Socialising making money

+2  

Society has problems that have rewards, society should openly share ways of making money

YAML 想法

Making money is a fiercely guarded secret right now. It doesn't have to be. It could be openly shared to benefit society with competition.

I propose a marketplace of needs with monetary amounts shared. You should be able to earn money as-listed by simply doing a piece of work that is listed.

Jobs are a scam. They pay you a lump sum and work you to excess of what the lump sum pays for.

In essence, this idea is to monetize every task that a job involves and share the numbers.



(別通知) (可選) 請,登錄

//我提出了一個共享貨幣量的需求市場。 //

您是否假設必須以相同的價格來評估相同的需求?對於一個因飢餓而死的人來說,在沙漠中喝一杯水可能是一小塊金子。

//現在,賺錢是一個嚴加保護的祕密。不一定是。它可以公開共享,以通過競爭使社會受益。

關於金錢的瘋狂之處在於,它是經濟交流的媒介,而賺錢本質上是使利益和共同期望保持一致。

// I propose a marketplace of needs with monetary amounts shared. //

Are you assuming that same needs got to be valued at same price? A glass of water in a desert may be worth a lump of gold for a person who is dying out of starvation.

// Making money is a fiercely guarded secret right now. It doesn't have to be. It could be openly shared to benefit society with competition.

The crazy thing about money, is that it's a medium of economic communication, and making money is essentially, aligning interests and mutual expectations... How does this idea solve the fact that not everyone is equally socially connected?


//您是否假設必須以相同的價格來評估相同的需求?對於一個因飢餓而死的人來說,在沙漠中喝一杯水可能是一小塊金子。 //

我應該能夠出價願意爲市場中的服務或產品支付的金額。我應該能夠列出我願意出售的物品。金融業很難做到這一點。因此,我們需要一種社會化的賺錢機制。我懷疑這將是一個擁有巨大市場的電話應用程序。每個工作都被提煉爲一系列任務。

沒有市場祕密。我應該能夠通過查看市場並瞭解通過執行不同任務可以賺到的錢來弄清楚如何賺錢。

// Are you assuming that same needs got to be valued at same price? A glass of water in a desert may be worth a lump of gold for a person who is dying out of starvation. //

I should be able to bid an amount I'm willing to pay for a service or product in a marketplace. I should be able to list an item I am willing to sell for. The finance industry makes this very hard to do for arbitrary things. So we need a socialized mechanism for making money. I suspect it would be a phone app with an extremely large marketplace. Every job is distilled to a set of tasks.

There would be no market secrets. I should be able to work out how to make money by looking at the market place and seeing the money I can earn by doing different tasks.


Yahoo SM(Google AdWords的競爭對手)was曾經是一個透明市場,它“允許您查看要與誰進行出價以及他們對什麼進行出價,因此您可以確切地知道排名和排名。將會支付”。 :)

那麼,您的建議是某種開放數據庫或市場訂單彙總,對嗎?它絕對與您的WantsfilesWant Manifestos的想法有關。 / 974 /製作所有所有人想要的通用清單#1599114639)。

問題在於人們的隱私權:由於多種原因,人們並不總是希望自己的訂單可見:

-競爭對手將看到他們從誰那裏購買商品 -意識形態不同會互相鄙視

(雖然他們彼此不友善)

那麼,您如何解決呢?人們應該有一個大的開放市場,知道在那兒分享的東西是公開的,然後他們可以有選擇地加密訂單,或者您會怎麼建議?

考慮一下-實際上,每個搜索查詢都是一個市場訂單,我認爲[“類別”是“查詢”:)顯然,谷歌擁有一直有很多查詢,並且如果每個“查詢”都是一個類別,則會對其進行分層分組,以用鏈接摘錄(市場供應)填充這些搜索訂單(市場需求)。

通過這種方式,我們可以看到每個請求-響應(或客戶端-服務器)系統都可以看作是訂單執行設備。由於履行訂單的成本通常是計算時間,人工時間和加工時間,因此您可以照此衡量這些訂單的成本。例如:

-邀請朋友參加聚會->(僅限人類) -用現成的啞咖啡機衝杯->(僅限機器) -購買比特幣->(僅用於計算) -在亞馬遜上購買產品->(計算,人機,機器)

不難想象,鑑於對世界訂單的這種開放知識,就有可能弄清楚在哪裏賺錢,但是區分“計算貨幣”與“人貨幣”與“貨幣”也很重要。機器錢”,因爲人腦(具有當前BCI功能)將永遠不會挖掘機器可以擁有的比特幣數量,計算機(具有當前I / O功能)將永遠不會與有意去的朋友一起散步像人類一樣一起做某事。

也許令人驚訝,但是大多數法定貨幣(稱爲“人爲金錢”)可以通過簡單地建立有意義的友誼來賺取,而Facebook可能正在嘗試填補這些訂單(每個人的交互行爲歷史都作爲長期需求訂單,以及試圖將這些訂單作爲補給訂單的每日供稿),賺錢最多的訂單是在BS(銀行部門,法定貨幣的來源)和B2B供需市場中做出的。

想象一下,如果銀行部門會從BoardEx(以及其他金融政治數據庫的政治需求(或“需求命令”)。我認爲那將是出價最高,並有機會賺取法定貨幣的地方之一。但是,的確,儘管有關政策的信息非常公開,但是具有特定工作需求的下游訂單卻很少,因爲下游訂單通常位於透明度較低的各種B2B市場上。

Yahoo SM (competitor of Google AdWords) was once a transparent market with "allows you to see who you are bidding against and what they are bidding, so you know exactly where you will rank, and how much you will pay". :)

So, what you're proposing, is some kind of open database or aggregation of market orders, right? It definitely relates to your idea of Wantsfiles and Wants Manifestos.

A problem with that is people's privacy: people don't always want their orders be visible due to multiple reasons:

  • competitors will see who they are buying from
  • ideologically different will despise each others (while they are friendly to each other not knowing)

So, how do you resolve that? Should people have one big open market, where they know that what they share there is public, and then they can have encrypted orders optionally, or how else would you propose?

Think about it -- in fact, every search query is a market order, and I think, "Categories" are "Queries" :) Obviously, Google has been getting lots of queries, and if every "Query" is a category, it has been hierarchically grouping them to fill these search orders (market demand) with link excerpts (market supply).

Thinking that way, we can see that every request-response (or client-server) system can be viewed as order-filling apparatus. Since the cost of fulfilling an order is usually computational-time, and human-time, and machining-time, you could measure the cost of said orders as such. For example:

  • ask a friend to a party -> (human-only)
  • make a cup with ready dumb coffee machine -> (machine-only)
  • buy bitcoin -> (computational-only)
  • buy a product on Amazon -> (computational, human, machine)

It is easy to imagine that, given such open knowledge about world's orders, it would be possible to figure out where to make money, but it is also important to make a distinction between "compute-money" and "human-money" and "machine-money", because human brain (with current BCI capabilities) will never mine the amount of bitcoin that a machine can, and a computer (with current I/O capabilities) will never go for a walk with a friend with intentions to go doing something together, as humans can.

It may be surprising, but most fiat money (call it "human-defined money"), can be made by simply making meaningful friendships, and while Facebook may be trying to fill those orders (with everyone's interaction behavior histories as standing demand orders, and daily feeds trying to fill those orders as supply orders), the most money-making orders is being made within the BS (banking sector, where the fiat money originates) and B2B supply-demand marketplaces.

Imagine if banking sector would have a social network from data like on BoardEx (and from other financio-political databases), and political needs (or "demand orders") of leaders to have certain securities (say "policies") were on the market. I think that would be one of those places with greatest bids, and opportunities in making fiat money. However, indeed, while information about policies is quite open, the downstream orders with specific work demands are less so, because they are often on various B2B marketplaces with less transparency.



    : Ruta
    :  -- 
    :  -- 
    

Mindey,

競爭是一件好事。

破壞想要與您做同樣事情的其他人也破壞了競爭。而且公司討厭合法競爭。他們寧願成爲壟斷者。壟斷實際上是效率低下的。

我擔心在透明的市場中,一家公司會啓動並僱用人員來接管所有工作,而沒有其他人有機會接管工作。

我認爲社會需要擺脫競爭這一觀念,以此來破壞競爭。當有多個人提供相同的服務時,這是很好的。因此,他們可以在價格,質量和品牌上競爭。但是,破壞競爭並製造護城河的想法確實有害。我們應該有一個人們不懼怕變得無關緊要的社會。

Competition is a good thing.

Destroying other people who want to do the same thing as you is also destroying competition. And companies hate legitimate competition. They would rather be a monopoly. Monopolies are really inefficient.

I worry with a transparent marketplace, a company would startup and hire people to pick up all the work and give nobody else a chance to pick up the work.

I think society needs to escape this idea as competition as a means of destroying your competition. it's good when there are multiple people offering the same services. So they can compete on price, quality and branding. But this idea of destroying your competition and creating moats is really harmful. We should have a society where people don't fear being made irrelevant.



    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  -- 
    

chronological,

//競爭對手會看到他們從//購買的商品

如果您的業務完全取決於供應商的保密性,那麼您的業務距成爲商品僅一步之遙。

// competitors will see who they are buying from //

if your business depends solely on your supplier secrecy, then your business is one step away from being a commodity.



    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  -- 
    

chronological,

我認爲競爭是問題所在。合作比較好。到目前爲止,它更有效,並且可以解決您描述的所有問題,並且不會破壞人,而是使每個人都走向繁榮。但是,那是要解決的錯誤問題。你不能告訴人們,現在就合作。不會工作。它是將主導文化轉變爲更共享的多樣性的問題。我最好停在這裏。

I think competition is the problem. Its better to collaborate. Its more efficient by far, and takes care of all the problems you describe, and does not destroy people but upbrings everyone to prosperity. But, thats the wrong problem to be solving. You cant tell people, collaborate now. Not gonna work. Its the matter of changing dominant culture to a more sharing variety. I better stop here.


IT 合同可能會花費數百萬英鎊用於開發雲系統。

如果 Infinity 家族有足夠多的人聚集,我們可以對信息系統的公共招標進行投標。

IT contracts can cost millions of £££ for development of cloud systems.

If enough people on Infinity family congregated we could do bids on public tendor for information systems.



    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  -- 
    

chronological,

語言