Yes, exactly. Most economic theory assumes 'in the moment' and a bit of God like reach. In the real world we have to deal with time and space.

For most of us working stiffs, when we go to the store to buy milk we are charged an large amount of economic rent to buy it cold, in a container, near our home. Despite the fact that you really need to drive an hour or more to find a cow. Given infinite time and teleportation, we'd hit the farm and get it for much, much less. You only have to look to digital assets to see how this plays out. This isn't a bad thing. We want the farmer, the pasteurizer, the delivery man and the grocery store to stay in business, but we also want them to do it better, faster, cheaper next time. General market dynamics cause this to happen a rate. I want it to happen at a faster rate.

The wine buyer is not rewarded for buying from a wine maker that will make a better wine bottle tomorrow though. Think for a bit on if she was.

I'm not sure if the velocity of money is a result or a cause of economic activity, but my reason tells me that if it is flowing faster, 'I' have a better chance at having some flow to me. P(making 100k at mv 6) < P(making 100k at mv 12)

Can you name a form of non artificial capital that is a cash equivalent? Maybe gold? Any non elements that aren't subject to entropy? Ultimately, yes, I think all artificial forms of 'store of value' should have an artificial form of entropy added to them because that is the way the world works.

I bet if you don't know what good value is that you at least know bad value when you see it.

I talk more about the full output of labour in this paper: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k97dzssxc58ux1s/hypercapitalismwpv1.1.pdf?dl=0

...as for the robots. I'm a little serious. If agi emerges into a world where economic nodes are dependent upon each other and it has more to gain from cooperation than dominating, it might buy us a few years to find a balance.

This is a tough one because most of the readily available literature on competition and market take a specific approach. Specific in the sense of time. Of course at the instant we don't want people favoring more expensive things...unless there is a damn good reason to. If you add in time though things get very interesting. This system alters the proposition to current market decision + future potential. You wouldn't pay more just to pay more, but you might buy a Tesla instead of a Honda accord because you think that Tesla had better long term earning potential and you are getting in on the ground floor.

Most of the things we buy aren't commodities. There is some trade off on features vs cost. This system does tip the scales toward things that may be more expensive, but only if there is a long term advancement that can be leveraged.

In the instance where we actually deal with a commodity, more emphasis will be placed on the long term repetitive production of that commodity. If the commodity can't be renewed it will be less favored. Thus I'd expect a vector away from depletable goods and toward renewable alternatives.

These assumptions are harder to work into a model.

See my answer below:

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/m38/publishing_my_initial_model_for_hypercapitalism/ca33

I mean that some of us are better at generating some kinds value than others. (Division of Labor)

A wine maker who has been in the business for 25 years can make a better bottle of wine than I can. If he wanted to make the same bottle of wine that I can, he could do it more easily.

This is a great question. Privacy is important. How important is it? I'm not sure.

For example, I have some Apple stock. I don't hold it anonymously because I want to them to know where to send the dividends. People tend to quickly lose interest in privacy when they have something to gain from not being private.

On the other hand there are certainly some times where you want privacy. The system allows for this by having privacy pools that you can pay through that preserve privacy. It isn't as optimal as knowing exactly where the money came from, but if we can optimize 80% of transactions and 20% still need to be private, we can gain a lot of ground.

There are also some cryptographic solutions to the privacy issues that could solve the issue of privacy.

Hmm...I'll have to look into this more. There certainly is a difference between 'rent' and 'economic rent'. I'm really don't think I'm misusing economic rent.

You can call it profit if you want. In the model, some nodes have a better ability to extract profit than others. Or we can call it 'make moneyness'.

The economic rent is in the fact that there wasn't an apple tree on your the walk to the store.

Economic rent isn't always bad. Otherwise we'd have an apple tree infestation problem.

Maybe a better question is what do I know and how do I know it? :)

Money was different than it is now 40 years ago. It was different 30 years before that. I know this because wikipedia tells me that Nixon took us off the gold standard in the early 70s and that standard was established at Bretton Woods in the 40s. Because of this I apply a very high probability to the likelihood that our money will operate differently in the future then it does now.

I guess the problem I'm trying to solve is, if we are likely going to be using a new kind of money in the future, do I want that to be a good kind of money or a bad kind of money. I want it to be a good, human centered kind of money that help us solve hard problem and makes the world a better place.

I think I know that our money is 'bad' (sub-optimal may be a better word) because I look around our world and I see the following things:

A crappy income tax An inability to get money out of politics ultra poor people Ultra rich people Wasted human resources (see the entire finance industry) Corporations sitting on billions in cash when they could be ending cancer

I think changing our money can solve some of these issues because I've read the literature on what drives people to make economic decisions. If we can implement a system that rewires the drivers in a positive directions, we can solve some of these problems.

I think hypercapitalism is the answer because I've written some simple models that shows it is more efficient that regular capitalism. I left 10 other solutions on the cutting room floor before I put this together.

I think it is semantics that depend on your assumptions:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicrent.asp

Profits are economic rent are the same in a lot of instances. If all markets were perfect their would be neither profit nor economic rent. Can you think of a situation where profit is not economic rent?

1. A slow down in the velocity of money.
2. How to make money with negative interest.
3. How to optimize for creating 'good' value.
4. How to restore the dignity of labor(reconciling leftist 'full value of labor' with the reality of market dynamics)
5. How to make the robots not kill us.