Can a point system function as a transition?

Hi, I’ve been making a points-based moneyless system since 2015 in preparation for a global stagflation that was supposed to start in 2019.

That stagflation started a bit late after Covid. But better late than never.

Thanks to the stagflation we can now test how the moneyless system works in a real crisis.

The implementation of the first part of the system has 4 phases. I successfully tested phase 1 last month and will try to test phase 2 next month (August).

Phase 2 begins as either a food rescue or plastic waste recycling platform that converts work done into points.

The details are here: https://pantrypoints.com

I am looking for anyone currently in Metro Manila, Philippines, or Ho chi Minh City or Hanoi Vietnam, as I am in Manila and have a volunteer in the latter.

3 Likes

Hi, welcome to the forum! Sounds like a cool project, please do keep us informed of your progress in #activism:reports :tada:

I do wonder though, you call it a moneyless system. However, this system is based on points (credit) which can be used to exchange goods and services, right? Isn’t that just money? Which may come with the same incentive that leads to corruption, inequality and conflict? This new form of economy also doesn’t connect with natural resources, right? So in terms of global warming, ecological and biodiversity decline and pollution there isn’t an incentive to preserve more.

To be honest, I haven’t read the full website. Just skimmed the first page, so I might be bringing up something you already explained. Sorry about that.

Can you also tell a bit more about phase 1? What did you exactly test and how?

The points points are not currency. They are just records of exchange agreements.

They represent a relativistic objectification of subjective effort or toil, trouble, stress, difficulty, and wear & tear on the human mind body and feelings from producing goods and services in a society.

The system is based on Adam Smith's labor theory of value which I overhaul as the Effort Theory of Value. I explain here: The Effort Theory of Value | Superphysics

I expand his theory of value as the 4 laws of value which mirror the 4 laws of thermodynamics.

The 4 laws manifest as 4 point types which can be implemented in 4 phases: loyalty points, social points, trade points, and investment points. I explain here: The Four Laws of Value and Four Kinds of Prices | Superphysics

Loyalty points are rewards given for frequent purchases. For example, you get 0.1 points at a fastfood for each purchase of a burger. You get a free burger when you reach 1 point. This keeps you in that fastfood and away from rival fastfoods.

This creates a points economy as a check or rival to the money system.

I test the loyalty points at 2 restaurants for them to get more customers while keeping their current ones.

I test the social points for food rescue by connecting the restaurant directly with the vegetable dealer

I will test trade points by connecting the restaurant and dealer with the vegetable farmer

The points thus brings back Classical Economics as a rival or check against Neoclassical Economics.

The current stagflation is the best opportunity to prove that Classical Economics was correct and the Marginal Revolution (as well as Marshall, Keynes, and Samuelson) was wrong

1 Like

Sounds like you’ve given it much thought, so I won’t judge too quickly. I’ll read your articles in the near future when I have some more time. I’m still a bit skeptical, because it does sound the same as we have now, but just rehashed to some degree and hoping for a different outcome.

You are familiar with the TZM train of thought and a resource based economy? How would you compare your idea with that? Do you see it as some sort of transitional model or a total different direction?

1 Like

Every theoretical aspect has been sorted out.

Only the step by step implementation is needed, since there are many tiny gaps that can only be filled by actual experience.

That’s why I am looking for people in Vietnam or the Philippines.

The Resource based Economy is still flawed because it’s based on physical resources. It’s the same error that Neoclassical Economics makes by basing the economy on physical money.

Their error comes from them being ignorant of metaphysics.

I explain here: The Resource Based Economy | Superphysics

The points system is based on Adam Smith which uses the metaphysics of David Hume. This mirrors the metaphysics of Socrates and Parmenides and is faithful to the original Economist by Xenophon.

It is based on the common feeling of wanting to live, and not on arbitrary pleasure or pain. The points system will only fail when society stops existing, such as when a whole country is swallowed by a tsunami or crushed by an asteroid.

It focuses on common interest instead of self-interest. The points transactions reveals the relative feelings of each person in society, revealing the mentality of the metaphysical society-organism (soul of society, as explained by Socrates).

I explain the society organism here: What is the Society Organism and Social Networkism? | Superphysics

The map of the mentality of the society organism will then lead to artificial sentience which will manage the points in real time. I explain here: superphysics org /superphysics/ solutions/ isaiah

Aritificial Sentience does not need to eat and so the system will not be corrupt or egotistic like a human government. This will make it the proper base for a new system of government (since it already will master the economy beforehand).

That new system will have a fourth branch of govenrment as the Resources branch to check the Executive, Legislative. I explain here: superphysics org/social/supersociology/principles/fourth-branch

Afterwards, crises will be obsolete since artificial sentience can prevent crisis from forming in the first place

Psychological health for sure is taken into the economic calculation of a resource based economy. But metaphysics, not sure what you mean by that. By my standards that usually doesn’t use the burden of proof and acts and judges based on a feeling. Which is not really an objective and advanced method of arriving at decisions, especially if they are hard decisions. Empirical evidence which is reproducible may lead more likely to general consensus, also for hard decisions. Hence we advocate the scientific method.

Physical money or digital money, or some other abstraction for credit is something totally different than actually mapping out your planetary resources and their regenerative properties. With that information you can make decisions on what you actually have. This is also how space colonization is approached in capitalist/socialist/communist systems. And it makes sense. What you actual will need to survive and preserve a standard of living are resources.


But it’s good to have someone on board that went through the material and has a different conclusion and plan. We can always use critical thought, otherwise we have the risk of growing inside our own bubble.

1 Like

The points system doesnt actually care about physical resources.

Instead, it focuses on the changing perceptions of individual human minds on the value or utility of those resources. It is not a slave of matter or physicality.

This is because it believes that mentality creates reality as explained by David Hume and Socrates (Plato) and metaphysicians. Hum’s empiricism is based or controlled by the feeling of the self (ego).

If you understand the flow of feelings (Tao or Dharma) then you can predict the change of reality.

This is how my model correctly predicted the current stagflation and why we have an anti-inflation prototype in time for the current inflation: superphysics org/social/supersociology/precrisis-years

I have used it to predict outcomes of football games and presidential elections.

The laboratory is reality itself. The crisis happening as predicted is proof that reality works or is created in a specific way.

This is opposite of the money system and the resource based economy which are totally dependent on physicality and are slaves to matter. This is the thinking of Aristotle and scientists.

To metaphyscians, whatever is behind a wall is a cloud of probability that collapses into matter at the instant you look at it or hear it or touch it.

In an economy, this happens whenever someone asks you: How much for your product or service?

Its value-cloud actually collapses into a material price the moment your feelings assign it an obective number.

The points system focuses on that collapse-trend relative to other collapse-trends. I explain here: superphysics org/social/supersociology/principles/collective-wave-of-desire

This is similar to General Relativity ignoring the properties of the Earth and Sun individually, and instead focusing on the relative spacetime in between them to predict where they will end up

The idea is to automate the whole thing so the system can continue even if no one does the long research that I did on the history and nature of human thought both in Asia and the West (usually people just study Western thought even if Asia already discovered how reality works much earlier)

There is a lot you say here I cannot agree with, would be awesome to still somehow find a common ground. #automation is one thing, but using metaphysics to arrive at decisions and using a credit system that’s not related to what we actually have here on this planet, i.e. our resources… That kinda makes it hard :nerd_face: For now I’ll just spectate in this thread. I wonder what other people think of this.

We have already been using it for 1 month so it already works, primarily for food service by creating a moneyless circular economy from farmer to trader to restaurant to restaurant diner (which can invest in the farmer to close the circle. That will be done by the investment points which is the last phase)

A clinic is interested to try it out so that patients who have no money can still get consultation or even basic medicines.

Asia has a strong sense of community and common interest, so it works well here.

It probably wont work so easily in the West which emphasizes self-interest so I totally understand your scepticism. This wall of self-interest necessitates the use of a medium of money to bridge those walls.

TZM seems to blame money instead of the walls of self interest which then creates the need for money in the first place. It then tries to break down all walls to create a free economy without any realistic way to bridge supply and demand (like a town without any streets or paved paths, leading to zero flow)

But not all users here are Westerners and so there is a probability of a non-Westerner understanding a points based system

I am looking for volunteers in Vietnam or the Philippines or Malaysia to test it for other parts of the economy, such as for language exchange, moneyless import and export, etc.

The end goal is to test a moneyless free trade system as envisioned by Adam Smith when the US dollar fluctuates because of the coming US recession which will be a long one

I know I sound like “that guy” now. But European countries score quite high when it comes to having equal and happy societies. So I find your conclusions a bit harsh, especially with the information you base the conclusions on. But I totally don’t want to start a West versus East discussion, we’re all in the same boat here, regardless what our compass says. Also, we’re quite international and advocate #open-source collaboration and for sure value the benefits of community.

TZM identifies a structural problem, where indeed monetary economics and any other market/credit exchange based system plays a part. This structural identification is done pretty well as well as the proposed structural solution. More info can be found in the links already shared. I don’t really agree with your conclusions about our movement, I don’t identify TZM with it. Also supply and demand is a technical problem, TZM goes into great detail how such a problem could be approached.

Anyway, I just wanted to set the record straight about that. Please do keep us informed of your progress and experiences. Because if it works and allows us to outgrow our currently outdated system, then of course it’s interesting, even though I’m skeptical :nerd_face:

1 Like

I have many disagreements with what Juan Dalisay Jr. said, but what is certain is that the word “Moneyless” is incorrect to define the system he proposes, and therefore the title of the thread is misleading.

The answer to that question has been dodged by Juan Dalisay Jr. The answer is listed on the Pantrypoints site:

Pantrypoints

Points perform the function of money.

I think the thread title should be changed as it works like a clickbait, regardless of whether that was the original intention or not.

2 Likes

Update: I have changed the title of the thread, due to what I explained in my previous comment.
Previous title: “Moneyless System Phase 2”
Current title: “Can a point system function as a transition?”

1 Like

Ah I forgot to update that part.

Back in 2015 it was supposed to allow both moneyless and money payments because by having points and a payment gateway.

This is similar to some ecommerce sites letting you choose between cash, credit, or crypto.

By 2020, I found it very difficult to maintain both a payment gateway and a points system so I removed the money system totally.

I explain here: Name change and site upgrade: SORA is now the Pantrypoints! - Pantrypoints

So it’s still a moneyless as a local or national system.

Only its world trade aspect uses currency via pool clearing where the member countries act as one country An import-export platform that allows local currency or barter - Pantrypoints

But that world trade system is the last plarform to go online after maybe 2030

Can you please respect my Post and keep it the way it is?

The points system is not a transition. It’s the final solution because it builds fellow-feeling (common interest) instead of selfinterest

It’s not an instant solution but something that will take 400 years to fully replace the money system by slowly invading its market, just as the money system took 400 years from 1600s (East India Company and colonization) up to the 2008 Financial Crisis to invade national economies

Hi @jundalisay, it was actually a community decision to change the title. We don’t really see this as a moneyless solution, since it still uses a credit exchange system. By our definition, that’s very similar to a monetary system and most likely won’t outgrow the problems we face globally today. That’s why we changed the title to manage expectations within this community. If you have other suggestions for the title then please feel free to suggest something. But the previous title seemed a bit too good to be true :slight_smile:

I already said the points are not money but just a record of productivity. They are similar to the Take Tags of the Moneyless Society.

An example is a mother cooking omellette for her son for free. The system records the event in points so all the effort of the mother in raising her son is recorded. This lets it be compared to the husband's contribution and even to other mothers caring for their sons. The best mother can then be rewarded and negligent mothers corrected.

The son has no legal obligation to pay back the points. Instead he has a moral obligation that correlates to his fellow feeling (love) for his mother.

This is opppsite of the money system that carries a legal obligation since money is a legal tender.

The points are not legal tender and not currency therefore not money and represents no physical object. It represents a productivity event where the metaphysical effort or feeling is objectified and not any physical thing

Your confusion arises from you not knowing metaphysics and the difference between a person's feelings and a society's feelings. Those are 2 different entities. The points system traces and maps the feelings of the society-entity to predict where it is headed.

The concept of a society-entity is from Socrates. The concept of mappable feelings is from Spinoza. Hume then emphasized the feelings instead of reason or rationality. Smith then developed it as a sympathy based moral system in Theory of Moral Sentiments (Feelings) which is the foundation of his later The Wealth of Nations

This confusion is why I realized the system will have a very slow adoption because no one knows the concept of common interest and only knows self interest