OscarMeyr wrote: > Any labor above basic grunt (and sometimes even that) isn't truly > fungible.
Zefram wrote: > that's a pretty standard service and you can to a large extent exchange > one accountant for another. But what we do? No. Our offices are not > so mechanical. I mispoke here. I didn't mean that expertise was fungible. I meant that as long as we can agree on a common and desireable fungible goal (e.g. "points" are worth having, or "votes" are worth having), each unit of expertise can have a salary set in these units. Despite the creativity each office entails, I don't think it's too hard. We had set different salary levels for each office (and re-implemented it with cards) and it didn't seem too hard to agree that some offices were "20 point" offices and some were "10 point" offices. > So, in conclusion, you can't outsource nomic activity, and I remain > convinced that any attempt to build a capitalist economy within a nomic > is doomed to failure. What if we just change metaphors? Think of the econony as a political economy? Imagine we are all legislators, who control a bloc of votes, who have ministry positions that allow us to make proposals, etc. The more work any person does, the more influence e gets and the more votes. The currency is not material, it is power and influence over the state of the legislature (which we have to abstract because we don't have power over anything material). The theory is considerably different: the worth of a vote unit is a measure of its percentage of the majority, for example. I posit that even when we've called these things "currencies" in the past, this is the model we should use, and under this metaphor and set of expectations, it works. -Goethe
