It was interesting. I named it Intramutualism. How does it work? Well, take a look..

Characteristics:

Intellectual property is dropped entirely. Instead, the following system is put in place: The inventor and company/division are acknowledged in the filing of an invention, but not given exclusive rights to it. Instead, to incentivize innovation, there are funding incentives. These would actually produce more concrete incentives, because they mean that inventors could actually make a living off of their inventions without taking excessive risk or requiring excessive up-front investment. Being an inventor would finally be an actual stable job, and companies could compete fairly without patent battles. Also, schooling quality would dramatically increase, as all the proprietary information would now be free for public access.

Standardization and cooperation: Enforced standardization. Do we really need 500 different kind of power tool batteries and chargers when one would suffice?

Priority: Instead of things like profit determining the amount that can be spent on research and development for something, the return on investment for the good of society would be what determines the amount of funds to be granted, along with the effect one area has on other sectors. With this would come the need for new, more complicated metrics of value to be created. While this might seem like a nuisance, it is a good thing because it would allow us to question the metrics we use to determine value in general, and because such metrics would serve a lot more essential human needs than metrics like GDP. Because of such metrics being used when determining incentives, quality of life would dramatically increase, bring productivity and innovation up with it.

Government databases would be full of the greatest innovations of humanity. Services like Wikipedia, which have much greater economic benefit than they can possibly make as a business, would increase in numbers and funding.. exponentially. The greater good would become the most successful business plan to pursue in such an economy. There would be no more lying public relations team that hides atrocities, because moral and progressive goals would be the uniting base of all businessmen. Also, investors would still be in luck. They would work alongside economists as the deciding parties behind investment and funds allocation in the economy.

It would be a system where the government supports the economy, the economy supports the people, and the people support both. It is truly intramutual, where all sectors unite for the common good to benefit all.

Tell me if you spot something in my idea that doesn't make sense, or if I forgot to mention something. If you have any ideas that could extend on Intramutualism feel free to share them. If you have any questions, ask them. The more askers, the more answers.

nah mate, that's socialism, and no thanks

Hmm.. It has some similar aspects. I looked at some ideas from different economic theories off of Wikipedia (and boy are there a lot of those.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_economics).

However, I did not really use any theory as my baseline. Instead, I asked myself a question: What would the most efficient model for economic development look like?

Here are some key justifications for this system being a good candidate:

It would remove perverse incentives, i.e. no more bait&switch or scams like NFTs. In standard capitalism, the dominant economic practice, perverse incentives shoot up like weeds everywhere. Why do we have drug problems? Why did "tech support" scammers get so common that there are now scammers that scam the scammers? Why do we have an opioid crisis? Why do companies price their insulin at $200 when it costs $8 to make at the expense of diabetics (shoutout to whoever had that fake Eli Lilly account on twitter)? Why is there a paywall on every other news website? Why do ads keep popping up? Why do smartphone manufacturers keep removing the headphone jack and SD card slot when the actual components take up very little space and offer way more functionality? Why can you be charged royalties for singing the song "Happy Birthday" in public? Why do companies make so you can't fix products that you paid for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_repair)?

I could go on and on about the perverse incentives, but you get the idea. There are so many stupid things wrong with the current system that it is frankly an embarrassment. Almost anyone I know would agree that these incentives should be removed, but none have provided an actual method to remove them. Well, except for the person I am the most acquainted with: myself.

It was implied but not stated that there would be less inequality in such a system. The system would most likely trend towards equality if implemented. Less inequality is more efficient in economics for a few reasons.

First, resource allocation is much more efficient and fair. Because there is not as large of a divide between rich and poor, there would be less people spending money on extravagant things that aren't of much practical value simply because they have too much money to know how to use properly, yet more people with financial means to achieve growth (reducing poverty as well).

Second, it helps prevent oligarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy)

Third, it keeps the motives of the economy aligned with the motives of the people.

Fourth, it provides political stability.

Anyway, it's also more fair, and I came up with these on the fly, without looking anything up, so there are very likely many more reasons. Simply put, there are many practical and evolutionary reasons fairness is a moral value.

Intellectual property is not good because it is inefficient, hard to regulate, restrictive, anticompetitive in nature, and very annoying. I hate it and there will be no economic system designed by me that will include it, at least in its current form. It is one of those annoying laws that gets in the way of progress and is commonly and increasingly misused. Removing it is not socialism, it is common sense. Sharing ideas is what makes society progress. Hoarding ideas, as with hoarding anything else in the economy, makes things worse. That is not to say there should be no program in place to benefit the inventor of the idea, but that the system should be well thought out.

This economic system is also self-balancing, just like capitalism, but the incentives are different this time.

Theoretical example: There is a database of knowledge that anyone can access. However, much of the information is technical and advanced, thus discouraging the average person from using it for their ideas. If indications predict that providing a more intuitive and approachable system is in the best interests of the people, and would give more to society than it would take away (in time and costs) such a system would be developed. Supply follows demand.

Many ideas have been thought up and subsequently dismissed because although they would benefit society (and the economy) as a whole, they would not turn a profit. These are good ideas that are wasted, discarded as useless by companies who cannot monetize the public good.

~0------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0~

In the end, I think capitalism has its benefits, but it has been milked dry over the past centuries and is beginning to stagnate. The opposite of stagnation is change, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. I don't care if an economy is capitalism or socialism or any other ideology for that matter. I care if it works.

The money in the economy also should not be mistaken as the economy itself, just as a map should not be mistaken as the terrain itself.

I hope this answers some potential misconceptions. I also plan to create a better representation of my concept on paper, as it is generally easier for me to express my thinking that way. It will probably make it much easier to understand as well. Thanks.

Edit: I drew up a first draft. Note that this more-or-less shows how a government structure could look with a system like this. Also, no government bodies are allowed direct contact with each other, except through "communications and oversight", which would consist of ethics teams, and would also have a high degree of transparency. The draft does not have every system in place, because I have barely scratched the surface of the possibilities for improvement, although the ones I have already mentioned would be enough to satisfy me if they were implemented by governments, there is always room to improve.

I will explain more aspects of the drawing later, but as it is 3 AM I should probably not torture myself with sleep deprivation. There is more to talk about. Check back on this post in a few days and the explanations will almost certainly be there.

Thank you for sharing your idea about Intramutualism. While I appreciate your desire to create a more fair and equitable economic system, I must disagree with the idea that socialism is the way to achieve it. In my view, socialism has a history of leading to economic inefficiency and stagnation, as well as suppressing individual freedoms and innovation. Instead of relying on the government to control and regulate the economy, I believe that a market-based system with limited government intervention is the best way to promote prosperity and progress.

This is even more true with capitalism. You know about intellectual property? And how about the recent economic situation?

Besides, this is not socialism by definition. That is why I gave it a different name, and I am operating on different paradigms. It is more of just an attempt to use logic and reasoning to create a simpler economic system.

Wait a second, I just realized what you were doing..

Indeed. The old 'I agree with the cause but not the means' argument. Not gonna fly. You gotta find a better economic approach if you want to refute that idea (not to mislead you into assuming that my idea is socialist. I was just calling out faulty logic in your reasoning)


This, I can tell you with confidence, is definitively not true. The track record of this approach is spotty at best. It just doesn't work, and eventually it fails and the government needs to step in to fix the problems caused by it. Also, when you limit the government too much, it limits their ability to weed out perverse incentives.

In the end, an ideal solution is to be found by thinking analytically about how to approach the economic needs of society, as well as how to increase growth.

Interestingly, the hardest part would probably not be creating a completely working economic system, but convincing people that it would work better than the abomination that is in place currently. Anyway, I hope to make a better, more accurate representation of the system in the future, but my free time is limited so it may take a while.

EDIT: I was finding it funny how everyone is calling it socialism. According to the average internet user: Socialism=NOT Capitalism!

EDIT2: These are my recent Intramutualist concepts developed: Assuming one could distribute wealth to a population, how would it be distributed most efficiently to achieve the greater good? I realized that, assuming the average person has an average intelligence (IQ settles into a normal distribution, or 'bell curve' in reality), it would be most efficient to distribute funds equally, which would improve a society dramatically... if it was a monolith. Society is not a monolith, though, and this in practice would be a bad idea.. after all, what I just described is essentially what communism was, and while that was better than the complete tyranny that came before it, it was ultimately just not as good at performing as capitalism for a variety of reasons, mainly because there were insufficient incentives, so there was slow growth, and when it comes to the choice of using the carrot or the stick, communism was short on carrots but had no shortage of sticks, so predictably the use of forced labor became a common practice in communist regimes. So, while on paper complete equality may seem like good resource management, it fails to account for incentives. However, it is still useful to give everyone a baseline average allowance to be used on basic necessities, in order to take some advantages of the increase in resource distribution efficiency (in other words, Universal Basic Income) to give a little to those that it means the most to, as long as there are incentives added as well. Incentives could be added by implementing regular capitalism in parallel, but there are more clever and efficacious ways to implement incentives. When an individual makes an invention or does a project (or really just anything) that is helpful to society and/or economic progress, they could be compensated for it in cash and social status, by both institutions built for that purpose and maybe also the people if they choose to do so, because gratitude is good for society. It could even lead to a culture of paying back good deeds in full, strengthening cohesion in communities and giving those that engage in such projects a driving social motivation from the knowledge people support their ventures, along with the material motivation already in place. Those that are successful would be the inspiration and example for the following ventures, which would build upon the work of previous startups. Corporations could sprout up to increase efficiency and thus funding and status of the founder, and all workers would get paid because they are contributing to society. The founder would also get a bonus per person that is contributing to society more efficiently than they would be doing otherwise without the company. This is, honestly, more capitalist than socialist (i.e. owners own their companies, competition happens, and people have money and can work harder to earn even more) so I think this could work and fix the problems of capitalism. For inventions, they would be public but would give credit to the inventor. The inventor would then be compensated based on predictions of how much their invention has improved society, which means that not only would there be incentives for inventions, but also that they would mainly be geared towards the common good.

Essentially, in a system that rewards good deeds the amount of effort geared towards helping the greater good would skyrocket. For once, we could all be on the same page.

Further on the topic of wage distribution, how should one distribute pay? Well, it would be calculated by the statistics division of government. All companies would have to report sales and other metrics to the analytics division of government, which would use those and many other factors in calculations in order to make sound economic predictions and provide an optimal economic plan for the greater good of society, including where money goes, how much, and other factors. Machine learning technology would likely be utilized to reduce workload and increase effectiveness.

On a different note, in my drawing I drew the 'communication and oversight' branch of government being connected to each other branch of government. That is actually not arbitrary, but it would be functional in order to make sure all information passes through the same place so information is well organized and multilateral, it would change the conditions so political power is nearly impossible to acquire within the government, and it would dramatically simplify the process of making decisions. Also, the government would be designed so that mistakes, lies, or corruption would be easily detected and managed.

Specialized currency is another part of this idea. That would be a currency that has, for example, different classes of $1 bills. However, while representing the same unit of value, these bills would differ in use. In an example of this using colors as an identifying factor, the government would give a set amount of turquoise dollars to each citizen for minimum living expenses. These turquoise dollars would be restricted to the basic necessities of life, like food (and governments would exchange dollar types with the store after they collect their returns, so they don't have large amounts of money that has very limited use. It would also make it easier to track the accounting of stores by the government). A different type of dollar, green, would be usable for all stuff, but would in all likelihood be rare. Purple dollars would be granted by the government to projects, so they can buy the materials necessary for their projects but are not able to spend money on unrelated things. Pink dollars would be used as incentives. They would be useable for things like entertainment, theme parks, vacations, candy, and other rewards. The list goes on and on, and essentially any combination is possible, so the economy could be much easier to regulate and manage.

Do you have any ideas you think should be considered? Tell me about them. Also feel free to ask questions or give your take on how you think it would work, point out weak points you see in the system, or propose changes you would make to it. Thanks

Can you tell me what is economic system?
is it like a market or online shop?

You forget that as long as state power is in human hands, it will always lobby for someone else's interests. To begin with, it is necessary to start with the change of political systems in the countries and the general globalization to which there is a clear pull of late - now it is very clearly observed throughout the world, adequate people have little attachment to their country, as they see in it not only positive, but also negative. At the moment, the only limitation for a change of residence is the difference of mentalities and languages (in a minimal way thanks to various options and possibilities for translation).
The economy in its generalized form is largely just a locally managed distribution of available resources clothed in a monetary-natural form of exchange. And as long as there is no basis that can manage, there is no point in trying to think only about economic system.
In my opinion, at first, it makes sense to think about the supremacy of state power from a guided and controlled artificial intelligence.
At the same time guided and controlled by humans indirectly by making changes only in the first stages. Because typical norms and algorithms will change over time, and intelligence can self-learn. Yes there are many pitfalls and dangers here (sci-fi makes it possible to evaluate individual perspectives), but in my opinion this is the only proper way to run a state (or several, since competitive is always better) for now
For example, the typical situation in the news about Ukraine is not so much politics at all, as politicians lobbying for the interests of their "friends" and its money.
For example, my relatives (Ukrainians) lived (and partially still live) in Gorlovka, a small town not far from Donetsk. After the secession of the republic and the start of shelling by Ukraine, some of them(run away from war) left for Russia, and my family gave them asylum. And then they received Russian citizenship. But this started back in 2014 - and now I have no approval for the actions of Putin and the ruling United Russia party. What prevented them from intervening back then, in past (or were these thousands of victims needed to strengthen their political influence?)? I think the main reason was the economic interest in United Russia circles. At the same time, a similar interest appeared in Europe and the rest of the world, including, of course, the United States.
Therefore, for my part, I believe that politicians, both European and local, are fighting (with sanctions and missiles) to enrich the wallets of their own and their loved ones by using dying people to do so.
No matter how patriotic you are, I advise you to look at your home country in this situation from the point of view of money-saturation of its individual representatives of state power.

And that's situation is one reason why people need inhuman government power.

I want an ecosystem where Gaios makes the decisions.

Ah.. but you have neglected an important rule. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence or other factors). The west needed to build up defense, train troops, etc. They did not want to intervene because once a western, nuclear power is involved there is no cap on the potential for escalation.

Of course, the Russian government did seem to have a mix of malice and incompetence, but I digress.

Artificial intelligence is not needed to fix the problems. Note:
All that must be done is to change the rules required to get into power in such a way that different (i.e. better) types of people will be able to get into power. This can be done, in one of the most basic examples, by using ranked-choice voting. However, I would probably go further to require no potential for conflict-of-interest (i.e. if you worked at Nestlé you would not be permitted to oversee food regulations), along with some basic tests that ensure that public leaders meet a baseline competence. Much more oversight, transparency, a potentially redundancy is necessary to ensure corruption does not happen and mistakes are spotted early on. People are not inherently any more corrupt than they are moral, for it takes morality to be aware of corruption. It is the system in place that can at times make corruption the only logical action. I am not saying that machine learning and neural networks etc. would not be useful, indeed I included the possibility in part of my own idea, but that they are not inherently required or even to be preferred except for specific tasks.

I see this view as pessimistic and misanthropic. If there is a system where the leader does not act for the good of the people, it is because the system was poorly designed. In Russia, with the cultural and economic problems caused by Tzarist rule, Stalin's rule, the dissolution of the USSR (and subsequent rapid and undesired influx of free-market capitalism imposed upon a system built exclusively for communism), and now Putin's reign, the cultural, social, and institutional structure has never had much of a chance to improve. Also, the example set by leaders before him were not a very good precedent.

As far as living in Russia goes, it is an extreme example of bad governance and poor choices. I think if any government needs reform, Russia would be a major contender. Also, it would be a good contender for my economic concept, since its economy is screwed long-term anyway the risk could be considered worth the potential reward, since there's less potential to screw up an economy that is already screwed (not many countries want to risk trying a new economic system in case it fails).

Anyway, you brought up many good points, so thanks for the insight. I will probably ponder this further and may make a few edits in the future addressing things I haven't adequately addressed.


It is all the markets and all the shops. And banks. And currency. It is the system in which they operate, and with which wealth, goods, services, resources, and labor are distributed. It is what determines ownership, value, etc.


As long as he can come up with something that is not free-market capitalism. That boot has been well worn. I need to see something that is unique. Also, it can't be socialism because we need something that can change our perspective of the economy, not serve as an argument about whether one way is better than the other way. I feel capitalism vs socialism is an argument that will never end, so we need to be a bit more creative instead of taking simple ideas from the past and pitting them against each other. "To create and invent, not compare and dissent, till we wear and are spent, in despair that our rent, and are fares are not spent, with a fairer intent, for our cares with consent, of the barely content, on impaired residents"

I guess that would be an off-topic:

What I have described in previous post is not only typical of Russia, it is simply largest in territory. It happens much more often, and sometimes on a worse scale, in other countries, and it is especially noticeable in Europe, Africa and South America. At the moment, the parties governing the countries and individuals in any country, under the cover of the situation with Ukraine, sell arms and begin to look for reasons for internal conflicts and ways to earn money on this - remember the BLM movement and others. But there are those who profit from this, just as there was with the coronavirus. Lobbying for the sale and manufacture of medicines and related goods with higher prices, fuel issues and artificially created events (explosions, murders) that lead to higher prices, all these are the same self-serving politicians.

Considering what you said about inventing new things, here is my throwing in of ideas for you to ponder.

The new economic system may well be based on the "usefulness" of a citizen to the state, where receiving something strengthens his status and losing something reduces it. Forming a kind of resume of a citizen where his education, skills, habits, addictions (alcohol, drugs, ...), life path, relationships and influence on companies and individuals, existing values, etc. are listed and evaluated as "useful".

Similar to the game rpg principle of morality - when the holy paladin received the sword of death and demons in his hands and with it receives a reduction of karma (relationships) with representatives of holiness and opponents of death and demons, as long as it will be in his hands.

That said, the basis of this assessment cannot be money. It should probably be several parameters of the character. But thanks to them it will always be possible to understand - what this person is worth / what you can expect from him.

Ah.. Sounds like meritocracy. Sounds good in theory..

However, those that would look the worst on such a resume would have the most potential for improvement (with a few exceptions). It would thus be in the collective interest to focus not on the people well off but those struggling.

But then again, your idea does bring a lot to the table that I have not considered, and I should note that if it is well utilized there is significant potential. For example, such a resume could include personal interests and hobbies. This is important for giving people jobs that they already have an interest in, which increases morale, productivity, and harder-to-measure metrics like creativity/innovation.

Such a resume would be useful, but likely for a purpose different from what you propose. The system would already have a good enough mechanism to determine the value any given individual brings forth to society without needing the resume. However, it would be excellent for pairing people with a job they both enjoy and are capable of, which would be inherently more efficient. It would dramatically increase worker satisfaction and create opportunity for novel innovation to develop.

It would also be useful for determining which people need help, and in what way. People could also use it to form groups who all share a common interest.

On the topic of Russia, It is true that it has expanded fairly peacefully (until recently). It may be the lack of violent history that made people less adapted to deal with such things. It may also just have been other random reasons, of course, because chaos theory.

It is notable that while Russia didn't ever practice racial segregation, it did have forced labor during the Soviet period. Also notably political prisoners were not dealt with kindly, and the purges by and within the government were frequent under Stalin.

Unfortunately, at the present moment, it is the availability of money (no matter how one gets it) that is the measure of one's capabilities. At the same time, a person will not necessarily use and realize these opportunities. And in the current competitive world, freeing up space for the opportunities of the "haves" in the moment limits the opportunities of the "have-nots. That is, those who in theory can achieve something are limited by the framework (laws and morality of the surrounding society), which is based on the amount of money. That is, the poor, until they become richer, will not be able to change their lives or the lives of others for the better. Regardless of creativity, knowledge, skills, physical ability, ... .

And yet back to the artificial intelligence system for government, it is quite compatible with this idea of usefulness for every citizen.
Unfortunately, humans are quite predictable when studied more closely. And there are now implemented (proven in practice) algorithms/scripts/markers/abilities that allow, within certain limits and values, to know/calculate the real capabilities of each person, both their body and mind, ways to detect their lies, find ways to learn more easily, attract attention and create motivation, predict and model their future behavioral responses. As a consequence, it is possible to psychologically program for specific results.

Each person analyzes information quickly enough, but he needs a lot of time to think through and make acceptable choices, and therefore to make fast and true decisions, the person needs help in the form of options ready-made solutions and their existing limitations.

An artificial assistant connected to the general AI system may well "accompany" each individual throughout his life, providing him with the necessary "advice, ready-made solutions and existing limitations" and helping him to realize his capabilities and thereby contribute to the results necessary for the AI system and society.

Ah, AI governance.. I do myself wonder if it is even possible for AI tyranny to exist, as the likes of people like Elon Musk claim. Likely not without human tyranny or agregious incompetence.

However, it would be hard to get such an idea implemented, as we have the infrastructure for human government in place, as well as knowledge on how it works and how to manage it, but not so for AI. The lack of understanding and experience we have in AI, followed by and compounding upon the general lack of trust in it, would make it very difficult to implement it in reality. Another question is what you do if something goes wrong? It would be a political and potentially existential disaster.

The systems you talk of could potentially be put in place, but would need oversight by experts in ethics.



Not a bad idea. While personal AI assistants exist already, personalized personal AI assistants, to my knowledge, do not. Especially not at a level of what I would deem a "symbiotic relationship" with people. It is true that the potential is significant. It would needs ethics oversight of course, but it is true that the more information given to someone or something that is dedicated to helping us, the more it can help. It must be ensured that such a system would not do anything that effectively harms people, in any way, shape, or form.

While it is in everyone's best interests for a benevolent ruler to know more information about them (to better co-ordinate and improve lives) , the opposite is true for a malevolent ruler. One must make sure a system will always be benevolent, under ANY circumstances.

Unrelated, am not sure if by saying "general AI" you meant it as in the type of ai meant to mimick human thinking (called general ai) or more like overall/as a whole/in its intirety.

Anyway, such an AI system could supplement the idea of a "personal resume" to effectively network people and to know the needs, struggles, and inspirations of individuals, in order to provide the necessary social and medical help, the desired career path, and generally understand the motives of individuals to know the type and amount of an incentive required for best performance.

It crossed my mind that this is fundamentally a very exploitative way of organizing society, but exploitation for the maximum benefit of the exploited would be extremely effective, fair, and mutually beneficial way of organizing society. The economy runs on exploitation to a significant extent already, but it is not effectively coordinated with the public good. If people were in a system that, for example, was able to use knowledge on a person to find a job related to their interests and get them interested in doing said job, which benefits themselves either directly or indirectly (i.e. they enjoy it), it would be, in a sense, like being able to have your cake and eat it too. Instead of survival being the force driving work, people could do something they enjoy AND get paid for it.

Basically, in the end there could probably not be any economy more efficient than this at achieving the public good. Essentially it would leverage everything towards it.

That is the genius of the idea. It is, from an evolution standpoint, regarding society as a whole, far superior to more limited ideas like capitalism. Also, because both the economy and quality of life are some of the most politically crucial factors, politics would be far less toxic as a whole, and people would be far more content in life.

There may be flaws in the system, but I have yet to spot any major ones, so I think it would be a decent idea if done right.

You are wrong on this point because you are not well versed in modern technology and have not delved into this topic of our rapidly evolving lives. There are now embedded and even artificially limited AIs that can take on all the functionality of a typical government, and the initial algorithmization of processes may well be similar to a human, in the future it may be revised and optimized because in its current form it is far from ideal.
But there are difficulties with some aspects of the relationship between human society and AI, and in particular:
The problem of AI control, employment, responsibility, privacy, bias.

It's a shame that very few people participate in this discussion. You've endorsed the good economic system options I suggested, but that's not the only option - so it's not very good for making the best choices - the more choices, the more opportunities to meet as many conditions as possible. I'll offer another alternative:

Another alternative would be strictly regulated far-reaching (in hundreds of years) goals and ways to achieve them, similar to South Korea's five-year economic plans, Stalin's "five-year plan" for Russia, and all countries that have increased their economic potential in a short time ("economic miracle"), like modern China, Japan, Singapore, .....

The difficulty in realizing this lies in confronting the ugly modern morality of humanity, which is based on individualism - modern aspirations of this kind manifest themselves in a lack of awareness of oneself as part of humanity and responsibility to society, and hint that one should only work while receiving something in return and living for pleasure.
If we look at those who have performed economic miracles, we see people who work not for themselves but for the future.

Many people need a purpose in life, and this system puts man in the position of a servant, a slave, a subordinate in the name of purpose. But such is the specificity of humanity as part of nature--the emerging complexities of the human environment in life on the way to achieving the goal, create the possibility and desire for adaptation (perfection) of humanity as a race in the future.
Nevertheless, it is everyone's way of caring for those around them when there is an overabundance of individual activity that can be turned around for the good of society.

Ah.. long-term thinking. I don't really think the five-year plans were so amazing, as they killed lots of people, but they were a demonstration of the importance of coordination in the economy.*

On the topic of the economy, individualism, etc. It may be true that individualism may detract from the economy to some extent, but the bigger factor is the competence of those involved in making the larger choices.

I find it would be important to have a system to balance the economic good of the short-term future with the long-term future in such a way that growth isn't so future-oriented that it is discouraging for people who would want to experience quick economic growth, but not so speed-oriented that it is short-sighted and self-destructive in the long term. Thus, investment or funding could fall on a spectrum formed using economic math that would determine how far into the future we should prioritize, and by how much, etc.

On the AI topic, if you read read more closely, you may find I am more in agreement than in disagreement with you. Or you might not. I am not sure which part you are at a disagreement with. Anyway, my position on AI for government is that it should be rolled out incrementally to fulfill simple tasks, slowly freeing up space for people to contribute to the economy, and gradually be fitted to perform the main roles, but only after they can be proven to work better than their human counterparts.

* In the economy time is, in many practical ways, similar to any spatial dimension. For example, in its simplest manifestation, expanding a farm by a factor of 2 in any one dimension will double output, as would increasing it by 2 temporally (i.e. twice the speed). The difference between time and other dimensions is that with more complex systems, differences of functionality occur. If we look at a microprocessor, increasing speed will increase the amount of instructions per second. However, increasing size can increase the amount of memory stored and the complexity of the calculations it is capable of performing, which translates to increasing the amount of instructions per second and possibly more functional diversity. Similar to the clock speed vs core count, the speed of any system almost always reaches a point where increasing it any further breaks things, and the scale of a system is always limited by the ability to co-ordinate all the different parts of the system. Speed in a sector can be increased marginally by finding shortcuts (i.e. innovations that remove, replace, or speed up part of the process), improving quality (via training, improved protocols, higher skill workers, etc.), or by cutting corners (lowering quality, not recommended except for in areas that are non-critical and/or excessively over-engineered/over-emphasized to little gain), which will increase output. Size is simply increased by increasing the scale of a sector. This means that with more workers, provided co-ordination and management are sufficient, there will be more output (whether that output is innovation, production, or some other economic good), more rapid development, and other advantages caused by network effect/the fact that people were biologically designed to scale up into communities. Effects like these can be seen in many places in the economy, and for such reasons coordination is of great importance.


Edit: Additionally, the economy encompasses all. Not many bother with the small details, but they add up. For example, in the U.S. we have a terrible justice system that arrests 5x the international average. Many of these are people that could otherwise be contributing to the economy, but instead they are held in custody, which actually costs a significant amount, especially considering the poor treatment the prisoners get out of it. It also encompasses school, where teachers teach and students learn. The effect the teaching has on the students will have a subsequent effect on the economy, so lessons should be high quality, and good schooling should be accessible to all regardless of socioeconomic status. Even things seemingly unrelated such as health, social justice, political stability, and social investment can have an impact on the economy. Wars, politics, culture, ideology, climate, and other factors all play a large role in shaping what the economy looks like. There is almost nothing that does not affect the economy to some extent, whether it be a new discovery, a popular trend, a geopolitical event, etcetera. The question is, what kind of effects can these events have? Which help and which hinder the economy? How can we elegantly intertwine politics, geography, and all other factors with the economy, such that the optimal actions are persued for the good of all?

EDIT2: One other factor could play a key role the value of this new economic idea: convenience. We have limited time, and every bit of time spent on meaningful things in life is important. Additionally, not all of us like having too many choices to choose between. For that reason, I think it would be ideal to have a system of getting meals directly. I dislike the fact that, even with modern-day convenience, the closest thing we have to my ideal system, as far as I am aware, is the company Hello Fresh. Not really a good start.

I dislike Hello Fresh for several reasons, but it will serve as a good comparison to demonstrate how I conceptualize my direct meal system.

First, let's talk about the food served. I don't like the food that Hello Fresh provides. My parents had a subscription to it for a while, and the experience was mediocre at best. The food was not good, in my experience, because it consisted of meals I could not pronounce or recognize, which also tasted strange to me. Additionally, the food was not pre-prepared, thus ruining the point of the service to begin with, in my opinion.

A meal distribution system in Intramutualism would have pre-prepared, cooked food. The food of choice could potentially be selected among a group of popular options, and would be cooked locally. It would likely be more readily available in cities, as it would be easier to distribute food to many in a dense urban environment, but with good logistics it could potentially be a possibility in the country as well. This would save a significant amount of time having to go grocery shopping, preparing food, and cleaning up afterwards. Even with it being more convenient, the quality of food would probably be better anyway, thus one does not need to sacrifice quality for convenience. One can have both. One can additionally have healthy food that also tastes good, thus helping with current health issues. Of course, one could skip the convenience and just buy from the store, but most would likely opt for the convenient option. It would make food distribution more efficient, and if it was good food and people liked it, they may decide to have all of their meals provided the meal distribution system. This removes the need to have an oven or to cook, for the most part, and thus houses can be a bit smaller, less cluttered, and more manageable. It also means far less pantry space would be needed, refrigerators would not need to be as large, the oven, stovetop, and/or microwave may be unneeded, food would spoil less while in storage, and saved time means people could focus their efforts in other places, which inevitably improves the economy, as well as quality of life.

Additionally, services that help with things like home management and organization would be important as well. They have many tangible benefits both personal and economical. For what reason should we think only we alone can manage our lives, even if it is in chaos? Because that is what is expected. It is, however, not necessary, indeed not even desirable, if one wants to be able to manage their life without falling apart. Unlike having a (notably toxic and exploitative) self-help industry, we could have an industry that specializes on actually helping people improve their daily lives by relaying tangible life skills that are proven to be helpful and organizing and/or reorganizing everything from someone's house to someone's computer files, and all in between. This means helping people with skills they need for day-to-day life to make it easier, thus freeing up time and improving things economically and personally. Things like these can't currently be pursued with plain capitalism because capitalism asks for an immediate monetary reward. Intramutualism has a specific focus how things effect the economy as a whole. It is more based on systems science. As such, things that don't net capital but do improve the economy as a whole will be pursued, thus it is unlikely to put profit over people and the overall economy. Also, upwards mobility is baked into the system.

This means that if a company is more efficiently contributing to society than some other company, that company is incentivised to hire those that are working in less efficient jobs. Because workers would be paid a majority percentage of the value their work, more efficient work means a higher paying job. In both cases, incentives select for greater efficiency/effectiveness along with increasing wages. Also, bringing a worker from a higher efficiency job to a lower efficiency job would likely carry a penalty, and it would also pay a lower wage, so lowering wages would be selected against. Importantly, it would actively bring people from low-productivity jobs into high-productivity jobs. This is like the free hand of the market, except instead of only balancing supply and demand (to some extent) , it would also select for increasing efficiency and increasing wages.

I think the best first-use of Intramutualism as a system would be to manage allocation of government spending. It almost seems like the perfect tool for that specific application.

Hope you like the idea. Feel free to try poking holes in it, provide your opinion on it, improve upon it, tell me what potential you see in it, whatever. I'm always glad to get feedback. Thanks.

EDIT3: I realized that one of the best ways to implement effective incentives would be to restrict pay for the owner of a company to two things: The value of their own work, plus a compensation for each worker based on the efficiency of that worker contributing to society. If the worker more efficiently contributes to society in the role provided by the company than the worker would get paid more, and the owner would get a bonus proportional to the efficiency increase over their previous position, along with other factors like work satisfaction and quality of life for workers. This would incentivize owners to find employees from low-paying jobs and bring them into high-paying jobs (if the employee is able to gain the skills necessary), thus significantly mitigating income inequality. It would increase incentives to provide effective training and generally serve as a mechanism to increase upward mobility.

Intramutualism was the name I chose for this economic idea because the economic idea was based on focusing inwardly on the intricate structures and mechanisms that build an economy (Intra) and that the structures should be made mutually beneficial (mutual). Also, mutualism is a natural relationship where all parties involved mutually benefit, which seemed like a fitting description of what I am trying to create here.

Even with an economy reliant on supply and demand (capitalism), these structures and mechanisms would still make it good enough for my liking, as they would create the right kind of competition: companies would compete for how much they can grow the wages of their workers, instead of maximizing profits and minimizing the amount paid to workers. It would flip the current tactics used on their head, creating a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom, as far as workers wages are concerned.

It would do to capitalism what capitalism did to feudalism: increase productivity, promote competition that favors workers, increase fairness, and increase freedom. With our modern capabilities and massive world population, the amount of productivity unleashed would be orders of magnitude greater than what was unleashed when we switched from feudalism to capitalism, which sparked the industrial revolution.

We haven't completely made the shift away from feudalism, as some if it has remained imbedded within capitalism for all these years. Let's finally go all the way and finish the task, removing the toxic tendencies of feudalism from society for good. Only for lack of imagination are we still in the place we are now.

EDIT4: Restricting pay for the owner of a company to the value of their own work along with a compensation for each worker based on the difference in efficiency of that worker contributing to society (and thus wages, as wages are correlated to efficiency in Intramutualism) within the company in comparison to their previous role would act as a ratchet mechanism to ensure that wages don't drop, thus preventing employers from lowering wages and increasing pressures on employers to have higher productivity-per-person. If a business cannot increase their productivity (which the worker's salary tracks) then the business fails, because a higher paying company will just hire all their workers, leaving them with none. Because of how the owners pay would be determined, then, the compensation per person would mean that a business owner would try to hire as many employees as possible from lower productivity areas, so they would have every incentive to scale their business massively, to the benefit of their future employees, who would then have higher wages and standard of living. The incentives also mean that the owner themselves would try to contribute more to the company.

After all, the seeds of capitalism were planted when, after the black death wiped out massive amounts of people (im pretty sure this was the cause of the reduction of population, if I remember right) there were too few workers (serfs), so the need for workers increased. Because of that, the vassels (subordinates of the nobles) started competing for labor. Because of that, some vassels started offering rewards for labor, and soon, bigger and bigger rewards were offered from competing vassels. Because they were valued so much, the serfs gained much more rewards for work and freedom to choose their jobs, which evolved into capitalism (there was money at the time, but it was held mainly by the vassels, who sold the product made by the serfs. However, with the competition between vassels, they started paying their workers. Because higher productivity/efficiency meant vassels could pay serfs more for the amount of work they did, and competition for serfs was fierce, efficiency was improved significantly. This is how capitalism happened. Nobody planned it, it was just what logically happened. In fact, I see the idea of non-compete agreements (where an employee is not allowed to quit and work somewhere else for an allotted time) as reminiscent of feudalism, as in feudalism you are bound to a single company with no freedom to switch jobs. Anyway, the idea I showed you in quotes is a proposed way to make what happened during capitalism happened at an even bigger, more complete extent. It would pressure the owners of companies to increase performance per person, compete vigorously for employees, and would make owners of companies focus on finding lower-paid workers to hire them for high-paid positions. It would make the owners very focused on how much they raise the wages of each worker they hire. Thus, the most sought-after workers would be the people in society who are the most desperate for money. That makes it a virtuous cycle that reduces poverty reliably as a feature of the system. It prevents the 'race to the bottom' with wages and makes it a race to the top. It uses the natural competition in capitalism to weed out inefficient businesses. The thing is, with our current system of capitalism, the owner of a business can just lower wages to increase profits.. kind of a conflict of interest. It also hurts the economy as a whole because people making less money spend less money, meaning someone somewhere else makes less money as well because they can't sell expensive things to poor people. So.. yeah. It basically fixes all the problems with our current economic system by ensuring that everyone's time is valued equally (relatively. Experts in some fields will still probably get paid more because they produce more value on average).

Of course, the bonus for the owner relative to the wage and efficiency increase per employee in the company over their prior wage and efficiency would slowly taper off. That means that the owner would need to find ways to further increase efficiency, in order to increase wages and thus his bonus received. How slowly the bonus tapers off, and how much it would be to begin with, would be determined by factors like motivation for the owner and how resources can be most efficiently allocated. How much the bonus should be is not yet determined. Too little and the owner has no motivation, too much and the owner will be satisfied with small, marginal improvements and will not seek larger-scale improvements. The same is true for how quickly it should taper off. Too quickly, and the owner will be discouraged. Too slowly, and there won't be enough pressure to further increase efficiency or wages. Once the ideal balance is found, if Intramutualism ever comes to fruition, it could foster a new and unprecedented era of progress. After all, what happened when capitalism came into being? Unprecedented growth and progress. Would people who lived prior to capitalism have ever expected the outcome it resulted in? Not a chance. The same is true for Intramutualism. The transition from capitalism to Intramutualism would be unlike anything ever seen before. Considering the technology we now have, and the economy we have as a starting point, a transition from capitalism to Intramutualism would bring more economic prosperity than has ever been achieved. Ever. Also, like is common with the future, the end results would be far beyond what our imagination can conjure in current times. Capitalism had evolved out of systems reliant on force to get enough food for lords. Essentially, a protection racket run by lords that extorted labor out of the serfs to feed the lords. With how far the economy has gone from that stage, one must wonder. How much further can it go? Why not push the limits, question the boundaries, and set the stage for a future of progress and prosperity? Why should all our laws of economics be based on passive observation when we can make new ones, designed instead to shape the future of the economy in a way that is more suitable for humanity rather than solely shaping society to suit the economy? Why do we lack a fundamental creativity to go beyond what already exists?

UPDATE: I may have not gotten any sleep tonight, I may have spent over five hours on a single drawing, but every single minute of it was worth it! I finally managed to create a drawing that intuitively conveys how Intramutualism works as a system. The drawing is everything I dreamed it would be!


Important context for exactly how wages would be distributed by the funds distribution institution lies in what I said earlier. The method is... [continues in quote]

I also further elaborated on that topic as well in some of the edits I made earlier in this post, so if you haven't read through it yet that's where further details can be found. Thanks for checking it out, I put a lot of work into it. I also might be going nocturnal because I stayed up so late, so that's cool. Tell me what you think of the system based on the picture I drew. Thanks, and good night.. or morning, I guess.



EDIT5: Intramutualism entirely removes the necessity for unions that arises within Capitalism by providing incentives for businesses to increase wages and reassigning the role of wage distribution so that it is no longer in the hands of someone with a conflict-of-interest. This removes some inherent problems with capitalism without workers needing to resort to collective action, which is not really something workers enjoy having to do.

It also replaces competition with reciprocity as the main mantra of the market, which is, in my view, a good thing given that competition is not as valuable as some may assume, and can definitely have ill effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_(economics)#Criticism). Reciprocity, however, doesn't have the ill effects that competition can have, like the trend towards zero-sum thinking, or the "if I don't do [insert bad business practice here] someone else will" line of thinking. Mutually beneficial relationships are a very useful way of structuring society, and for self-evident reasons that would not take long to make themselves noticed.

In any competition, the main beneficiary is the winner, not society, except occasionally by indirect effects. In a reciprocal relationship, society is always the beneficiary, because the fabric of society is always healthier when there are more mutually beneficial relationships.

Anyway, the competition will still be there, but it will be a competition over which companies can offer the most to their employees and society, which is itself beneficial to society and will in itself increase economic efficiency significantly more than the current method of macro-scale zero-sum competition pitting large companies against each other in a relentless fight to the death - may the more ruthless of the two win.

Also, while capitalism is focused on producing and selling more material goods, Intramutualism is focused on doing more with less by providing the incentive to reduce or entirely eliminate any burdens on society that can be eliminated, and to actively select against introducing any burdens that cannot be justified by an improvement that is greater than the impact of the imposed burden in question. In this sense, Intramutualism has the potential to remove a significant amount of unnecessary things in our lives that capitalism as a system will never be incentivised to remove, but would rather cling on to forever because imposing burdens happens to be profitable.

For example, in capitalism the optimal company strategy is, when only chasing profits, (a common practice) to pump out and sell as much product as possible for profit, and at as high of a margin as possible, whether or not said product is actually necessary or even helpful at all. This means that there will always be unneeded things that people are either too afraid to get rid of after purchasing, that which they do dispose of, which causes more waste, or that which harms them and their economic livelihoods. These are all bad outcomes and are insufficiently addressed within the current system. Additionally, while capitalism may incentivise efficiency of production, it does not prioritize efficiency of everyday life, which is something that has become more and more difficult to manage over time, as unnecessary complexity increases within our lives.

In Intramutualism, a company would be focused on reducing the amount of product necessary to perform a function, not adding unnecessary features to justify the high price of a given product, since the company is incentivised based on the amount of value it adds to the economy as a whole minus the amount of value it takes away from the economy as a whole, be it raw materials, labor, infrastructure, and/or society's valuable time. It is like any other rational economic system in that it tries to minimize the value of the input and maximize the value of the output, as a good economic model will do. This input-output relationship is, however, applied to the economy as a whole, including to the lives of the people within said economy, meaning designing things to reduce or remove regular day-to-day and commonly performed domestic tasks, or to streamline those tasks and have efficient specialists who do them for large numbers of individuals, saving a significant amount of time. Value and thus incentives are determined by the benefits provided to the economy, society, and individuals. As there is a focus on improving the economy more directly by increasing the efficiency of domestic life, this means making houses that are easier to manage and maintain, designing communities to be easy to access for efficient logistics, and finding ways to reduce as much time spent in people's personal lives spent on domestic work as possible. By making domestic life more efficient and thus increasing the amount of leisure time people have, people can still have a good work-life balance even if they work longer hours, as less of their free time is spent doing menial tasks, and they likely will not work longer hours if they feel like it is too much of a burden, which will overall increase worker engagement when they are working. This improves the economy. It also improves well-being as people are able to spend more quality time with family and friends or on a hobby. Quality time with family increases the quality of parenting and thus the quality of the future workforce and thus the future economy. Hobbies can develop into full-scale community-sponsored projects if they show sufficient potential to benefit the community and overall economy. Additionally, more free time makes life more enjoyable, so people enjoy themselves more, improving well-being, which is what the economy should prioritize anyway.

The plan and strategy behind Intramutualism is to design a system that takes rational economic logic to its limits by creating a system that is, from an economic perspective, is as logical, practical, equitable, sustainable, ethical, and sensible as possibly obtainable within my cognitive ability. However, the most important part of my philosophy is in understanding that there is no perfect or entirely complete system, and, informed by that knowledge, that an economic system design should always be improving. If you look at my first post versus my more recent posts you may be able to appreciate how much the system has developed over time, and it's still not entirely complete. It never will be, just like capitalism has never been entirely complete. The difference between these is that capitalism is commonly accepted as complete, while Intramutualism does not try to hide its incomplete nature.

Intramutualism, in its most basic sense, is a creative exercise in the art of economics. It was created with the goal in mind of designing an optimal economically progressive system that is more compatible with the economic system and ideological views of the country I live in, the United States, than alternates like socialism, as I have ambitious goals of widespread adoption of a better system, and I don't care for political or ideological goals getting in the way of actual progress that seeks to benefit all those involved. I personally want to see economic progress in my own country, and were this to gain ground and become proven, other countries may adopt similar economic practices, to the benefit of all. It is sad to see the trend of accumulation by dispossession and concentration of wealth become the only things one can truly rely on for their future. A new trajectory must be taken to achieve actual progress in a country built on regressive economic policies.


Also, I wrote a poem when I was daydreaming about this economic system, which became a work of art in its own right, so enjoy!



Also, I came up with an economic concept inspired by Intramutualism, which is community design. It consistes of the concept of designing a city, town, or village with the goal of forming a community in mind, for several purposes:

Efficiency, as some things can be shared among multiple people instead of requiring each person to own one, costing less per person. Additionally, things that tend to take up a significant amount of space, like a kitchen, can be shared among multiple people, significantly reducing the amount of space needed for housing.

Social well-being, as people have more close social connections within a community. This reduces mental health problems and thus also the need for treatment of them.

Civil society, improves social cohesion and keeps the government in check by simply existing. Since people can easily communicate with each other they are far more aware of the world around them than any single person could be, and with strength in numbers can do far more about problems in the world around them, from addressing government overreach to fixing large problems.

Convenience, as it is easier to live in an area designed for people, and, especially if trust is built and maintained within the community, tasks can be delegated within the community to work together much more efficiently.

Scalability, as small communities with shared resources can be a part of a larger community of communities. The collective community can then provide larger and more investment-heavy things that only make sense when shared among a larger group of people. This would include hospitals, schools, potentially amusement parks, grocery stores, daycare centers, public transit, large scale industy, and much more.

This idea is, however, not intended to be entirely separate from Intramutualism, but simply another part of it, which will help set the theme in the future. Just as capitalism has a theme of entrepreneurship, innovation, and opportunism, socialism has a theme of workers rights, social ownership, and so on, and communism has a theme of political suppression, collective ownership, authoritarian government, and heavy industry, Intramutualism will have its own theme. What that theme is must be cautiously considered, because one must be careful to not repeat any of the mistakes of the past. People often act in the way they are expected to act without being entirely aware of it. When the norm is to be a terrible person, not much good will be accomplished (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_confirmation). I want a theme of innovation, social production, sharing of resources (especially intellectual resources), compounding benefits, reciprocity, creativity, and practical solutions.

Also, I think children should play a larger role from a younger age, at least those that want to. This is inspired by my own childhood. From a young age, I was keenly aware that I was but a burden to society in my current state, and that made me feel less motivated and more unhappy. It also made me feel guilty due to the fact that I was not contributing as much value as I was taking away. It also made me fear a future where I had to work to survive, because I was not accustomed to it.

Needless to say, my childhood was far better than the child exploitation I could have experienced were child labor laws not in place, but what if children could contribute to society without exploitation? I think school is inadequate to prepare children for the future or motivate them, in part because kids know that the work they do at school does not (directly) add value. If they, like all other human beings, have a drive to accomplish things, why should we pretend that they don't? Especially within the framework of Intramutualism, which is far less exploitative (at least in ways that are harmful), they could do things that they know are beneficial to society, thus improving self-esteem and introducing valuable life skills to them at a time when they are the most receptive to said skills. They could become far more independent and capable under such circumstances, and would be far better prepared for their future. Also, children have some significant intellectual advantages over adults in some areas that adults don't tend to notice, possibly because as adults we're prejudiced in our own favor and do not see as much value in those we see as smaller, less developed humans. That is not the right mindset to have. After all, slavery was perpetuated with a similar mindset. Is it possible we have done the same to children, on a smaller scale, in our current era, without even noticing?

EDIT6: Because understanding Intramutualism relied on the ability to correctly conceptualize the system based on what I've wrote, I have decided to make explicit things that were previously only implied, and to give a better picture of what it is and how it works. I also include some aspects that I haven't mentioned previously at all. This is how it works..

The Tactics of Intramutualism:

Interest Alignment - Resolving conflicts of interest, generally by the use, modification, and management of incentives so interests align throughout the economy. This includes having specific incentive structures for specific industries in order to provide the optimal outcome. It also includes preemptively setting incentive structures in emerging industries to prevent any social or economic harm. Additionally, it includes investigating and analyzing industries to provide details on how incentive structures can best be designed for specific industries.

Mutual Compatibility - Providing incentives to businesses to make products compatible with products made by other businesses. Products, especially in the technology sector, can have their functionality greatly increased if said products are mutually compatible. This has a much more usable end result than what happens when businesses wage format wars, a frequent occurrence in unmodified and unrestrained capitalism.

Industry Collaboration - Allows for division of labor, but on the company scale rather than the human scale, so multiple companies can allocate specific tasks to individual specialized companies, thus reducing complexity of all companies that can outsource a specific part of operations to a company specializing in that field, improving economics of scale and increasing the ease at which businesses can be run. This already happens to some extent within capitalism, but by removing barriers to collaboration the full efficiency-improving potential of this practice can be realized.

Information Sharing - If businesses can share information with each other freely, especially information about things like their production and management techniques which other businesses can make good use of, without running the risk of being outcompeted (and especially if there are incentives to provide such information that would help improve the businesses of others) businesses would become far more well-run, sophisticated, advanced, productive, and beneficial to the overall economy.

Incentivizing Value-Adding Behavior - Compensating workers and business owners based on the amount of value they add to society. This is showcased in how owners and workers would get paid:
As owners would mainly get paid based on how much they raise the productivity of a worker within the economy, and because workers are paid based on how productive they are, both are incentivised to add value to the economy in the form of increased productivity. This tactic also includes removing incentives for activities which do not add value to the economy or society, which currently exists under capitalism. This includes things like rent seeking and other economically harmful activities. Any behavior which does not add value to the economy would be disincentivised, but anything that does add value to the economy, directly or indirectly, so long as it is measurable, would be rewarded.

Domestic Efficiency - Increasing efficiency of domestic chores and day-to-day life. By freeing up time from domestic duties, there is more spare time which can be used for recreational and/or economically valuable activities. As such, there would be strong incentives for Industry to create solutions that would make daily life more manageable, less stressful, and more enjoyable overall.

That's it for now. If you think of another economic tactic that would complement these, or if you have an opinion or question or general idea, you can bring it up in the comments. It's always fun to consider new ideas and perspectives on things.