Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Credit Economy and the Homeless

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Credit Economy and the Homeless

    Dataweaver, I'm particularly interested in your take on this.

    I passed a homeless guy on the way home from the store today, and watched as someone in the car in front of me handed him some food (and he got money from a car a few ahead of me).Which made me wonder (shaddup! I'm not a loser! ;0) how would the credit economy as envisioned by the Syndicate (as opposed to the half-assed one we have now) affect those people that aren't part of it - the homeless, for instance? Are they just SOL, or are they listed as "John Smith,0 Credit" or what?

  • #2
    I’m assuming thtat by “credit economy”, you mean a cashless society where all financial transactions are handled electronically. Note that I consider such a thing to be part of a collaborative effort between the NWO (whose interest lies in money becoming more information-like and thus subject to Data analysis) and the Syndicate (whose interest is in data becoming a commodity that can be bought and sold).

    In terms of your specific question, I figure that neither faction has much interest in people being shut out of the cashless economy: the NWO wants people buying and selling online because it’s easier to monitor them that way, and the Syndicate can’t buy or sell things to people who have been shut out of the market. As such, I figure that in the Syndicate’s vision of a cashless society, financial accounts should be as easily available as email accounts are today. Think of them as loss leaders: you give them away for free because you’ll benefit from their use.

    If financial accounts are so readily available, then the only people who don’t have accounts would be the ones who deliberately choose not to have them. In that case, someone is only SOL if he or she has decided to be SOL: there’s no point in feeling sorry for someone who cut off his own nose to spite his face.


    Comment


    • #3
      That makes sense. So I'm now envisioning an AOL-like roll-out of the cashless society, everyone picking up ten disks at the local WalMart. Heh.

      Comment


      • #4
        Don't we already have roll-out of cashless technology? Cards come with it automatically.

        Also, although Dataweaver is probably right about intentions of the Technocracy, there's a big difference between the plan and the execution. I'd expect that the Syndicate won't have the time to be worrying about the homeless.


        Comment


        • #5
          I never said that they would. I said that I could easily see the Syndicate wanting as low of a barrier to people participating in the market as possible, which means (eventually) free financial accounts for anyone who wants one. That this allows the homeless to get financial accounts is a side effect, not the motivating factor.


          Comment


          • #6
            I didn't mean to imply you did. My point is that while the Syndicate have ideals of lowering barriers as much as possible, in practice they have lots of pragmatic reasons not to.

            Also, thinking about it, we already have free (for a given definition of free) financial accounts. That's not the problem, the problem (at least where I live) is that you need a fixed address.


            Comment


            • #7
              We all can be part of the system my dears. Every.Last.One.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyz-e8DIoHs http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...nger-king.html
              Last edited by FallingSnow; 01-13-2014, 03:01 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yep. Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing is a separate issue; but don’t take it as a foregone conclusion that just because something like a lack of a permanent address is a barrier to entry now, it follows that it will always be so.


                Comment


                • #9
                  I can see part of the goal actually being total population involvement. No other paradigm will be allowed to exist if they have their way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Exactly. Like I said, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing is a separate issue; but the idea that someone exists outside of the economy that they’re promoting? Anathema: everyone should have access to the economy and what it offers.

                    The main difference between the NWO and the Syndicate in this regard is that the NWO has no problem coercing you to join the system; the Syndicate prefers to entice you to join of your own free will.

                    To clarify my position: I’m assuming that my opinion was specifically solicited in the first post because I have previously argued for how the Syndicate can be portrayed in a positive light. As such, my arguments here are likewise aimed at how to address the issues at hand from the perspective of the Syndicate as good guys. I’m sure that arguments can be made for why everything the Syndicate does is motivated by nefarious intentions; and if your aim is to use the Syndicate as antagonists, said arguments should be played up. But it’s largely a matter of how you intend to use the Syndicate in your game, not some fundamental and overriding truth about the Syndicate that must be incorporated into any halfway-reasonable presentation of the Syndicate.
                    Last edited by Dataweaver; 01-13-2014, 08:00 PM.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I caught a bit of the other post about the Syndicate. The take that they aren't evil is much more interesting than just having a mindless baddy. The other important thing to point out is there is a lot of money being made on charity of course the Syndicate want's to get a thumb into all of that. Tax breaks people...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The point I was making is that the Syndicate's motives and visions of the future are actually pretty irrelevant. The manner in which the Technocracy is structured pretty much guarantees that they have to compromise their goals. The basics are that the Technocracy needs quintessence and resources, and it's the Syndicate's job to provide that. Talking about winning the Ascension War is all very well, but if the Technocracy itself is in danger of simply collapsing from lack of funding then survival comes first.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Exploiting the downtrodden, or as they would see it- bringing them into the financial fold/making the homeless a fiscal resource- doesn't run counter to the purpose of funding the Technocracy at all! The Syndicate would most assuredly have venture capitalist experiments some of which could easily be of a sociological nature. Both these axioms are true, not irrelevant. imo.. :\ There are a few products designed specifically for the homeless, believe it or not. Most of them are made by philanthropic design students and are not in mass production.. The sleeping bag coat comes to mind: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...roit-homeless/ and paraSITE project, which is an inflateable tent that hooks up to a buildings HVAC exhaust: http://michaelrakowitz.com/projects/parasite/ Incorporating the idea that the homelessness is so rampant in the cWoD that Pentex has started mass production of items like these would add great flavor to game.. ranting..sorry.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In particular, the original article that FallingSnow linked to in post #7 is an illustration of how getting the homeless into the market can result in Primal Ventures that wouldn’t otherwise exist.

                            Also, I’d take issue with the characterization of what the Syndicate does as “exploitation”. Unless a Syndicator gets too greedy in the short term and burns out a Primal Venture (which is unwise in the long term: you don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg), it’s worth noting that the basic premise behind Primal Ventures is that the Syndicate generates Quintessence by helping people: they must invest time and/or capital in a Primal Venture in order to reap Quintessence from it, and that investment empowers the Primal Venture to do more (which in turn increases the amount of Quintessence that can safely be harvested). That is pretty much the opposite of exploitation.

                            I’d note also that the Syndicate’s infamous reticence when it comes to funding the other Conventions comes from this same source: the Technocracy’s demands vastly outstrip the Syndicate’s sustainable supply of Quintessence, and it would have to exploit its Primal Ventures to meet that demand — which would work for a little while, but would ultimately destroy the Primal Ventures and leave the Syndicate with less capacity to meet the other Conventions’ demands.

                            No; the dark side of the Syndicate is that if you’re not involved in a Primal Venture (either as a producer or as a consumer), they don’t care about you. Giving credit accounts to the homeless is pointless unless it enables Primal Ventures or is the product of one.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Dataweaver, perhaps the issue of exploitation is best left up to perspective. How would the traditions respectively view this aspect of the Syndicate? The fact is /most/ regular people view a credit only system and true free market capitalism with fear (Yes, these two things are not inextricably linked, I know.) Have you read Jennifer Government? There should be much more economic dystopian fiction in the world.. I need to re-read the Syndicate book and get back to this conversation.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X