Neoliberalism has quite a few policies and heuristics that have been in play for more than 40 years. We need a new manifesto, a new framework. Here's my current proposal. Here's my (current) proposal!
Great manifesto. My team at Common Planet call this new alternative system Creditism and it aligns perfectly with the vision you’ve outlined for a post-labor economy. Creditism delivers on these ideas by promoting a sustainable, cooperative framework that values mutual benefit and shared resources. I think you’d find it an exciting and complementary model, check it out at Common-Planet.org
I appreciate that this framework emphasizes a decentralized economy that promotes community empowerment and economic agency. Community ownership can make a lot of sense.
However, I’m concerned that the framework is reductive in missing the elements that make life genuinely meaningful—such as love, spirituality, and culture. While community ownership can indeed support these values, other parts of the framework, such as the idea of ‘transforming citizens into consumers,’ verge on a dystopian view of society. Additionally, I see no reference to the U.S. Constitution as a foundation for balancing individual rights with collective responsibilities.
Engaging in regenerative economic work shows how, even with decentralization, focusing solely on economic metrics often falls short in building communities where people experience a true sense of belonging and purpose. I hope that aspects of this manifesto could be humbled and reconsidered.
Love, spirituality, and culture are outside the purview of government. What economic regulations would you want to see? The government should not legislate these things. You know what it looks like when the government legislates love, spirituality and culture?
I do not understand your basis for reducing my comments to be solely about government and then channeling that false presumption into a horrific comparison.
I take your framework seriously and am raising informed concerns about what it includes and what it does not. Your writing here is not just about the federal government; it's also about society as a whole, including our communities and roles as citizens. I support community ownership as a starting point, but communities are also about families, neighborhoods, schools, community centers, houses of worship, public squares, etc.
Public policy and public citizenship play impactful roles in these domains, as do our underlying values.
Mike, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the framework and your commitment to holistic community wellbeing. Let me clarify an important distinction: Post-Labor Economics (PLE) is specifically focused on economic policy and market structures, much like how monetary policy focuses specifically on money supply and interest rates. This targeted scope is intentional and necessary.
The aspects you mention - love, spirituality, culture, and community belonging - are absolutely vital to human flourishing. However, they thrive best when they develop organically through voluntary civil society rather than through economic or government policy. History shows that when governments attempt to legislate or regulate these deeply personal aspects of life, it typically leads to unintended negative consequences and reduces individual liberty.
PLE actually creates more space for cultural and spiritual expression by increasing individual economic agency and time sovereignty. When people have greater economic security and more control over their time, they're better able to engage in community building, cultural activities, and spiritual pursuits of their choosing.
The framework's emphasis on subsidiarity and local decision-making specifically empowers communities to shape their economic environment in ways that align with their values, while respecting the diversity of beliefs and practices that make up our society.
What specific economic policies would you suggest to better support community wellbeing while maintaining clear boundaries between economic regulation and personal/cultural freedom?
If I understand this manifesto right, it's still a competitive market based economy (I called it neoliberalism 2.0 in my other comment). And as such I'd like to support your comment with a piece by Sam Bowles:
"Markets not only allocate resources and distribute income; they also shape our culture, foster or thwart desirable forms of human development, and support a welldefined structure of power. Markets are as much political and cultural institutions as they are economic. For this reason, the standard efficiency analysis is insufficient to tell us when and where markets should allocate goods and services and where other institutions should be used. Even if market allocations did yield [economically efficient] results, and even if the resulting income distribution was thought to be fair (two very big “ifs”), the market would still fail if it supported an undemocratic structure of power or if it rewarded greed, opportunism, political passivity, and indifference toward others. The central idea here is that our evaluation of markets and with it the concept of market failure-must be expanded to include the effects of markets on both the structure of power and the process of human development .... As anthropologists have long stressed, how we regulate our exchanges and coordinate our disparate economic activities influences what kind of people we become. Markets may be considered to be social settings that foster specific types of personal development and penalize others. The beauty of the market, some would say, is precisely this: It works well even if people are indifferent toward one another. And it does not require complex communication or even trust among its participants. But that is also the problem. The economy—its markets, workplaces and other sites— is a gigantic school. Its rewards encourage the development of particular skills and attitudes while other potentials lay fallow or atrophy. We learn to function in these environments, and in so doing become someone we might not have become in a different setting. By economizing on valuable traits—feelings of solidarity with others, the ability to empathize, the capacity for complex communication and collective decision-making, for example—markets are said to cope with the scarcity of these worthy traits. But in the long run markets contribute to their erosion and even disappearance. What looks like a hardheaded adaptation to the infirmity of human nature may in fact be part of the problem."
However, II cannot resist describing this as neoliberalism 2.0 that builds on the same elite tactic of incremental positive change that gives the working class an illusion of a change while the economic injustice continues to exist. I'm curious what if you agree that we're in a feudal capitalism phase already.
I looking forward to a future piece on Parecon and the proposal made by Michael Albert.
I find all of this very interesting but, what I still don't understand is how you or others woyld deal with preserving and AGI cleaning up and expanding the health of the biosphere. Is it that you really believe scientists will solve all of it and build a REGENERATIVE resourse economy?
Thanks Ingo! You're absolutely right about systems theory being a key foundation here. My framework draws heavily from complex adaptive systems research, particularly concepts like emergence, feedback loops, and network effects.
The theoretical grounding comes from three main sources:
1. Historical pattern analysis: Looking at how economic systems have evolved from feudalism through industrial capitalism to neoliberalism, there's a clear pattern of power concentration followed by systemic instability. This maps perfectly to systems theory's concepts of attractor states and phase transitions.
2. Market efficiency theory: While neoliberalism correctly identified markets as powerful coordination mechanisms, it missed that information asymmetry and power concentration inevitably create market failures. My principles essentially extend Hayek's knowledge problem arguments to their logical conclusion - true market efficiency requires radical decentralization.
3. Network theory findings about resilience: Research into everything from ecosystems to power grids shows that decentralized networks with high local connectivity are more stable and adaptive than centralized ones. The principles I outlined are basically applying those network resilience findings to economic systems.
Would love to hear your thoughts on these theoretical foundations. Do you see other systems theory concepts that could strengthen or challenge this framework?
We should randomly simulate different economic approaches to find an adequate design, while optimizing for simplicity in the ruleset.
Hayek: he was skeptical of the idea that humans can rationally design complex social systems and I agree. He emphasized traditions as evolved rules to coordinate society. I think this times are gone. We have no time for traditions to naturally emerge. We should rather stress test our potential social structures by random simulation as proposed by Residuality theory.
Network Theory: Networks often exhibit emergent properties that are not predictable from the characteristics of individual nodes. Self-organization refers to the ability of a system to form structures and patterns without external guidance. so, fully agree.
other theories
1. Systems Theory
It might be valuable to explore how the transition between phases can be managed to minimize disruption, drawing on insights from systems theory about smooth phase transitions.
Characteristics of phase transitions include:
- Non-Linearity: Small changes in input can lead to disproportionately large effects on the system.
- Emergence: New properties or behaviors arise that are not predictable from the previous state.
- Critical Thresholds: The system reaches a point where existing structures become unsustainable, necessitating change.
- Attractor States: Systems tend to settle into stable patterns or behaviors, but external or internal pressures can push them into new attractor states.
Taking this into consideration the manifesto should promote a smooth transition to a more adaptable diverse system with quick feedback mechanisms.
And, simpler rules can indeed produce more adaptable and resilient systems.
2. Residuality theory
While derived from systems theory it puts another angle on the support of transparency as a means to create robust economic residues. By ensuring that information is freely available, the system can self-correct and adapt to changing conditions, thus fostering resilience. Automation thus becomes a key residue that ensures continuity and efficiency. By automating routine tasks, the system can shift human labor towards areas requiring adaptability and innovation, thus increasing the overall resilience of the economic system. While Risiduality theory holds interesting insights it‘s meant for static systems inside adaptive systems. We should change the theory incorporate self reference and feedback loops to be applicable to social systems.
I don’t feel like anything ever comes from radical departures like this. We don’t do radical overhauls very often. Change happens incrementally in steps that don’t disrupt the flow. We have to keep the airplane flying while we rebuild it. So I think since automation is coming whether we’re ready or not, we need to pick some clear next steps that would make the biggest difference and not upend the apple cart.
This is why I talk about UBI so much. It improves individual economic agency, decentralizes purchasing power, and keeps people from defaulting on loans and going homeless when a robot takes their job. I’m all for much more change than that, but we have to start somewhere and I think UBI is the best place to start.
Maybe we have a different understanding of what we would consider radical, but a lot of these points seem like massive departures from the way the world currently operates, and taken all together I don't see an easy practical path to potential implementation.
Starting from the top of the list "Push all decisions to the lowest effective level". Where would this even begin? The president of the US giving more power to state governors? State governors giving more power to city mayors? The ideological shift to do this would be immense, and the practical application of shifting responsibilities would be monumental. I don't see how this wouldn't be considered a radical departure, just this one point, much less all the points together. As an ideology or an ideal I think these points make sense, but it seems far from a practical proposal of next best actions that would be implementable at any level.
Benjamin, I need to point out that subsidiarity - the principle of pushing decisions to the lowest effective level - is actually one of the oldest and most established principles of governance we have. It's not a radical proposal; it's been official Catholic social doctrine since 1891, is a fundamental principle of the European Union, underlies American federalism, and drives the success of the Swiss canton system.
In fact, subsidiarity is already practiced successfully across many domains. The mayor of Boston doesn't need to ask the president's permission to fill potholes. School districts make local decisions. Counties handle their own zoning. States set their own laws within federal frameworks. This isn't radical - it's how things already work when they work well.
What's actually radical is how much we've departed from this proven principle in recent decades through increasing centralization. I'm not proposing a massive change - I'm proposing we return to and strengthen an established principle that we know works.
The whole point of Post-Labor Economics is that it builds on existing successful patterns rather than proposing radical changes. These principles are already demonstrated in various places - we just need to recognize and reinforce them systematically rather than letting them erode.
Regarding your TLDR summary, I agree completely 👍 With regards to point 7, Michael Hudson spoke about it multiple times. In short, democracy is what allows oligarchies to emerge and capture institutions and society; what is called in the west as autocratic regime etc in history was actually playing the role of the barrier for emergence of oligarchies. He also referred to debt resets as one of such mechanisms.
This is a wonderfully written, very informative essay! I’m so happy to hear someone else talk about “information asymmetry “. You are definitely a true polymath, brother.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything here at the granular level, but overall, it seems very sensible and reasonable. This is definitely the time to make a new system, so we’ve got to find consensus on what that should look like. This is a great place to start.
Attempted a question - where does sovereignty lie in a democracy; whether sovereign state is the only option; why not a decision not announced though felt as taken by five luminous, is automatically approved!
#4 you're thinking of research. I'm thinking of market information.
#6 a lot of goods aren't consumed as easily as consumer content despite being extremely valuable. System integrators, for example, don't produce any goods, but large chunks of the market wouldn't function without them. There are also markets where scale is very limited without networks of intermediaries. For example, anything targeting SMBs or niche markets through whitelabeled products. You could say they provide services, but if service providers count as acceptable intermediaries, I don't think there are any unacceptable intermediaries.
#6 I know you didn't say to ban them. I shouldn't have used the word "unacceptable". For allowing direction, I'm guessing you're thinking of something blockchain-related. That's the only feasible way I can see to allow direct connections at scale.
#4 that goes back to discouraging acquiring new information. I'm strongly opposed, though secrecy around market information comes with obvious short-term problems. I'd again opt for promoting competition here, maybe even with the government. E.g., the government funds the publication of market information just as they do with academic information.
Re #4: I think we're using "market information" differently. I'm talking about transparency of market-relevant information - prices, terms, ownership, political influence, environmental impact - not trade secrets or R&D. Think SEC disclosure requirements. These don't discourage innovation; they prevent market manipulation through hidden information. The principle is about making markets more efficient by reducing information asymmetry that enables exploitation.
Re #6: You raise good points about valuable intermediaries, but that's not what I'm targeting. System integrators add real value by reducing complexity - they're not pure rent extractors. I'm talking about unnecessary intermediaries that only extract value without adding any. Maybe I should clarify the principle as "Minimize rent-extracting intermediaries" - every layer must justify its value-add against its extraction.
Re #8: The concern about "forcing utilitarianism" misses the mark. This is about preventing moral hazard - ensuring decision-makers can't externalize negative consequences while internalizing benefits. It's about responsibility, not utility maximization.
The key thing is these are directional preferences, not absolute prohibitions. "Minimize" doesn't mean "eliminate," and "align" doesn't mean "perfectly match." These principles are about systematically improving markets, not imposing rigid rules.
Thanks for the thoughtful critique Andy. I actually agree that grand top-down societal redesigns tend to fail - that's precisely why these principles emphasize pushing decisions to the lowest effective level and maintaining distributed power by default.
I think there may be a misunderstanding though - I'm not proposing a sudden systemic overhaul, but rather a framework for incremental reform, much like how neoliberalism was implemented gradually through specific policy changes over decades. The New Deal and neoliberalism both demonstrate that intentional, principled economic restructuring is possible when done carefully.
On your point about middlemen - while markets can eliminate some unnecessary intermediaries, information asymmetries and power concentration often prevent this natural elimination. Look at healthcare, where layers of intermediaries persist despite clearly adding costs without value. Or financial services, where high-frequency traders extract billions through pure arbitrage. These are market failures that require intentional correction.
The key is that these principles can be implemented gradually, tested locally, and adjusted based on results - exactly the kind of incremental reform you're advocating for. Would love to hear your thoughts on which specific principles you think would be most/least feasible to implement incrementally.
Great manifesto. My team at Common Planet call this new alternative system Creditism and it aligns perfectly with the vision you’ve outlined for a post-labor economy. Creditism delivers on these ideas by promoting a sustainable, cooperative framework that values mutual benefit and shared resources. I think you’d find it an exciting and complementary model, check it out at Common-Planet.org
I appreciate that this framework emphasizes a decentralized economy that promotes community empowerment and economic agency. Community ownership can make a lot of sense.
However, I’m concerned that the framework is reductive in missing the elements that make life genuinely meaningful—such as love, spirituality, and culture. While community ownership can indeed support these values, other parts of the framework, such as the idea of ‘transforming citizens into consumers,’ verge on a dystopian view of society. Additionally, I see no reference to the U.S. Constitution as a foundation for balancing individual rights with collective responsibilities.
Engaging in regenerative economic work shows how, even with decentralization, focusing solely on economic metrics often falls short in building communities where people experience a true sense of belonging and purpose. I hope that aspects of this manifesto could be humbled and reconsidered.
Love, spirituality, and culture are outside the purview of government. What economic regulations would you want to see? The government should not legislate these things. You know what it looks like when the government legislates love, spirituality and culture?
ISIS.
I do not understand your basis for reducing my comments to be solely about government and then channeling that false presumption into a horrific comparison.
I take your framework seriously and am raising informed concerns about what it includes and what it does not. Your writing here is not just about the federal government; it's also about society as a whole, including our communities and roles as citizens. I support community ownership as a starting point, but communities are also about families, neighborhoods, schools, community centers, houses of worship, public squares, etc.
Public policy and public citizenship play impactful roles in these domains, as do our underlying values.
Mike, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the framework and your commitment to holistic community wellbeing. Let me clarify an important distinction: Post-Labor Economics (PLE) is specifically focused on economic policy and market structures, much like how monetary policy focuses specifically on money supply and interest rates. This targeted scope is intentional and necessary.
The aspects you mention - love, spirituality, culture, and community belonging - are absolutely vital to human flourishing. However, they thrive best when they develop organically through voluntary civil society rather than through economic or government policy. History shows that when governments attempt to legislate or regulate these deeply personal aspects of life, it typically leads to unintended negative consequences and reduces individual liberty.
PLE actually creates more space for cultural and spiritual expression by increasing individual economic agency and time sovereignty. When people have greater economic security and more control over their time, they're better able to engage in community building, cultural activities, and spiritual pursuits of their choosing.
The framework's emphasis on subsidiarity and local decision-making specifically empowers communities to shape their economic environment in ways that align with their values, while respecting the diversity of beliefs and practices that make up our society.
What specific economic policies would you suggest to better support community wellbeing while maintaining clear boundaries between economic regulation and personal/cultural freedom?
Couldn't agree more!
If I understand this manifesto right, it's still a competitive market based economy (I called it neoliberalism 2.0 in my other comment). And as such I'd like to support your comment with a piece by Sam Bowles:
"Markets not only allocate resources and distribute income; they also shape our culture, foster or thwart desirable forms of human development, and support a welldefined structure of power. Markets are as much political and cultural institutions as they are economic. For this reason, the standard efficiency analysis is insufficient to tell us when and where markets should allocate goods and services and where other institutions should be used. Even if market allocations did yield [economically efficient] results, and even if the resulting income distribution was thought to be fair (two very big “ifs”), the market would still fail if it supported an undemocratic structure of power or if it rewarded greed, opportunism, political passivity, and indifference toward others. The central idea here is that our evaluation of markets and with it the concept of market failure-must be expanded to include the effects of markets on both the structure of power and the process of human development .... As anthropologists have long stressed, how we regulate our exchanges and coordinate our disparate economic activities influences what kind of people we become. Markets may be considered to be social settings that foster specific types of personal development and penalize others. The beauty of the market, some would say, is precisely this: It works well even if people are indifferent toward one another. And it does not require complex communication or even trust among its participants. But that is also the problem. The economy—its markets, workplaces and other sites— is a gigantic school. Its rewards encourage the development of particular skills and attitudes while other potentials lay fallow or atrophy. We learn to function in these environments, and in so doing become someone we might not have become in a different setting. By economizing on valuable traits—feelings of solidarity with others, the ability to empathize, the capacity for complex communication and collective decision-making, for example—markets are said to cope with the scarcity of these worthy traits. But in the long run markets contribute to their erosion and even disappearance. What looks like a hardheaded adaptation to the infirmity of human nature may in fact be part of the problem."
Fantastic article. I never knew the definition of neo-liberalism until now even though I've studied economic theory. There ya go.
Thoughtful and motivating article, thank you!
However, II cannot resist describing this as neoliberalism 2.0 that builds on the same elite tactic of incremental positive change that gives the working class an illusion of a change while the economic injustice continues to exist. I'm curious what if you agree that we're in a feudal capitalism phase already.
I looking forward to a future piece on Parecon and the proposal made by Michael Albert.
I find all of this very interesting but, what I still don't understand is how you or others woyld deal with preserving and AGI cleaning up and expanding the health of the biosphere. Is it that you really believe scientists will solve all of it and build a REGENERATIVE resourse economy?
It's not that I think other extisting systems are better...
I think it's a fantastic start to pave the road for a new societal paradigm or rather it's an ending.
Can you elaborate on the theoretical grounding of your assertions?
I guess systems theory has a lot to offer here. My brain otherwise is overloaded with figuring out what brought you to your conclusions.
Thanks Ingo! You're absolutely right about systems theory being a key foundation here. My framework draws heavily from complex adaptive systems research, particularly concepts like emergence, feedback loops, and network effects.
The theoretical grounding comes from three main sources:
1. Historical pattern analysis: Looking at how economic systems have evolved from feudalism through industrial capitalism to neoliberalism, there's a clear pattern of power concentration followed by systemic instability. This maps perfectly to systems theory's concepts of attractor states and phase transitions.
2. Market efficiency theory: While neoliberalism correctly identified markets as powerful coordination mechanisms, it missed that information asymmetry and power concentration inevitably create market failures. My principles essentially extend Hayek's knowledge problem arguments to their logical conclusion - true market efficiency requires radical decentralization.
3. Network theory findings about resilience: Research into everything from ecosystems to power grids shows that decentralized networks with high local connectivity are more stable and adaptive than centralized ones. The principles I outlined are basically applying those network resilience findings to economic systems.
Would love to hear your thoughts on these theoretical foundations. Do you see other systems theory concepts that could strengthen or challenge this framework?
TL;DR:
We should randomly simulate different economic approaches to find an adequate design, while optimizing for simplicity in the ruleset.
Hayek: he was skeptical of the idea that humans can rationally design complex social systems and I agree. He emphasized traditions as evolved rules to coordinate society. I think this times are gone. We have no time for traditions to naturally emerge. We should rather stress test our potential social structures by random simulation as proposed by Residuality theory.
Network Theory: Networks often exhibit emergent properties that are not predictable from the characteristics of individual nodes. Self-organization refers to the ability of a system to form structures and patterns without external guidance. so, fully agree.
other theories
1. Systems Theory
It might be valuable to explore how the transition between phases can be managed to minimize disruption, drawing on insights from systems theory about smooth phase transitions.
Characteristics of phase transitions include:
- Non-Linearity: Small changes in input can lead to disproportionately large effects on the system.
- Emergence: New properties or behaviors arise that are not predictable from the previous state.
- Critical Thresholds: The system reaches a point where existing structures become unsustainable, necessitating change.
- Attractor States: Systems tend to settle into stable patterns or behaviors, but external or internal pressures can push them into new attractor states.
Taking this into consideration the manifesto should promote a smooth transition to a more adaptable diverse system with quick feedback mechanisms.
And, simpler rules can indeed produce more adaptable and resilient systems.
2. Residuality theory
While derived from systems theory it puts another angle on the support of transparency as a means to create robust economic residues. By ensuring that information is freely available, the system can self-correct and adapt to changing conditions, thus fostering resilience. Automation thus becomes a key residue that ensures continuity and efficiency. By automating routine tasks, the system can shift human labor towards areas requiring adaptability and innovation, thus increasing the overall resilience of the economic system. While Risiduality theory holds interesting insights it‘s meant for static systems inside adaptive systems. We should change the theory incorporate self reference and feedback loops to be applicable to social systems.
I don’t feel like anything ever comes from radical departures like this. We don’t do radical overhauls very often. Change happens incrementally in steps that don’t disrupt the flow. We have to keep the airplane flying while we rebuild it. So I think since automation is coming whether we’re ready or not, we need to pick some clear next steps that would make the biggest difference and not upend the apple cart.
This is why I talk about UBI so much. It improves individual economic agency, decentralizes purchasing power, and keeps people from defaulting on loans and going homeless when a robot takes their job. I’m all for much more change than that, but we have to start somewhere and I think UBI is the best place to start.
This explicitly is not a radical departure.
Maybe we have a different understanding of what we would consider radical, but a lot of these points seem like massive departures from the way the world currently operates, and taken all together I don't see an easy practical path to potential implementation.
Starting from the top of the list "Push all decisions to the lowest effective level". Where would this even begin? The president of the US giving more power to state governors? State governors giving more power to city mayors? The ideological shift to do this would be immense, and the practical application of shifting responsibilities would be monumental. I don't see how this wouldn't be considered a radical departure, just this one point, much less all the points together. As an ideology or an ideal I think these points make sense, but it seems far from a practical proposal of next best actions that would be implementable at any level.
Benjamin, I need to point out that subsidiarity - the principle of pushing decisions to the lowest effective level - is actually one of the oldest and most established principles of governance we have. It's not a radical proposal; it's been official Catholic social doctrine since 1891, is a fundamental principle of the European Union, underlies American federalism, and drives the success of the Swiss canton system.
In fact, subsidiarity is already practiced successfully across many domains. The mayor of Boston doesn't need to ask the president's permission to fill potholes. School districts make local decisions. Counties handle their own zoning. States set their own laws within federal frameworks. This isn't radical - it's how things already work when they work well.
What's actually radical is how much we've departed from this proven principle in recent decades through increasing centralization. I'm not proposing a massive change - I'm proposing we return to and strengthen an established principle that we know works.
The whole point of Post-Labor Economics is that it builds on existing successful patterns rather than proposing radical changes. These principles are already demonstrated in various places - we just need to recognize and reinforce them systematically rather than letting them erode.
Regarding your TLDR summary, I agree completely 👍 With regards to point 7, Michael Hudson spoke about it multiple times. In short, democracy is what allows oligarchies to emerge and capture institutions and society; what is called in the west as autocratic regime etc in history was actually playing the role of the barrier for emergence of oligarchies. He also referred to debt resets as one of such mechanisms.
This is a wonderfully written, very informative essay! I’m so happy to hear someone else talk about “information asymmetry “. You are definitely a true polymath, brother.
Great article with many fantastic takeaways!
To limit myself to just two:
“Every job humans do from necessity rather than choice represents a failure of automation and a constraint on human potential.” 👏🏾👏🏾
Better, Faster, Cheaper, Safer. 💯
“…PLE (Post-Labor Economics) will increase GDP more than neoliberalism by unlocking massive trapped value in the economy.” 👏🏾👏🏾
This is *exactly* why I think UBI is *only* a precursor to UHI (Universal High Income).
I don’t necessarily agree with everything here at the granular level, but overall, it seems very sensible and reasonable. This is definitely the time to make a new system, so we’ve got to find consensus on what that should look like. This is a great place to start.
Attempted a question - where does sovereignty lie in a democracy; whether sovereign state is the only option; why not a decision not announced though felt as taken by five luminous, is automatically approved!
#6 I realized I don't know what you mean by intermediaries if Substack and Patreon don't count. I might be missing something obvious.
#4 discourages acquiring new information.
#6 makes value realization harder. It would be better to just promote stronger competition among intermediaries.
#8 forces utilitarianism.
Otherwise, I like your list.
#4 - a lot of valuable information is already publicly funded by default.
#6 - not necessarily. look at my income, it's entirely decentralized with almost no intermediaries
#8 - that is a good thing
#4 you're thinking of research. I'm thinking of market information.
#6 a lot of goods aren't consumed as easily as consumer content despite being extremely valuable. System integrators, for example, don't produce any goods, but large chunks of the market wouldn't function without them. There are also markets where scale is very limited without networks of intermediaries. For example, anything targeting SMBs or niche markets through whitelabeled products. You could say they provide services, but if service providers count as acceptable intermediaries, I don't think there are any unacceptable intermediaries.
#4. Market information should be totally open... that's the whole point
#6. didn't say ban them. just allow direct connections whenever possible.
#6 I know you didn't say to ban them. I shouldn't have used the word "unacceptable". For allowing direction, I'm guessing you're thinking of something blockchain-related. That's the only feasible way I can see to allow direct connections at scale.
#4 that goes back to discouraging acquiring new information. I'm strongly opposed, though secrecy around market information comes with obvious short-term problems. I'd again opt for promoting competition here, maybe even with the government. E.g., the government funds the publication of market information just as they do with academic information.
Alan, let me clarify these points:
Re #4: I think we're using "market information" differently. I'm talking about transparency of market-relevant information - prices, terms, ownership, political influence, environmental impact - not trade secrets or R&D. Think SEC disclosure requirements. These don't discourage innovation; they prevent market manipulation through hidden information. The principle is about making markets more efficient by reducing information asymmetry that enables exploitation.
Re #6: You raise good points about valuable intermediaries, but that's not what I'm targeting. System integrators add real value by reducing complexity - they're not pure rent extractors. I'm talking about unnecessary intermediaries that only extract value without adding any. Maybe I should clarify the principle as "Minimize rent-extracting intermediaries" - every layer must justify its value-add against its extraction.
Re #8: The concern about "forcing utilitarianism" misses the mark. This is about preventing moral hazard - ensuring decision-makers can't externalize negative consequences while internalizing benefits. It's about responsibility, not utility maximization.
The key thing is these are directional preferences, not absolute prohibitions. "Minimize" doesn't mean "eliminate," and "align" doesn't mean "perfectly match." These principles are about systematically improving markets, not imposing rigid rules.
That's a lot more clear. Thanks for the explanation. FWIW, I think all of these points are directionally good.
Do you know what the New Deal and neoliberalism are?
Thanks for the thoughtful critique Andy. I actually agree that grand top-down societal redesigns tend to fail - that's precisely why these principles emphasize pushing decisions to the lowest effective level and maintaining distributed power by default.
I think there may be a misunderstanding though - I'm not proposing a sudden systemic overhaul, but rather a framework for incremental reform, much like how neoliberalism was implemented gradually through specific policy changes over decades. The New Deal and neoliberalism both demonstrate that intentional, principled economic restructuring is possible when done carefully.
On your point about middlemen - while markets can eliminate some unnecessary intermediaries, information asymmetries and power concentration often prevent this natural elimination. Look at healthcare, where layers of intermediaries persist despite clearly adding costs without value. Or financial services, where high-frequency traders extract billions through pure arbitrage. These are market failures that require intentional correction.
The key is that these principles can be implemented gradually, tested locally, and adjusted based on results - exactly the kind of incremental reform you're advocating for. Would love to hear your thoughts on which specific principles you think would be most/least feasible to implement incrementally.