# Explaining RTM with Universal Dividend from the relative point of view

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.

This is false, the result is the same with what RTM calls « pseudo-atonomus » individuals. You should study the RTM first.

And then when you make an exchange it is also false to consider only the money exchanged, and not the values that have been exchanged, that be be high value for A and low value for B, without any absolute measure.

And then you have a LibreOffice Calc file here whit a video where a money exchange has been simulated. So you can take it, make you own Calc file, and simulate an example with 3 accounts any example you need, within the money system you want, to explain a point. Words are not enough to understand maths.

To finish, if you consider 80 lines in your LibreOffice Calc, you cannot have I1,I2,I3 accounts representing the same men because life expectancy is 80 years.

So when you study correctly the RTM you understand, that the UD is not « something you add to your account » this is completely incorrect.

A correct assertion is « a space-time unit of money, where every year men are dying, while other men are borning ». Or even another correct assertion would be : « I produce UD while I’m living, and I stop producing when I’m dying, and I’m living and dying every year, not the date I’m born and the date I dye ».

So you don’t « produce » neither « lose » anything, because you and all the men are not the same men year after year.

Because if you were the same men year after year, how could you be all died after 80 years ? This is impossible.

So what are you talking about exactly when considering you « produce », « spend », « loose » or anything, when you never talk about the fact you are not the same man in 2014, 2015 and 2016 ? Who then is the subject ?

The Subject is your account which has been created for you as person and which is being certified by the weboftrust algorithm. So, there is no need to bring in this (by the way a great) statement, because it doesn’t matter, or are you getting for each t a new account?

If you are not taking your account as a subject, but always the newborn person the symmetry will hold true, because with each timestep you start a fresh. But as far as I can see, this is not the case. Thus, when taking the account as a subject, the real interesting value is highlighted in dark green. This is your sum of transfers after a lifetime of trading with your respective account. No matter when you enter or how long you stay, your total sum of transfers will immensely depend on your trading activity and not on the average of 80 years life expectancy or am I wrong?
I can not see any symmetry there anymore, maybe you see and can explain to me?

This is false, I don’t see the value Vp3 P3 gives to P1 in exchange with the money P1 gives to him. Where is the balance so, before the exchange at t = 12 of Value + Money of P1 and P3, and then after the exchange ?

Without regarding the exchange, but seeing only the money how can you pretend to analyse the economy ?

So you should do a balance(t) considering Value(t) and money(t) and then balance(t+dt) considering Value(t+dt) and money(t+dt) to progress to a better understanding of what is a transaction in economy, that is not at all the only balance of money alone.

And then after that you will be able to think deeper of what is happening.

But as RTM is correctly stating, values are individual at each point in time and can not be absolutely measured, so how am I able then to calculate that balance?
For example. If I buy a car at t1 and it breaks down at t2, the value of that car has changed drastically. So this is not parameter I can calculate with, or?
And as far as I understand, the transfers don’t include the exchanged values neither or is this wrong? The transfers are only calculated with the current money mass, I don’t see a current “value mass”.
If you would include the valuemass(t) in the transfers, then I see symmetry else I don’t, maybe you can explain if you do?

That’s the point !

More than that : what happens between values(t) and values(t+40 years) ? What do you think about estimation(t) about V1 and estimation(t+40) P1 or P3 make about it ?

Considering estimation(t) and estimation(t+40) do you really think that the differential estimation(t+40) - estimation(t) is different from : SUM (t -> T+40) estimation(t+dt) - estimation(t) ?

If it is not different, what are you talking about exactly ?

There is no economy without values, this is absolutely sure. Of course there is a “value mass” any individual can estimate with the money unit, this is what RTM calls the 4th economical freedom.

But if value mass(t) / money mass(t) is relative to any individual who estimate it what is changing from one individual to another in space ? Is it value mass(t) estimated in money units(t) or is it money mass estimated in one value(t) unit that is changing ? Do you really think money mass(t) is an absolute value not depending of individuals(t) ? Really ?

And then for one man(t) what are becoming at (t+dt) value mass(t+dt) and money mass(t+dt) do you really think this “same” man(t) & man(t+dt) estimate an absolute point of view such as :

• value mass(t+dt) = value mass(t)
• money mass(t+dt) = money mass(t)
• value mass(t+dt)/money mass(t+dt) = value mass(t)/money mass(t)

What do you think ? Do you think any of those 3 absolute point of views is “true” ?

And then, what do you think about an absolute point of view that believe something totally different from RTM such as, considering “two same man” as X(t) and Y(t) considering an absolute point of view such as considering (X,Y,t,t+dt) :

• Value Mass (X,t) = VM (Y,t) or VM (X,t) = VM (X,t+dt) or VM(X,t) = VM(Y,t+dt) or VM(Y,t) = VM(X,t+dt) or VM(Y,t) = VM(Y,t+dt) or VM(X,t+dt) = VM(Y,t+dt)
• Or the same 6 possibilities for [Money Mass(X,Y,t,t+dt)]?
• Or the same 6 possibilities for [Value Mass(X,Y,t,t+dt) / Money Mass(X,Y,t,t+dt)] ?
• Or the same 6 possibilities for [Money Mass(X,Y,t,t+dt)/Value Mass(X,Y,t,t+dt)] ?

What do you think ? Do you think any of those 24 absolute point of views is “true” ?

What do you think ? Has the Money Mass any absolute value ? And if so, compared to what do you pretend such a thing ?

I am trying to get how the symmetry is defined and nobody was able to make me truly understand so far.
So, my question, what is the symmetry about. Symmetry between which actors and factors?

With all my respect, we can’t make the effort of understanding at your place. We can try to give you the pieces you need, but we’ve already explained you so far that:

• symmetry is defined on money issuance, period.
• you come here and say “yes … but exchanges?”
• we answered you this is not our concern, referencing the Relativity principle

What more is to be explained?

edit: and when I say “this is not our concern”, I do not mean “we don’t care about it” but “we must not care about it”, try to tweak things, because then we break the Relativity principle.

1 Like

I can live with that answer, thank you.

But do you understand the meaning? And then, do you agree with it and the 10%?

It was answered to you since the begining this was defined and calculated in the RTM you should read first. You can read the explanation of the symetry in

10% was never the problem.
It is just that I still don’t understand the reasoning behind the choice of the 80 years symmetry. For me, so far there is no symmetry existing, the moment you take the verified account as a subject (which I think is one of the key points about our discussion) and not the individual, which is being born and going to die, with each t. For me, this is a huge difference!
But I am going to study again over the next days, if I don’t get it, I come back again and will ask more questions.

@Galuel I try to understand the RTM completely, but most of the mathematical stuff is out of my current capabilities of comprehension, so I ask questions and state things as far is I understand at the current point in time.

In a O point central symetry you have B image of A, OB = BA.

In free money symetry you have, for any man A or B present or future Sum(1 to ev/2) (relative money production)(A man) = Sum(1 to ev/2) (relative money production)(B man), whatever the date A or B will be born.

I don’t undestand how one cannot understand what is the “=” sign. It is not “out of capabilities” !

This for sure I understood long time ago. The relative money production is always the same! No discussion to be made here.
What I am interested about is, how much each respective account of each individual in time will grow or shrink according to their current balance, compared to previous t, after the process of money production
I don’t have an answer regarding this so far, but I try to find out!

So you know what is the symetry, and you said you didn’t understand where was the symetry. This is inconsistant…

Without knowing maths you cannot do that, and it’s not interesting too without considering the old values exchanged + the creation of ğvalues the individual make between t and t+1.

The money function which is a partial view of the economical exchange will be a function f(d,x,T) where “d” is the amount before exchange, “x” the number of money exchanged, and “T” the period of time considered without any more change, with T << ev, because man is not eternal.

@Sofrani made yet some calculations to think about money properties, ask him to evaluate this function for you, and then make a Libre Office Calc with Money, Old Values exchanges, Creation of Values all between t and t+T with T << ev, to make a full example of what you are “thinking” about…

This is what I understood from the beginning on. Then you were making the following statement:

So, this made me think, maybe there is more than just the symmetry defined on money issuance, but apparently there is not.

I was asking you and sofrani already a few weeks ago, but I will do again.
How can I interpret T << ev, what does ev stand for?

Let me make a few statements, as for my understanding:

The subject is the verified account, not the individual, which is being reborn with each T?
Agree or disagree?

Transfers are not even, since it depends on the balance of your account. If your balance is higher than M/N you have a negative transfer amount, if your balance is lower, you have a positive transfer amount.
Agree or disagree?

Symmetry is defined on money issuance, period.
Agree or disagree?

Each individual “external” total value mass estimation (outside of the money scope, but estimated in the money unit) at each T is not considered in the symmetry, since this can not be defined.
Agree or disagree?

A free relational money is usually encouraging, the run on other resources than money in order to contain wealth in more stable goods, since money should be designed as a means of exchange.
Agree or disagree?

@vit
I think you got my point, which I am trying to express. Can you put it in different words for me?

This question means (again and again) that you should study Relative Theory of Money first, before asking any more questions (see many precedent advices about that before). Agree or disagree ?

I’ll agree if I get answers to my statements

After going through the RTM twice, I didn’t find anything new, so my previous statements still hold true, due to my understanding, but just expressed in different vocabularies, than the RTM was choosing. So, am I still wrong on any of those, in your point of view?