Publishing my initial model for hypercapitalism

You point out yourself that money is (in this context) is just a measure, an medium of exchange. It is NOT the same thing as the underlying value. Now, to "get more" I would want to get more value and you're promising me just more money. The point is that an economy produces some amount of value and that's all you have to redistribute. You can make money spin faster, but that will not increase the value produced -- all you'll do is increase inflation.

Do you think that the current economy is ginning at an optimal output? How much slack would you guess there is? How much GDP is currently left 'on the shelf'? Maybe you think we are very close to optimal. If that is the case then I'm tilting at windmills. If it is suboptimal, the the next questions is 'why?' Is it a lack of tech. A lack of resources? A lack of time? I'm not sure but I think it is very sub optimal.

If increasing the flow of money would not bridge the missing value, what would? I think that a lot of actors in our economy get stuck 'waiting for the check' to get started on production, finish production,procure the capital necessary to build, etc.

Is there some data/study you can point to that says that faster velocity doesn't increase production? Maybe I should run the model with mv > 1 transaction a month and see what happens.

Essentially, if I buy a loaf of bread from a baker and the baker knows he'll have to pay me "dividends" in the future, the baker will raise the price of bread to compensate for these future dividends. Your hopes remind me of "free energy" mechanisms in physics -- if only we could set up sufficiently clever loops we can get more energy that we put in! Um...

The difference is that there isn't a law of conservation of value. We regularly see massive exponential movements in the ability of human beings to produce amazing things. Would you argue that we should go back to barter because money is just a clever way of abstracting away coincidence of wants? Energy is physics. Money is an artificial construct.

Also don't ignore the fact that a consumer may be willing to pay the increased price charged because the consumer will be getting that value back in the future. I understand that this may seem like a clever loop, except that people die. So the loop breaks down and you have to have a system for legacy. The system has a consequence of corporate death as well so you don't end up with supercorps sucking in all the economic decay. Legacy and transition are in the details of the book, but basically, this isn't a system that jives with immortality...it is a system to get us there.

My current understanding of your idea is that you basically want a tax on wealth (or, specifically, on money wealth) with a very complicated scheme to distribute its proceeds directly to the population bypassing the government. Is that a reasonable approach?

It isn't really much more complicated than the fractional reserve system we have now. I have no delusions about the ease of bootstrapping such a system, but it really can be a fairly straight forward and simple system.

I would also like to point out that I think your fears of wealth accumulation are overblown. Look at empirical data. Is there, in reality, old old money dominating everything? Does the Medici family rule Europe? What happened to the Vanderbilts? The oldest rich family I can recall offhand is the Rothschilds and while they are not poor by any means, how do they do compared to Gates or Brin or Musk?

I think the empirical data is there for the r > g problem(http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/r). I think most of use here probably fall on the side that assumes technology will keep g > r, but with no promises, I think doing something is better than nothing.

What about the traditionally most valuable kind of capital -- land, also known as real estate? What about technology? or non-agricultural commodities like oil, coal, copper, etc?

Certainly somethings have more or less carrying costs. The closer you get to stable elements, the more you can decrease these (Gold, Silver). Carbon is an element but tends to be a slippery beast that takes all kind of crazy forms that break down or change in some way. Land does have a carrying cost of some form of maintenance and most has an artificial carrying cost in the form of property taxes. Gesell had some pretty crazy ideas about land that I don't exactly buy into. I don't have many super strong ideas about it because I think(hope) we are going to be moving past the point where land is that big of a deal for most of us.

The current inflation is controlled to best of central banks' abilities. You are not controlling it any better, you're just setting a floor as to how low can it go.

Actually the theory is that we can hold inflation at 0 by printing decaying dollars when we need them and decaying them faster when there is too much. Tech is always going to bring about some deflation, but the general goal is for there always to be enough money to buy all the things that are being produced.

I'll take the standard capitalist approach -- if the robot down the block can sell me the same shirt cheaper, I'll buy it from the robot. If it can't, I'll buy it from the Vietnamese. I am not willing to pay extra for feel-good fluff.

I'm a humanist...I guess you are not...agree to disagree? We can't do that on a rationality discussion board can we? If you aren't willing to pay for the feel good fluff, do you at least want it to happen? By what means if so. If not, are you cool with the status quo going forward as long as prices always get smaller?

Okay I think I identified more preciusly what is it. I will just call it arbitrarily "shard" to make special note that we are defining (or I am figuring out) and that analogs with other things might not apply.

Shard is a right that has a holder and target (ie it can be spesified as a two place predicate s(a,b)). Having multiple shards of same holder and target can be expressed as having a single relation with a strenght in it (ie that s(a,b,100) a has 100 of shards on b).

During regular intervals (which most simply is annually but can be tought to also happen smoothly constantly) there happens a lazy money redistribution event. First we mark everybodys money as "lazy". We take a portion of everybodys lazy money that they have and mark "waking percent" of it as unlazy. This money will no longer be touched by the event and where the money woke up will be availble to use after the event. For each person we take whatever lazy money they have left (the remaining "dozing percent") and distribute it equally among all shards that have that person as their target. If A has 10000 and we use 90% waking percent this result in 1000 lazy money and B has 10 shards on him, C has got 25 and D got 5 then B gets 250, C gets 625 and D 125. This happens "simultaneously" for everyone ie can be done in any order (you have to keep track of money before the round started and received this round). Then we start again by waking up percentage of the money of the lazy money and keep doing this until some cut off point (such as under 1$ moved total in round) where the amount of lazy money is low.

This is the claim and the effect of the shard (once it exists). The interesting thing is that the more shards you hold the more you stand to benefit from the redistribution event. Eveyrthing else is derivative of this effect.

Now the idea is that shards are created when you transfer money to someone. Thus a person can't have more lazy money than there are shards on him. A person can have way less lazy money. If you can't go into the negatives the least is 0. However by giving it away you inevitably create shards into your holding. Thus even if your own lazy money would be 0 the lazy money you get from the shards will partly go to those that hold shards on you. And because money can't be destroyed or created by moving each round the money shuffled around is constant. Thus shards can never be totally worthless (in the sense of giving you right to 0 amount of receiving in the redistribution event). However shards that are more "direct" are worth more. With a waking rate of 90% making a shard to person that won't have lazy money but will make shards only to totally lazy persons is worth 0.01 in the next distribution event while a direct shard would have been worth 0.1. However being the middle man, receiving 1 money and giving it to a totally non-giving (lazy) man is worth 0.09 money in the next redistribution (if all you do is this kind of thing) while the net effect on your point wealth is 0.

To paralel I will give a different formulation. Define a totally unrelated instrument that I will arbitrarily call "portion". Portion is also a holder,target,magnitude kind of thing. It also is relevant in a redistribution event. Howeve the rules differ a little. All of the lazy money is shared equally among portions. If the portion is on yourself you mark it as unlazy and get to keep it after the event. Then the lazy money is given to the portion holder. Repeat until lazy money has sufficently vanished.

Now the portion generation mechanism is this. When you transfer money to a party you generate a "prociety percentage" of portions on the recipient to yourself and whatever remains of 100% you generate portions on the receiver to the receiver. That is A giving 200 to B with prociety percentage 10 will net A 20 B portions and B 160 B portions.

Both the shard mechanism and portion mechanism results in the same redistribution of money and shards are as valuable as portions. You just never have shards on yourself, so it can be likened to a notational difference. However the idea is that your shard value represents your skill as a consumer. It sounded somehow as plausible idea but as I explictly write it out it seems that those with highest shard values have the lowest trickle-down effects on the economy. If it would be true then the consumer with no consumption would be the master consumer (if all depend on you but you don't depend on anyone it makes sense). It would also seem to reward those that get those that didn't consume to consume.

Can you precisely define what this consumer 'stock' is? You seem to think of it as a legally binding claim to a long stream of future payments which make it look like a bond. An airline mile is basically a disguised discount and it's a one-time thing, you use it and it's gone. Preferred shares have no legally binding obligation to pay out anything.