>From Robin: ...
>>When a customer purchases any kind of product (physical and/or >>virtual) from a seller, the seller automatically receives a fixed >>amount of credits that are automatically deposited into his personal >>credit bank account. Meanwhile, the customer who purchased the product >>GENERALLY deducts the same amount of "credits" from his own personal >>credit bank account. A key point that must be grasped here is the >>subtle fact that the customer doesn't really GIVE or transfer his >>credits directly to the seller. Likewise, the seller isn't getting his >>"credits" directly from the customer. > > The problem with this approach is that it completely removes the feedback > mechanism from capitalism. IOW you could end up with many people doing things > that are of no benefit to society, while few is any are doing the things that > are really needed. ... Thanks for actually reading my lengthy treatise [which regrettably contained a few grammatical errors] and challenging certain fundamentals principals. Being picked apart by the Vort Collective can be a good way to discover whether major holes might exist in the proposal. I disagree that such a system would remove essential supply & demand feedback mechanisms from the economic system. The proposed Virtual Currency system actually attempts to keep such mechanisms firmly in place, especially the advantages of competition. It's designed to thrive with economic feedback mechanisms driving the direction that individual workers and corporate entities might choose to go in their personal attempts to generate additional surplus credits for themselves. Keep in mind, under the proposed system, just like under the current system, you cannot acquire virtual credits for yourself if nobody purchases an unwanted luxury product you may have on a whim decided to manufacture. It would be unwise to create any kind of luxury product that takes time as well as your own finite supply of credits to build with no forethought into whether it's something customers would care to purchase. Keep in mind the fact that all luxury oriented products would have to be purchased from a finite supply of surplus credits that each prospective customer would have to have stashed away in their personal credit bank account. A seller had better put some careful thought into the matter! Consider the following scenario: For some time now Seller "A" has been the only person in the whole area who has been manufacturing widgets. He calls his widgets: "Model A". Each widget costs him 100 credits to make. He purchases all the essential raw materials he needs from wholesalers who acquire the raw materials themselves and sell them for an aggregate equivalent of 100 credits. Keep in mind that all of these seller/customer transactions are being registered within Computer Central. For some time now seller A" has been selling his manufactured widgets for 300 credits to customers. Seller "A" is attempting to generate a net surplus of 200 credits (A 200% markup) for himself per individual widget sold to prospective customers. Since Seller A is the only kid in town making widgets he has a monopoly. Either you pay 300 credits and get your "Model A" or you do without. Meanwhile, another individual, (probably someone who initially couldn't afford purchasing a "Model A" for 300 credits) becomes interested in manufacturing the same kind widgets. We'll call him seller "B" and he is more ambitious. He does his homework on how to increase the quality of widgets. He eventually ends up manufacturing a similar product - in fact a superior widget. He calls his widget "Super Model B". True, his widgets are more difficult to make. They end up costing him 120 credits to assemble. As in the original scenario, all the raw materials are purchased from equivalent wholesalers. The exchange of credits to acquire all the raw materials are also recorded within Computer central, just as they were recorded for Seller A. Seller "B" reviews the current the price Seller "A" is selling his model for. Seller "B" decides to sell his "Super Model B" for only 200 credits each. That's a more modest 66% markup. Seller "B" will attempt to generate a net surplus of 80 credits per individual widget, as sold to prospective customers. Which seller do you think is going to end up generating more earned credits for himself as a result of seller/customer transactions - as registered & dispensed from Computer Central? Which widget model do you think most customers would prefer to purchase? Once "Seller B" enters the market Seller "A", if he truly wishes to continue acquiring surplus credits for himself, will be forced to lower the "price" of his inferior "Model A" widget to a price lower than the price Seller "B" currently sells his superior "Super Model B" widgets for. Needless to say, this is called "competition". The monopoly on widgets has been destroyed, and everyone benefits... everyone except Seller A. This also tends to keep credit inflation in check. A key point to keep in mind is the fact that all luxury products and services must be "paid" out of one's personal stash of surplus earned credits. All luxury payment purchases (which results in the consumption of personal credits) are, of course, being registered with Computer Central, just as the generation of new credits for sale to the product are being simultaneously dispensed to the seller. The only way anyone can acquire desirable surplus credits would be by working at something useful, insofar as society is concerned. They have to create a product that customers would like to purchase. Regards, Stephen Scrooge Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
