Asynchronous Exchange and the Homo-Sapiens’ Fracture
Andres Suarez (will not carry that name too many years more)
Two years ago I wrote a document seeking, for one last time, to fix the country where I born. As foreseen, that country stands beyond repair and I publicly repelled that citizenship. However, as a result of such effort, with the cheerleading aid of a few people which so far opted for anonymity, I developed the ultimate economic model that will prevail in an advanced civilization.
Also, before that I sorted out the core traits of the now-undeniable biological fracture among the homo-sapiens, namely, the fracture in the mental capacities and functions. Yet of course I did not created everything from scratch, and all this got largely based on the work of people that preceded me, moreover, publishing this in english constitutes a payback or feedback for those whose work I used as basis. It results imperative for civilized people to attempt to pull up those whom over their shoulders one stepped before.
Here I present, in steps and in a somehow raw fashion, the basic concepts. The persons interested in learning more about the subject should learn other language different than english. Here a link to the original document in spanish.
An auxiliary tale
The concept of 'value' must get eradicated but perhaps there lies so far the most difficult part for a human without conscience to understand, since as soon they find themselves without 'an explanation' for any event, they immediately tend to fill the void with whatever garbage at their disposal (just remember the most sold book in humans' history). This lack of resistance to ambiguity seems to arise from their biological makeup and results consistent with their need to either follow or control. Therefore, I'll use first an indoctrination-style approach to deliver the message.
Say exist two persons: Molly and John. Molly got in her domain a healthy orange tree, and therefore can produce oranges. John got in his domain a healthy banana tree, and therefore can produce bananas. Molly and John may reach an agreement to exchange one banana per one orange. (Thus both can eat bananas and oranges, which they appreciate).
Then appears a third person: Sally. Sally learns to make orange juice but lacks any oranges tree. Thus, offers to Molly and John: for every three oranges any of them may provide, Sally will make juice from one orange and deliver back that juice, and Sally will keep (and presumably eat) the second and third oranges as a profit.
No money involved, just bartering.
Molly results not interested in the deal, because she thinks that she would give at most two oranges to get back the juice of one.
In contrast, John accepts Sally's offer, because he thinks he got better things to do than squeezing oranges, thus John harvests three bananas, exchanges the bananas with Molly to get the oranges and gives Sally the oranges to get back the juice of one orange.
Someone could say 'Then for Sally two oranges have the value of the juice of one orange, while for John three oranges have the value (or less than the value) of the juice of one orange', if anyone postulates such statement, at least can notice that the 'value' results completely dependent on the person involved in assessing it. Therefore 'value' does not constitute a universal property inherent on things.
But what if both Sally and John agree in giving three oranges to Molly in exchange of the juice of one orange? Further, what if a large population agrees to do the same? There jumps in a capitalist economist and tells that there exists a 'market price' for the orange juice, and with that shows one of the fundamental errors of capitalist doctrines: statistical convergence does NOT create phenomena. The convergence of a bunch of people does not create an event of nature or whatsoever, and 'market price' simply put, does not exist either.
People with conscience may ask, why the capitalist economist made the gross mistake of imagining a phenomenon where none exists? Why the need to 'fill' or 'complete' the perception of events with an addendum? The answer results simple and crude: because primitive people does that, and this got pointed out more than a century ago in The Golden Bough (second part here).
Core concepts
Synchronous exchange
As part of the development of the interdependence and exchange among hominids, humans' brain developed a structure resembling an index -which can remain implicit and completely in the unconsciousness- to eval or assess what an individual, among the assets and capacities in his/her domain, would regard as favorable to deliver or render in exchange of the assets and capacities in the domain of another individual. In this way, the index operates solely in the brain of each individual hominid, and that hominid in particular must assess which of his/her assets and in which amount would disenfranchise in exchange of receiving certain assets and capacities in certain amounts, whatever the hominid regards as adequate to satisfy his/her basic psychological needs and, in general, the goals of any living organism. This index of "convenience" gets formed at each individual transaction (or exchange) inside the hominid's brain to compare what delivers or disenfranchises with what gets received, it does not constitute a static structure and it accepts as input (as items to exchange) almost anything that the hominid may find useful.
Therefore, a homo-sapiens does not requires tools of commerce and neither requires to express numerically the "convenience" of the assets and capabilities which receives compared with the assets and capabilities that delivers or renders. An individual can perform a barter.
Without using tokens (tools of commerce), an operation of synchronous exchange can get performed among a group of entities, where each participant agrees to receive a first group of assets and to deliver a second group of assets in a single operation (the same operation), each entity can deliver or receive or both, each entity may lack access to all of the other participants, each participant can access (and exchange agreements with) a subgroup of all the universe of players -thus, each participant gets a particular perspective of what he/she/it can receive-. The items exchanged of course may vary in nature, there not required that they "compensate" each other in some way, there neither required any sort of "balance" (someone can deliver nothing, or receive nothing, as example), moreover, each participant can deliver more assets and receive the same than other participant who delivers assets of the same nature (there not required any of the participants not knowing about this difference, for it to happen). In this synchronous exchange the sole organizational structure required consists in the agreement or commitment of each participant to perform the exchange.
The participants exchange first commitments to do it -"I agree giving to you, set (or subset) of people, this items if you agree to deliver me those items"-, this individual commitments must then compensate or balance each of the individual commitments from the other participants, when this happens the situation may get labeled as "general agreement reached" (a Social Pact), usually followed by the execution of assets exchange.
Relevant or transcendent features to highlight here: they did not used any sort of tokens, without using some (any) public index got executed all the operation of "convenience assessment" from the individuals, if the participants performed any, to gauge or estimate (an element of divination or guessing always results involved, but in this preview I do not talk about it yet) if what they receive compared with what they deliver, and the collateral effects, produces a result conforming to their objectives.
If in this synchronous exchange existed a 'convenience index', what would share? Which would constitute the common trait or common characteristic?
A tridimensional array can get built with the exchange's data, as follows: Both 'i' and 'j' from 1 to 'n'. 'n' equal to the number (the sum, the quantity) of participants in the exchange.
Each spot ( i , j , k ) associated to two numbers, namely: the price p_i,j,k of the exchanged item and the amount transferred q_i,j,k .
If the participant 'i' transfers to the participant 'j' a quantity q_i,j,k of items labeled 'k', then he/she/it will attach a positive sign to q_i,j,k (marking it as a positive number), and in the inverse direction, if the participant 'j' receives from the participant 'i' a quantity q_i,j,k, of assets labeled as 'k', then participant 'j' must attach to that quantity a negative sign. Therefore, for every 'i', every 'j' and every 'k': q_i,j,k = −q_j,i,k .
From there that, for every 'i', q_i,i,k = 0 .
Further, in a synchronous exchange, for every (any) participant 'i',
Each participant comes out from the exchange with the same amount of tokens with which he/she/it went in. There gets shown a fundamental relationship in the exchange: The tokens constitute solely tools for executing the exchange, they do not add nor subtract anything to the environment. Expressed differently: The 'money' constitutes solely a tool for commerce, it does not constitute an item to exchange. (In a healthy cooperative system, it works that way). And remember that not everybody may access to all the other participants, or that any participant may lack the chance of exchanging items or even communicate with all the other participants, so by each 'i' a binary or boolean vector can get built to describe the subset of participants with which 'i' can exchange, as example:
Important to note that in the synchronous exchange, with or without tokens involved, each transaction one-to-one (or partner-to-partner) of each item results constituted by the quantity, the direction and the price of the item, each of those three variables interdependent among them in each individual transaction. Typically they will get negotiated and bargained all together.
Therefore, it can get noticed with certainty that even in a synchronous exchange prices share nothing.
If for each participant the 'convenience index' for each item gets expressed numerically with tools of commerce or exchange tokens, such numeric index in tokens will differ according to the participant and according with the quantity of tokens available for that participant. There does not exist any relationship that can get used to establish a instrument of commerce linked to the organizational dynamics. Similarly, there does not exist a "market price structure".
From here can get described the parasitic and predatory effect of Islands or subsets with higher concentration of tokens, with a limited amount of exchangeable items through the subset's frontiers and the effects over the whole set of exchanges (including the total amount of tokens). In subsequent updates will address the destruction of this schemes. The framework stands as follows: in a frontier it gets allowed the transit solely of certain merchandises and tokens, some of the participants inside the island provide to the full exchange space a product or service for which they charge large amounts of compensations, while for the members of the island manufacturing such product or service results in a very low cost (as example, the may manufacture "financial services", more about that in a subsequent update), then can live within the island individuals performing ordinary tasks receiving a disproportionately large income from it compared with the rest of the exchange space. This constitutes the essence of the "neoliberal globalization" and the colonial dynamics of the transnational corporations, in this dynamic can also get tracked the parasitic scheme with which the current core of the capitalist empire (the United States of America) accumulates and splurges disproportionate amounts of natural resources.
Asynchronous Exchange
The synchronous exchange does not constitute the cause of the existence of tools of commerce, as previously noticed, a synchronous exchange can get executed without using tokens. The tools of commerce exist solely to make possible the asynchronous exchange.
The asynchronous exchange exists, in its turn, due to the fact that it results impossible for all the participants in the exchange to build a 'general agreement' during a single time lapse -usually because societal time dynamics-. As example, in a cooperative system with unfixed and changing frontiers new participants in the exchange will get accepted in a dynamic way, typically in this cases the instrument of commerce consists in a physical asset withdrawn from its intended function and turns to get used solely as a tool of commerce (occasionally the holder of the tool of commerce "redeems" it by its consumption), this primitive cases do not get addressed here further.
At the end of an asynchronous exchange among a fixed set of participants, each participant must come out of the exchange with the same amount of tokens with which he/she/it came in, same as in a synchronous exchange, since the asynchronous exchange simply consists in a deferred synchronous exchange.
Nevertheless, in a traditional society this ending of the asynchronous exchange never happens, the tokens just get recycled in continuous way. And typically no-one results called to perform a balance or a periodic equalization of the tokens in his/her domain.
The amount of exchange tokens
In a synchronous exchange does not exist a minimum or maximum amount of tokens that each participant requires because this results redundant. However, in an asynchronous exchange it results required that every participant holds in his domain an amount of tokens equal to the largest deficit that he/she/it may present during the course of the asynchronous exchange, in such way this amount of tokens will allow him to reach agreements and perform exchanges where delivers the referred tokens, before reaching agreements and performing exchanges to receive back the same quantity of tokens. Though, it results known that for a given participant such amount of indispensable tokens typically varies among temporal periods of equal length.
A complete proposal to eradicate capitalism and build fundamentally the ultimate economic setting can get derived from this concepts with the addition of a few more. You may go to section [5.01] of the document in spanish.
Three human subspecies
After aggregating and averaging the population, three subspecies can get clearly defined:

I just present the diagrams without further explanation, refer to the document in spanish with the detailed explanation, and to the following works as background:

Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us.
Robert D. Hare.
Year 1993.
Note: Hare uses the word 'conscience' in a quite different way than I do, what Hare calls conscience refers actually to the inner behavior regulation described by Deci and Ryan. Psychopaths constitute a peculiar type of animals and technicians that help to highlight the resulting behavior when lacking certain function.

Article: The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self–Determination of Behavior.
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan.
Year 2000.

Executive Functions: What They Are, How They Work, and Why They Evolved.
Russell A. Barkley.
Year 2012.

And of course seek everything related with the mind-sets put together by Carol Dweck.