Skip to main content


As we near the end of 2021, year of giddy #SpaceBillionaires, it is a good time to think about our current situation in the world where #WealthInequality has taken on absolutely insane proportions, especially with the pandemic and all.

Just let's all reflect for ourselves what we can we do in 2022 to improve this situation.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU

Source: https://therules.org/global-economic-inequality-video/

Factsheet: https://therules.org/inequality-video-fact-sheet/

This was in 2013 !!!

(Thanks @JohnJClimateMarcher for passing the video link)
in reply to smallcircles (Humane Tech Now)

As long as we play the same Monopoly game nothing will change. If you could probably simulate that game billions of times, with millions of different rules to make it more fair, eventually you'll end up with the same kind of inequality. The only way out that I see, is to understand that it is the game that's the problem, and not billionaires or any humans for that matter. So we have to change this monopoly (trade) game. We have to provide for people as trade-free, at least their basic needs at first, so we start to decouple people from the game itself.
in reply to Tio

in reply to muppeth

reshared this

in reply to Tio

in reply to muppeth

in reply to Tio

in reply to muppeth

But your example isn’t trade free.

it is for me. If you are using Wikipedia it is free for you. Yeah they pay for the servers but as explained, that's besides the point if we are to be realistic.
. Is facebook trade-free? For end user it surely is (they don’t pay for it)

That's where confusion arises in today's world. of course facebook is not trade free. They ask you something in return to use their service. What? You attention (see ads), and your data. And then money to promote your posts. Take Friendica. That's trade free. Our instance does not want anything form you.
in reply to muppeth

So your point about a trade-free service/good relying on trade to be produced, is in most cases, if not all, true. But I explained above, it is like with FOSS. It was built with proprietary software and it is still is. That's doesn't make it non-foss.

We can't have a perfect chain of trade-free production and distribution. At least not as of yet. But we have to start somewhere. Wikipedia, FOSS, doctors without borders, the many million of volunteers and projects out there, are extraordinarily important and necessary. The more, the better. They are not perfect and they still rely on the foundation of this trade-system. But the more we have, the less reliance on trade to acquire the abundance of stuff we have today.

reshared this

in reply to Tio

My point here is that claiming and promoting the term trade-free as a solution to the issue cannot be done without looking at a more broader picture to see whether it holds at scale. And in my opinion it isn’t (examples given). Labeling things that do not claim to be trade-free is also imo a bit of a stretch. My point with FLOSS is not that it was built with proprietary software but that development of most fundamental FLOSS components is done using the funding of the tech industry. Not acknowledging it just because it’s free for me is in my opinion equivalent of my previous statement that facebook is trade-free because it does not ask me to give them anything either.
in reply to muppeth

facebook is trade-free because it does not ask me to give them anything either.
Of course facebook asks you to give them something. Attention (80% of its revenue comes from ads); data, and money to reach your friends and followers with your posts. Unfortunately many people seem to not understand this.
My point here is that claiming and promoting the term trade-free as a solution to the issue cannot be done without looking at a more broader picture to see whether it holds at scale.
If we agree that trade-free means trade-free for the ones using these goods/services then it does hold at scale. Wikipedia serves billions of users; doctors without borders take care of 10 million people; and so on. We have a directory of these as said before.
This entry was edited (2 years ago)
in reply to Tio

The point that’s good about trade is that it makes it possible to get a measure of the value of something for society without having to proclaim it top-down in some centralized place.

The problem about trade is that it only fulfills that role under specific conditions, and those who are strongest have an incentive to break those conditions.

In short: https://www.draketo.de/politik/market-fallacies

Judging from the start of your book, you’re mixing up trade and capital.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Trade allows us to put imaginary value on things. A painting can be traded for 10$ million, while a house for 50k $. So this value depends on the culture, resources, and the interpretation of them all. It is nothing "rational" or something that makes sense.

Example: tomatoes from spain may very well end up in USA, instead of USA growing them there. Resource wise this is a lot more consuming to grow them in spain and send to USA, but if the labor is cheaper in Spain and the transport overall, then that's how it is done.
in reply to Tio

but thats not issue of trade but capitalist system and not unique to that either (during soviet union good would travel entire continemt for not good reason either)
in reply to muppeth

Capitalism is just a trade system, same as communism or socialism that were ever implemented anywhere. And capitalism means nearly nothing. It is a diluted idea. Us being forced to trade this for that, made us come up with such ridiculous price tags and distorted values. Nowadays you can buy NFTs for millions of dollars. Replicable nonsense things....
in reply to Tio

also you took most enegdotic examples with art work.
Value of energy is pretty much equivalent of energy or how much a society/country is able to produce comparing to others. Sure it became more virtual when decoupled from gold standard and its surely abused as hell by powers. Still monetary system you refer to isnt the trade you are attacking in the first place.

I think it is ok to ask stuff in return because it enables us to focus on production of goods we want to produce (can produce) and exchange them for goods we need.
in reply to muppeth

Still monetary system you refer to isnt the trade you are attacking in the first place.

What is money if not a way to trade?
I think it is ok to ask stuff in return because it enables us to focus on production of goods we want to produce (can produce) and exchange them for goods we need
And also get trapped into that endless game. You then will want more, you will lie more, try to sell your stuff more. It is quite simple and the same mistake we are chocking on for the past 10k years or so :) .
in reply to Tio

Trade allows us to avoid putting a global value on things.

That is a good thing — would you want someone far away to decide how valuable every kind of work is that you could do?

Someone who might not even know the kind of work you enjoy doing.

That said, this only works while all people have similar amounts of resources available. The end-game of unregulated trade is that someone far away decides all value. Trade needs regulation to be useful.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

By value you mean a price tag, correct? Because what is valuable to us is not what is more expensive. Free time, relationships, good quality air, biodiversity, etc.. What is the value of those? Conflicting "valuer" with a price tag (value inside of the trade system we live in) is very dangerous.

We end up with a bunch of "nothing shit stuff" being valuable, from phones to clothes, ornaments to paintings, or whatever else. While we ignore human health, the state of the planet, the creatures and places around us, our free time, and so forth.

And yah, speaking of price tags who do you think "controls" and influences those? big corporations ofc. We made a massive search engine to showcase just how 175 companies own our world https://www.tromsite.com/tbf/

To "regulate" this trade-world is a nice idea on paper, and it does not work in practice as we've seen for the past thousands of years. Lenin hanged the billionaires and yet Russia is still full o them. Talk about "regulating" the market.... :D
in reply to Tio

No, by value I mean what it gives society. Price tag is just an incomplete try to measure it.

But that’s not the point. To get closer to the point, answer the question: Who should decide, and how, what someone has to do to get resources for a project that needs more than their own hands and brain?
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Who should decide, and how, what someone has to do to get resources for a project that needs more than their own hands and brain?

My answer to that is Wikipedia, Doctors without borders, or say RNLI. How are these people providing a trade-free service that educate billions and save millions?

We can't imagine a society where everything is trade-free. But we can point with the finger to the trade as the originator of most problems, and then create more and more trade-free goods and services (and there are a lot already but we need a lot more). This way, maybe, things will change for the better since it won't incentivize humans to decide "what someone has to do to get resources for a project that needs more than their own hands and brain" via the profit lane.
in reply to Tio

in reply to muppeth

This entry was edited (2 years ago)
in reply to Tio

You do need a better alternative to be able to point to the current way as the source of most problems.

Otherwise all you can say is that trade has problems, but it could be solving more problems than it causes.

Capitalism has meaning, and China has become capitalist to boot (to the point that the government is now starting to fight Chinese tech companies because they rival its power). It means that those who have capital decide what happens.
in reply to Tio

in reply to muppeth

I’d like to point out two things here, because I did not answer to you, muppeth, yet.

1: Trade itself as a concept is only good if there is regulation. That is necessary, because physical processes are usually more efficient if done at larger scale. That causes concentration of power if it is subject to unregulated trade: The first movers can build an effective monopoly, because they are cheaper than everyone else.

Regulation can limit that.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

2: Trade favors those with more wealth, because they can take bigger risks without risking to be out of the game.

Progressive taxes on wealth and income can counteract that.

That’s why trade systems need regulation and taxes to actually work.

One good step forward: There’s now a global minimum tax on income of 15%. It didn’t make much headlines, but it might be a huge improvement for the future (compared to the alternate dystopia without it).
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Trade itself as a concept is only good if there is regulation.
Regulation seems to not be enough. I give so many examples in the books I linked above that I almost fell into a deep depression while researching for the book.

if you guys think you can make trade better by regulating, rules and laws, then I have to disagree with that with countless examples of failures and very little if any success stories. You have no argument when 1% of the world owns as much as the rest. When there are monoppolies in pretty much any sector in the world. Where pretty much all govs are corrupted. I link to hundreds of documentaries in these books, documentaries made by reputable sources from BBC, ABC Four Corners, AlJazeera, VPro, DW and more. I wish you guys were right, but the reality dismantles your views.

And if you think that we need better regulation/rules/laws then you are not the first ones to think that. I simply cannot trust this at all. The force of trade is too huge to resist the temptation of corruption.
in reply to Tio

You are writing of the failures, I see the failures and compare them to the failures of theocracy and monarchy, of the guild system where your social class decided what you are allowed to work on in your life, of caste systems, and so on.

Can we make trade perfect? I don’t think so.

Can we make trade good for everything? I don’t think so.

Can we make trade better as a system for *parts* of society than any other system would be? I do think so.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Market systems — systems of trade — need to be restricted in their scope and in their area to the parts of society where other methods of organization are worse, and they need to be regulated to avoid most of their negative effects.

The idea of unregulated trade is a pretty new one, and in my opinion many free-trade agreements are driven by power and ideology, not by mutual benefit.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Ok. If you think that is a good way forward by all means go with that. My trust in this is nearly 0. I've seen countless examples trying to make this game fair, and they are all a complete failure. Why? I would say because the force to trade is too great. In Romania, where I am originally from, in the "communism" era (which is still a system of trade) they didn't allow for individuals to own more than 2 houses. But because of the ads they saw, the fact that they traded their time and energy for money and that incentivizes you to spend the money on something, and so on, made the humans there buy houses for themselves, but on other people's names.

See how Apple Google and the like avoid paying taxes by opening their official offices in tribes where they don't have to pay taxes. Unfortunately the examples are endless.

If you wanna make players play more nice, then you have to decouple them from the powers that make them NOT play nice. It is like trying to tell people not to steal, when they are poor or incentivized to steal. Not gonna work.
This entry was edited (2 years ago)
in reply to Tio

Wanting to have more than someone else is something deeply ingrained in humans. Not all live that, for for many it is a core driver.

To find an alternative, you’ll have to find something that works for all people. That’s why the pure systems (pure capitalism, pure state-planning, …) do not work: They only cater to some people.

Here’s a handy list of core-drivers, if you want to check whether a concept works for most people: https://www.1w6.org/english/tables#org4edffdc
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Wanting to have more than someone else is something deeply ingrained in humans.
And you came up with that reasoning how?
in reply to Tio

Because I’ve seen too many look at their neighbors in envy. And because even countries that tried communism and deeply disincentivized having more than others had people who tried to get more than others.

For many it is not dominant, but for some it is.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

You can start with maslow's pyramid of needs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Content_theories

The “Self-esteem/Recognition/Achievement” is where having more than others comes in. It’s where people define themselves in comparison and competition to others.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Ok so you observed how humans "want more". You observed that within human societies that always traded. The implemented communism traded like crazy, inside of it, outside of it. Plus the humans there had a very oppressive and limited lifestyle. It was mostly a dictatorship.

So you observed how humans for the past thousands of years lets say, wanted more and more. And you concluded it must be in our "nature"? This is a big conclusion to make, especially when you have millions upon millions of humans who do not want more. That, in a society that tells us to want more and more, nonstop.

I think a more educated conclusion is that the environment makes us want more and more. If I do not want more and more, based on your reasoning, it means my "nature" (biology) is different? Or that my environment is different?
in reply to Tio

Note how I also gave you references to research.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

I can't see the research in those. But you claim human drive to want more comes from his/her "nature" or what are you implying?
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

You didnt answer the question. This is getting nowhere I feel like. Lets make it short, if I do not have food to eat I will steal and lie. Same flavors of behavior you see today in different stages and shapes. Poorer tribes are more corrupted. Bla bla bla. I wrote so much about these and all sourced till they bled.

https://www.tromsite.com/books/
https://www.tromsite.com/documentary/
https://www.videoneat.com/category/documentaries/society/
in reply to Tio

I did answer the question about research. I did not answer the question that sidestepped my note on people being different. Since when are poorer tribes more corrupted?
in reply to Tio

"If I do not want more" — that fits easily: People are different and for different people different needs dominate. Please, please see the link about core-drives I sent you: https://www.1w6.org/english/tables#org4edffdc
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Note how 4 out of the 18 drivers include wanting more while 14 do not. But any society you build must be at least OK for every core driver.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

And what makes me the way I am? My genes? And I can't read that website because I don't care about whoever wrote those poems :).
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

That horoscope you sent me. What has that to do with any science? That is a horoscope. I'll end this here because this is too much nothing.

https://www.tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-df_6560/1/
in reply to Tio

It’s not a horoscope but a minimal distillation of one kind of research about human drivers that helped me a lot in understanding very different reactions by different people.

But yes, that being called poem and horoscope does offend me.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

So yes, I’m offended now, since different from me who read part of your book you didn’t even bother to follow the link until I screenshoted the content here.

Let’s end it here. You did not convince me. Rather the opposite.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

… and yes, somehow this is about trade. If I invest into trying to understand your point and you don’t do the same, that feels wrong.

Basic reciprocity is missing.
in reply to muppeth

So my final thoughts: I think trade isn’t the issue because it’s natural to humans,

Nothing is natural to humans. Actually for the most part, it is understood, that humans had little to no trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
It is with us since the beginning and it is neutral.
It is not neutral when you always have to give this to get that. It is as fair as the Monopoly board game. And you try to blame the players, while I am saying the game is to blame.
And there is plenty of projects doing just that, more sustainable, ecological, fair and ethical businesses and non-profits.
I asked you for some examples :) I am curious.

Cheers!
in reply to Tio

in reply to muppeth

in reply to Tio

Capitalism is a system where capital rules. Trade is usually part of it, but capitalism is not necessarily part of trade.

Example: Take a universal basic income where all money you get decays within 3 months. You can still trade, but you cannot accumulate wealth.

That’s no capitalism, but it is trade.
in reply to Arne Babenhauserheide

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Capitalism without trade, is like a cat without its internal organs. Not a cat.
in reply to muppeth

It is like we are in the 70s and I'm saying "Lets make the software open source so others can see the source and edit it, distribute it, etc.". But then I am faced with the criticism that "there can never be any open source software since all of the software currently, including operating systems, are proprietary". And all I am saying is that yes, I agree, but we can built open source software using those proprietary software. And in time we will build an Open Source OS, and within that OS we build more Open Source apps, and so forth.

"Yes but then you visit websites with that open source OS and browser, and they are not using open source software..." they say. "And that makes it non-open-source, or not relevant". But this is a philosophical discussion that will lead to nowhere. :)

So yah our operating system in our society is trade-based, and yeah we can use it to create a trade-free operating system. Many orders of magnitude more difficult than in the software world, but we exemplify that it is possible via countless examples.

;)
in reply to Tio

I do think you are simplyfying the argument here. Even the free software was not claiming no trade. It was promoting trade as it did not forbid distribution with price tag. Discussion here is not about software but trade and my points were not directed towards purism in software or elsehwere in that matter but towards your initial statement that the trade itself is bad and should be replaced with trade-free which in my opinion does not scale.
in reply to muppeth

The example was to show that you cant build FOSS with your way of thinking. If you say something is not trade-free just because wikipedia pays for its servers, despite wikipedia providing the content for free (asking nothing in return), then you can as well say FOSS is not FOSS unless the entire chain of making that FOSS is also FOSS.
in reply to Tio

in reply to muppeth

in reply to muppeth

And yes the chain of trades is there whenever you create something, be it my book or the healthcare system in spain. Same way that open source software started like a star inside the universe of proprietary software. But this star would then grow, explode, create new stars, then galaxies, and expand to maybe, one day, replace the proprietary software with open source software.

I think the same in regards to trade-free vs trade-based. Make more trade-free goods/services that will grow inside this trade-based universe of ours, to eventually dominate the landscape. I am fully aware this is very difficult if not impossible, but I see no other way around it.
in reply to Tio

There is a simpler way: Whenever any measure is proposed, always ask whether it reduces concentration of wealth or power. If it does, it likely is a problem, so scrutinize it deeply.
Unknown parent

Tio
Ads can be ignored, at least sometimes, but they are a clear marketing scheme, a clear example of trade. Most of the internet uses this kind of trade and its influence is visible. See youtube, google, facebook, etc..

A "tip-jar" is a voluntary help, but not necessary. Ads are in your face so you if you don't have a choice to turn them off, then that is a clear form of trade. Same as data trading.
Unknown parent

Bob Mottram
@tio@muppeth Perhaps fedi should be funded like Wikipedia. I could threaten to display a large photo of Jimmy Wales until morale improves.
in reply to Tio

Rokosun reshared this.

Unknown parent

Tio
in reply to Tio

Sorry for not making it clear what the site is.

The list on the site is also the result of trying to understand humans — but it is not written to create a new description of humanity, but as a working tool to make it easy for writers to create plausible characters.

I’m currently trying to get the source again — it might take some days because I had to ask the psychologist named in the source I learned it from for the actual publications.
in reply to Tio

concrete question: How do you solve the freeloader problem if the freeloaders are religious fanatics whose only interest is to multiply, to pray, and to have everyone obey their rules?

(I’d be happy with a link on that topic, it’s a question I’ve wrangled with a lot)