electronically... it feels so absurd to print a PDF, sign the paper and rescan it as a PNG. I was warned by one client that I must NOT affix a scanned signature to the signed document, and being the scofflaw that I can, "printed to image" the PDF, gimped my signature onto the doc, and sent it back. If their tech people might have been able to see fingerprints of my methods, I was sure the bureaucrats couldn't. Of course it flew through.
A similar *feeling* project was GitLaw, where laws were written with explicitly detailed, traceable revisioning.
The late 70's DoD High Order Language effort was trying to initiate this with their straw/wood/tin/steelman thing as well as coining Ada (a pun on the Cardano cryptocoin).
 The open government project back in Portland was great in the sense that they would hold hack-a-thons to assemble data from various Portland municipal data sources into a kind of dash board for citizens, all open source, of course. I only went to one, though, for logistics problems.
It is satisfying that such projects are underway even if/when/as I cannot (logistically) participate (fully).

Today I went "shopping" for seeds at the Tewa Women's Council Seed Library in Espanola.   I wasn't sure what they were offering though I did read their website thoroughly.   The "contract" I signed to be allowed to take seeds from the Library was pretty explicit about a bunch of things that could have been considered obvious "norms" and "best intentions" and "polite generosity", but the spirit with which it was all handled left me feeling good (not merely "OK") about signing it. My hope was to be able to return more seeds than I took at the end of my growing season (or before next planting season).   The majority of the seeds were prepackaged from a variety of heirloom/indigenous seed companies from the southwest (Seeds of Change, Native Seeds Search, etc.), but a few were clearly locally grown and hand-packaged.   Even if I fail to grow these out well (I have a brown thumb and adobe soil) and return much if any seeds into the (re)generative effort, I am very happy they exist and are aspiring to what they are. Even negative results (with me anyway) are a contribution.   It is a good example of a "gift" economy where reciprocity is assumed and there is enough leverage (one corn seed can yield several ears of hundreds of seeds each...) to make it easy for virtuous cycles to emerge.

I don't expect anyone (else) to be familiar with Cardano yet, but I think it will become more and more relevant as the myriad *closed* blockchain implementations (and cryptos) gain steam based on rampant speculation (crypto¢ and shameless promotion (NFT auctions)) and more attention comes to smart-contracts, etc.   I am putting my energy into it (Cardano) because I suspect it could well be in the same league say as BSD Unix, GNU, and Linux in the OS world.
On 5/10/21 1:36 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Glen (et al) -

I wonder if we (collectively) can discuss *how* smart contracts as being built on top of blockchain implementations can be independent of "money" as you properly (IMO) apprehend it (and it's limits).  

I've been studying the Cardano ecosystem (weakly by the standards of more astutely technical of you here) *because* it is not conceived or designed to (merely) be the vehicle for managing an aspiring cryptoCurrency Bubble as the others seem to be (with smart-contracts an afterthought or inner-machinery exposed for civilian use.  

As I understand it, cryptoCurrency (ADA in this case) is the "reference app" of choice on Cardano for lots of reasons (explicitly) other than creating and inflating a crypto¢bubble, though I can't articulate them well myself.   My NREL colleague and I are exploring how the Ouroborous <https://cardano.org/ouroboros/> (protocol/blockchain machinery) of Cardano and the Smart Contract language/environment (Plutus <https://developers.cardano.org/en/programming-languages/plutus/overview/>) and other fairly *technical* things about collaborative problem-solving environments. FWIW, his design/implementation environment of choice is Haskell.  His teenage son taps the family $$ resources via a webapp which implements a smart-contract that captures the family values around "allowance" or more aptly "allowable expenses".    I share this only for "flavor", not with an indication that it is anything more meaningful than a novelty reflecting his investment in understanding-by-application.

However... I'm fundamentally *more* interested in how the same concepts (and machinery ultimately) can help us move on past a post-capitalistic socio-Economy toward something closer to it's close cousin Ecology which I believe would have a much stronger flavor of reciprocity, gifting and gratitude vs the nearly *required*??? U-O-Me nature of Money (conceived as IOUs, but distorted to UOMes by ?greed?).

- Steve
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

1234567