Explaining RTM with Universal Dividend from the relative point of view

I understood, thanks to your example! :slight_smile: But I am not sure, if this holds true, since I believe the element of exchange is not considered. If you take the scenario that some people will only live from their UD’s, they in general will destroy less money than those who keep more of their money. Thus, as fas as I can judge, the amount which is going to be added or taken to or from you account, depends one your exchanges and not on when you enter.
Or am I completely wrong on this? If yes, maybe you have another example for me?

And what about the value producer? Why would he accept this money? (your reasoning implies he will, and he will have the exact same problem you mention)

I am confused about which money you are referring to?

You pretend that the higher the %growth, the higher the velocity of money.

For that matter, you argue that if user A has more than M/N he will “somehow loose part of the money above M/N”. This is where I quote you:

So I understand you that A is more likely to spend his money, because otherwise he “looses” it. Great.

Now let’s talk about B, the user you did not mention yet that accepted to receive the money from A (because necessarily, A is spending money to some “B”).

I am wondering according to your reasoning, why would B accept money from A since he becomes himself in the exact same position as A once he received the payment. He is likely to loose its extra money.

So what will decide B: accept the trade or not?

Ok, lets drop my idea of faster exchanges, it doesn’t matter after all.

More interesting is the fact that:

This stands true for any relational currency, so I can ask you the question as well, why should anyone ever use uCoin or any currency build on top of uCoin, because the inflation will devaluate your money on a faster rate, than you gain through newly generated money, when going against ∞

Or, if you translated this to UD’s
Once your account holds more than M/N UD’s you will start loosing money on your account instead of gaining new ones.

The RTM always tries to find a symetry, in time and space, in order to get a really fair money.

And with the ud as a relative referential, it demonstrate it is the best solution in term of symetry and equality.

I do not get the purpose of your demonstration, apart from the fact that you want to play with parameters to observe or change the behavior of the members. Which is great, and very interesting.

But playing with parameters has a price : you can break the symetry.

I think your software platform can be a great tool to play with parameters, if you create bots members, with behaviors that you assert for them.

I can not predict any behavior for my part, because there is so much external parameters in life that can influence the members…

Ah! Why are we developing Free Currencies? :slight_smile:

Because we all read the RTM and agreed with the Relativity principle, which we could traduce to:

Their is no absolute value, value is a relative thing.

And as a consequence, we agree with the fact every one should be co-producer of the common unit of measure & medium of exchange. And this involve we also agree with the fact we “loose” regularly a little part of our relative stock of money so other individuals may also have a word to say on what is value and what is not.

Because we reject the current system which imposes its own view of value and denies our, and because we also do not want to reproduce this with our children.

N.B.: this is something I often argue: wanting the “absolute stock of value” is exactly equals to “I deny the values of our childs”.

And RTM gives us the purely logical consequence to fit that purpose: Universal Dividend based on a c parameter depending on life expectancy.

Very low c is roughly the same as today: the power by the olders. Very high c would mean the opposite: the power by the youngers, and can even lead to the death of money (cannot store value at all).

Maybe with these philosophical thoughts, you better get our point :slight_smile:

edit: sorry if I might look condescending, I do not have the relational ease of inso :grin:

2 Likes

100% alignment on those three points, but I am still questioning the choice of 10%

The symmetry with 10% is only given, if there is no trading in the system, but the moment there will be trading, I still want to point to the fact, that people will destroy different amounts of money, not only depending on the factor of their live time, but on their activity in trading and producing value for others.

All good, I just get the feeling that I am the bad guy trying to fight RTM, which I am not at all. Just questioning choices and conclusions.

The system is about symetry with money issuance. not creation or destruction.
I think, but I’ll let others correct me if I’m wrong, that since the symetry is computed in the quantitative referential, you can only see it in the quantitative referential.
The relative referential is here to be able to discover prices with a referential which is stable over the time.

For example, it’s the same for waves. Frequencies are computed on time. But if you want to analyse waves in the time referential, you’ll find that nothing makes sense. But with a Fourier transformation, you are in the frequency referential, and you are able to discover data that wouldn’t be possible in the time referential.

In the quantitative referential, what you see is that everyone issues 10, 11, 12, which compared to the mass is always 10%/N.

@Inso
Nice, example, this is exactly, what I am trying to explain. Currently RTM is only considering the symmetry of issuance and there 10% is absolutely the perfect balance on an average of 40 years.
But if you look at exact the same money issuance from the relative referential perspective, you will see two scenarios. If your account is greater than M/N your relative Units will shrink and if your account is smaller than M/N your relative Units will grow. Thats why I am talking about creation and destruction, or growing and shrinking, or even redistribution. Thus, the real interesting equation to be looked at is the sum of “createdRelativeUnits - destructedRelativeUnits” after 80 years. The results, even though we still have 10% money issuance, will differ immensely between individuals, no matter at what time they entered the system, once there is any trading to be done with that system.
People who have created a lot of value during their live time and usually have more than M/N will get from that equation a negative value. People who produce less value and usually have less than M/N will get from that equation a positive value. So for me it is more important to find the symmetry after the equation “createdRelativeUnits - destructedRelativeUnits” than just the symmetry of issuance in the quantitate referential.

And since this symmetry is not really possible to simulate, I am looking at different Factors such as the Gap between 1UD and M/N and the years it will take until I reach with my UDs M/N.

Symmetry here can not be found on a mathematical level I think, but only on the psychological level, since in the end it comes down to, what would be considered a fair monthly income, compared to what people loose who happily pay that income in the relative referential dimension.

And here I think to find an answer for it is a good comparison to relate to, when looking at our current economy as a reference.

Yes these numbers are often used by Stephane Laborde when he talks about the QE going on in Europe. ( http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.creationmonetaire.info%2F2015%2F09%2Fla-bce-distribue-les-nouvelles-cartes-en-vitesse-supraluminique.html&hl=fr&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

About the relative units, I don’t think that your reasoning makes sense.
Because if they do not exchange, they won’t event create money in the relative referential, once they received 10 times the UD.

You can watch it in the RTM in colors : http://cuckooland.free.fr/TheRtmInColor.html
Select 2 individuals, and watch what happens when you select 40 years.

1 Like

Yes, thats where I had my numbers from.

Thats exactly the point. RTM is argumenting if there would be no exchanges. But hopefully there will be, otherwise there is no point in making a relative currency, thus the whole thing is a different story.
If there is no exchanges, every account will indeed stagnate with 10% after 40 years, but if there is exchange and a person is not contributing much value to the system (which is again a totally valid thing) and just living from its ud’s, it will take him 10 years to get 10UDs , because he has almost no “destructedRelativeUnits”.

Oh, yes you are right, this is a wrong statement, sorry. This is actually the same, but what I wanted to express is, that it is completely different, if there is trading in the system or not.

In the RTMinColors, he has 6 UD after 10 years of accumulation. He needs 20 years to get to 8.24 UD. Why are you saying that he will get all his UD in 10 years ?

Because in RTMinColors there is no trading simulated. If he will only live from his UD’s and always spend everything, he is receiving 10 UD’s after 10 years, because his destructedRelativeUnits or reDistributedUnits are at minimum.
So after 40 years of continuously spending his UD’s, he has received in total 40 UD’s instead of just 10 UD’s

I might be choosing wrong vocabular here, which might be the confusion. My definition is:
UD = generatedRelativeUnits - destructedRelativeUnits

I get your point here (at last ! :wink: ).

This question about an individual spending each 1 UD he create (and I think we will see lot of people in this case…) is very important and is questioning me as well.

What you want to do, if I understand, is breaking the symmetry of the RTM, which is based on pseudo-autonomous individuals, to help a particular behavior, that YOU estimate will be use by a lot of people.

You want to elaborate some mathematical expressions to repair what you see as a problem in the 10% rate, for people exchanging a lot.

But, considering to search for a new symmetry helping this asserted behavior, is tricky, in my opinion, because you can not be sure of the behavior of people. So you will go in the statistics field, with all errors inherent to this particular domain.

Its not about breaking the symmetry of RTM, but pointing out that the current symmetry is non existing, once you get out of the theory.

My example of this behavior was just extrem in order to make it understandable, so it is not about what I am estimating, it is about what is going to happen. The moment, you even only have made one trade from one member to the other, the symmetry is broken.

I don’t see it really as a problem, which has to be eliminated, and it will occur always no matter which parameters I choose 5%,10%, 20%

I am indeed aware of that, thats why I am pulling this out of the mathematical domain into the psychological domain. I am quoting myself here:

Here is an simple example from my mangos prototype:
A) no trades at all:


B) Heavy trading

Both have the same starting point, but both have different amounts of destroyed/redistributed Units.
(Mangos are already the relative Unit)

If the symetry you are looking for is a symetry of “everyone gets 10% of what he owns”, then this is not the symetry of the RTM. You are in a totally different referential where someone who receives the money will start to generate more money than the one who does not.

Yes this is already written in the RTM. In Quantitative referential money is created, in Relative everything is transfers (what you call here growing / shrinking or redistribution).

Now, I have to say that comments of yours like:

… are symptomatic of the fact you did not fully understood the Relativity Principle, or maybe you reject it.

Because if you had, you wouldn’t say things like People who created a lot of value nor procude less value because you whould have understood that such things cannot be absolutely measured, precisely because we don’t know what is “value” or even better because each one of us have a different idea of what is value and what is not.

Because even if I look like sleeping, I might just be thinking about a solution for superluminal travel. You don’t know, we don’t know. We cannot mesure this. That’s a fundamental axiom of RTM, listed in the 4 axioms of RTM.

And if you go even deeper, you could see that maybe, for some people, the absence of value production is the value they want to procude. Maybe a Taoist production!

So to conclude, if you do not respect this principle, you are out of topic the RTM. And you can say everything and the opposite at the same time.

So personally, I don’t understand you problem with “people spending their UD and others don’t”. This has no sense to me.