I think I’m on the right track (please correct if totally off) with the amount NBR rewarded for different tasks. But my question is how can the rewards be proportional to current euro/dollar rates. For example my calculations show that preparing food for 100 people [for a particular real life event the questioner was planning] would reward a person about 300 NBR. I think that is reasonable when compared to playing instrument and entertaining people which rewards you around 150 NBR. This could work in the demonstration context but if you think that you can earn 300 € just by cooking food for few hours, everyone would be lining up to participate. So how would it be possible to make NBR reward proportional to €/$ ? Because wouldn’t people feel that their money, which is converted at 1:1 ratio to NBR, is inflated? Have you come across this scenario and do you have a suggestion how to solve it?
It’s a really good question set. No one has asked this proportionality question before.
I personally don’t think the rewards in Copiosis should be proportional to any currency rate. NBR isn’t money. It has no function compared to money. So the idea that NBR, when rewarded, looks nothing like money from a proportion standpoint helps reinforce that point psychologically.
The reason we all get (relatively) so much money as salaries in industrialized countries, instead of amounts commensurate with what you get from the NBR algorithm is only because the things you NEED to buy: your housing, your healthcare, your food, utilities, clothes, etc…and the things you WANT to buy: a car, a boat, a motor bike, them fancy jeans….all COST A LOT OF MONEY! I’m not referring to the PRICE of these things. I’m referring to the actual cost it takes to make them, including the profit the entrepreneur wants from marshaling the factors of production to make these things. Because everything going into these things costs a LOT (particularly human labor), you MUST pay people a lot. Or else, they can’t buy them.
It’s a circular dilemma: it costs a lot to make things. One of the higherst costs is human labor. But the reason human labor costs so much is because people won’t work if the money they make isn’t enough to afford them what they want, or at least provide the bare necessities!
Now: what if it didn’t cost anything to make things?
NBR is not money. It is a social recognition (a reward) for one’s contribution, measured in terms of one’s positive impact on the world (and people). Money is COMPENSATION. But it is not based on the value of your contribution when you get it. It represents the LEAST COST of your contribution’s value to your employer compared to other people who want to do the same work you do.
In other words, your salary or wage is a balance of the lowest amount YOU are willing to work for, and the highest amount YOUR EMPLOYER is willing to pay you to work. I think that sucks btw. Because most human beings are fantastic expressions of All That Is. Their time on Earth is limited and thus, in my mind, each person, and the time each person is on the planet, has no price tag. Both are priceless.
As are their contributions, no matter how small-seeming.
So when a person is rewarded 300 NBR for cooking a meal….are you freaking kidding!??? They (in the case of the planned event) FED 100 human beings!!!
Again, there is no comparison between money and NBR. They represent two massively different ways of looking at PEOPLE. (Human Resources that cost me money ($) vs. Divine Beings whose contributions are priceless (NBR)). It should be said that the algorithm then doesn’t measure people’s worth or people’s output. What it does is measure the effect a person’s output has on resource levels, on other people, on society, etc. So NBR is not a measure of value. It is a measure of results balanced by a measure of resources needed to create said results.
At the transition, Copiosis transfers the net present value of all assets (including liquid assets) into NBR. For every dollar/euro of asset value, the asset-holder gets one NBR. This initial exchange is purposeful for several reasons.
The most important is we want everyone to go along with the transition. I don’t think you’re going to have people go for a deal that perceptually cuts their material worth by a third or more; or by any amount. But they will freaking go out of their minds in favor of the transition when (all things being equal) they see how wealthy they are in NBR compared to their cash wealth. After all, a large proportion of things they have to spend their money on today will be provided at no cost thus instantly making them a lot wealthier than in capitalism.
Remember, when you give your NBR for a luxury (say for a baseball game ticket) your NBR doesn’t go to the ticket-holder. It goes out of existence. The ticket-holder (the producer) is rewarded for the results of you attending the game. His NBR comes from out of no where. Not from your pocket.
Producers will be guided to adjust their Gateways accordingly, just as we guided participants in the demonstration projects. That needs more explanation so you don’t walk away thinking we’re talking about a centrally planned system. So a short departure:
Producers will hopefully have some education about Copiosis before it kicks off. But in our experience with the demonstration projects, where everyone WAS somewhat educated about how Copiosis works, Producers still had a hard time understanding Gateways and their functions. So the Payer Organization had to teach them how to set their Gateways at a level that made sense, given an idea of how much NBR people had. So we’re not talking about price-fixing. Producers still get to set their Gateways wherever they want. But as you can guess, Gateways are much different in a community where the average person only has 300 NBR in their account, vs one where the average person as 2 million. That’s because we want to stimulate production (the employment of human effort, creativity, etc.) in return for luxury consumption. If in a 300 NBR population, for example, luxuries were on average 10,000 NBR, we might not see the robust economy we’d prefer.
Don’t you think it’s great that everyone would be lining up to feed people? I do. Because feeding people is important. More important than filing. More important than accounting. More important than advising someone on their tax shelters. Today, people see feeding people as a shitty, low-paying dirty job. Unless you’re a pretty successful chef or something like that. Same with servers and such. So the fact that people would line up to feed people is great in my mind! The reward for doing so would be high. Especially considering the resources used compared against the benefits created.
Now, just because they line up doesn’t mean everyone gets to feed people. The famous saying “too many cooks in the kitchen ruins the soup.” applies here! So, just because they line up doesn’t mean they get to do that work.
In short, there is no comparison between NBR and money. Nor should there be.