The Socioeconomics of Mall-Towns Integrating theories on cryptocurrency with the town in a mall concept to bring us closer to a more sustainable future.

I’ve been thinking about this town in a mall concept for quite a long time. It’s been years since I first wrote my original article on the idea. At the time, I didn’t know much about blockchain or cryptoassets, but then again, neither did anyone else. In fact, back in 2012, when I first wrote my initial article on a city in a building concept, the grandfather of all cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, was only 3 years old. Now I have a body of writing on cryptocurrency and blockchain, and how it will impact our future. So I’d like to integrate all of these ideas together into one theoretical project.

Blockchain Use as Citizenship

Those who use various blockchains and cryptoassets are tied together economically and socially. This is true, even with the very limited functionality of current blockchain architectures. As blockchain applications expand, and we begin to really use the technology to manage contractual agreements between individuals and groups, whether it’s through Agora Coin, or some other platform, a blockchain system will end up feeling more and more like a community.

In the future, I predict that pretty much all social programs will be managed by blockchain systems. Universal basic income, if it is implemented in the world, will be implemented through blockchain. The same goes with universal health coverage, social security, and other programs.

But like with current blockchain systems, there are bound to be disagreements, and those disagreements will result in forks or alternative systems, just as we saw Bitcoin give birth to Litecoin, BTC, and others. In a future world managed by blockchain, instead of changing citizenship, a person might simply change which platform they use.

Users might need to keep using the old chain for certain things, like paying certain bills that are attached to the old system, but even then it’s likely that there will be a lot of interchain compatibility. It would be very similar to obtaining new citizenship and maintaining dual citizenship, only much more voluntary. If a person doesn’t like the kind of social programs being managed by one chain, they just stop supporting it. If they don’t like the tax rate (inflation rate), then they would choose not to use the cryptoasset associated with the chain.

And if none of the blockchain systems fit what a person needs, or if they think there’s a better way of doing things, they can create a new system or fork an existing one. Some have even likened the forking of bitcoin and other blockchain systems to civil wars. And in many ways, there’s a lot of overlap, only again, its all voluntary!

One question I have about this future is whether people will identify based on what blockchain system they use. Will people start to say “I’m a Bitcoiner” in the same way that they say “I’m an American?” It’s possible. Already crypto investors seem to identify, to an extent, with which blockchain system they prefer.

Economics

If this technology is integrated into a town in a mall concept, then the answer to my previous question is likely to be “yes,” especially if each town has its own blockchain to manage local operations. This idea brings us to the next issue. How do people start interacting with the local economy?

Trading posts are necessary components of the economics of a Blockchain supported “town in a mall” concept.

Trading posts were iconic in early American history. Dungeons and Dragons players are also probably familiar with the concept. They were part of the American frontier. But modern Americans probably haven’t had much experience with them. The closest analog in modern society would be a consignment or pawn shop.

If a town in a mall utilizes a blockchain and cryptocurrency pair that’s either not that common outside of the mall, or unique to the mall itself, then there must be a way for an individual who wants to shop in the mall to get spendable currency. Therefore every mall should have a trading post, which would function as a currency exchange, a consignment shop, and a pawn shop, all in one. A person could then walk in with either USD or something else of value, and exchange it for either something else of value that the shop happens to have, or exchange it for locally used cryptocurrency.

This trading post operation would also be a great place to create an identity (citizenship) and obtain any necessary hardware. In my discussion on universal basic income and beyond, I talked about the idea of having a tablet system which would integrate with the blockchain and cryptoasset ecosystem in order to allow access to a whole host of features. The trading post is a perfect place to pick up such a device, or register an existing device with the ecosystem.

Beyond Mall-Towns

The integration of blockchain citizenship with the concept of the town in a mall idea essentially turns malls into micronations. Every person who lives in the mall-town will basically be a citizen of the mall-town. These ideas however can be expanded to larger scales. The mall-town idea is great, but I would really eventually love to see entire cities run this way. The mall idea is simply a prototype for self sufficient smart cities, surrounded by agricultural districts, and connected to one another through high speed transportation.

Fractional Reserve Banking Part II

By politicoid Leave a Comment Mar 21 9

There was still a lot of confusion regarding my previous article on fractional reserve banking. Nothing has changed with the argument, but I do want to expand on it a bit. I think part of the confusion comes down to a closely related topic. While fractional reserve banking does not create money, the creation and actual use of bank IOUs does. But that money is not the same money that went into the banks, or which comes out of the banks when you make a withdrawal.« Continue »

Fractional Reserve Banking: The Myth of Creation of Money

By politicoid Leave a Comment Mar 17 3

There is a long perpetuated myth that fractional reserve banking creates money. This is false. FRB increases the velocity of money. Before getting into the specifics of why fractional reserve banking does not create money, and how it works to increase the velocity of money, it might be reasonable to discuss what fractional reserve banking is.

In fractional reserve banking, a bank lends out part of the money it takes in. When taking into account how much is lent out, along with how much is supposedly in each person’s account, it appears that new money has been made. This can happen multiple times, as people continue to deposit money into different bank accounts and different banks. The appearance of more money is called the money multiplier. But there are issues with the idea.« Continue »

Marijuana: The Push for Legalization

By politicoid Leave a Comment Mar 16 21

As I mentioned in “A Silver Lining In The Fight Over Cannabis“, the attack on legal marijuana, by President Trump, may have a silver lining. It is just a matter of whether congress has enough supporters to drive threw legislation, which would eliminate the federal restriction against pot.

Over the last few years, there has been significant growth in the support of marijuana legalization. 26 states, along with the District of Columbia, have at least some form of of legal marijuana, and a total of seven states, along with DC, have more liberal policies regarding pot use. However, recent comments by the Trump administration, and especially by Jeff Sessions, have been very concerning. For instance, on March 16th, Sessions actually said that marijuana was “only slightly less awful” than heroin.

Drug Scheduling

Of course, that is insane. One of the reasons why legalization in various states is moving so slowly is because marijuana is still listed as a schedule one drug, despite the reality of pot use, and its safety, completely contradicting the nature of schedule one drugs. By definition, a schedule one drug has no medical use. And yet, marijuana is prescribed by doctors repeatedly. It is really quite absurd that the government can get away with ignoring its own definitions.

Main Reasons for Legalization

But there are other issues here. Specifically, federal bans on marijuana violate so called “states rights”, certainly violate individual rights, and are destroying the socioeconomic health of the nation.

“States Rights”

While states do not have rights, as only people have rights, the constitution grants states a great deal of authority. The Federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate drug purchasing, sales, or use. Republicans admit that the federal government has far less authority than states have, when it comes to enacting laws. And yet, they ignore this when it comes to marijuana.

Individual Rights

The fifth amendment is probably one of the most important components of the constitution. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. This single provision, within the amendment, states that people are free to do pretty much anything they want, so long as it does not interfere with the life, liberty, or property, of others. Of course, even without the amendment, it is indeed a right to be able to consume any product that you possess. It is also a right to engage in economic transactions with willing parties.

Socioeconomic “Profit”

The Seeking Alpha article goes into how to profit from the shift in the political landscape. But we all profit from legal marijuana. Well, maybe the government loses out, but I really do not care about that. It sounds absurd, but the United States has the largest prison population in the industrialized world. According to the ACLU, 52% of all drug arrests in 2010 were for marijuana. From 2001 through 2010, there were 8.2 million marijuana arrests. Furthermore, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 46.4% of prisoners are incarcerated for drug related offenses. Now, I support the full legalization of all drugs, but even a move towards legal marijuana would be a huge improvement.

Current Bills

There are currently two bills that are being passed around the house: H.R. 975 and H.R. 1227. Both of these bills are similar in nature. H.R. 975 has 14 cosponsors, while H.R. 1227 has 6. Support for these bills is bipartisan, but largely comes from members of congress who represent states that have already legalized marijuana. Interestingly enough, a lot of prominent figures have yet to even give the bills notice. Bernie Sanders, for example, who spends most of his time incorrectly demanding that health care is a right, and wants to force people to pay for other peoples’ goods and services, is unwilling to sign onto a bill that would have one of the largest impacts on improving socioeconomic conditions in the United States, especially among disadvantaged populations.

Conclusion

There is absolutely no reason for marijuana to be listed as a schedule one drug. Its current use as a medicine, totally contradicts the definition of such a drug. Furthermore, regardless of how safe, or how dangerous, marijuana is, people have a right to be able to buy it from a willing seller, sell it to a willing buyer, and to use it. And finally, the socioeconomic toll of restricting marijuana exchange and use has been devastating. Hopefully the insane comments by the likes of Sessions will spur congress to act. Because they can no longer sit on the sidelines and hope that states will simply do their job by ignoring unjust and unconstitutional federal law.

Whether the desire is to make money from marjiuana stocks, push for individual rights, improve socioeconomic conditions, or all of the above, now more than ever we need to push congress to act. They can no longer sit on the sidelines, hoping for states to do what they should have done a long time ago. And we cannot afford to stay silent either.