Thanks! I've been lurking for a while but I'm deeply fascinated in both this topic and participating in Turkey. Bear with me as I was up late watching the US elections!
So I started from one of the last prompts in your original post "Does the economic system need to be one? Can we have several ones that coexist? Can people move from one to another?"
I immediately thought of the economic shift away from feudalism - and the Medieval conception of person-hood which didn't see the individual entirely as himself but through the group he belonged to; his(her) worth was only manifested within his social group, in particular the lord/authority over him(her)self. In that time, most people were serfs: if you occupied a space - land - your body essentially was indistinguishable from other property. It was a non-market reputation economy so to speak where serfs didn't have the honor/privilege of nobility and thus weren't considered persons as we consider them today (define along a particular amount of agency or rights); on top of that, in this economy they were indentured by default since their very existence depended on being able to work land that wasn't theirs.
All of these more dystopian economies I mentioned embody (pun intended?) a return to a feudalism of sorts, where there's severe inequality and oppression because most people forced into indenture (or very easily fall into it) to those that 'control' (or have the means to control) the very things keeping them alive: organs, (alive) time, agency (in the case of the Unincorporated Man).
So, I guess, I was bringing a question about reputation-based economies: what happens if there's no liquidity or easy attainment of reputation? If the market is distorted by a cartel or monopoly, does this automatically lead to oppression or inequality? And more importantly, if reputation is intrinsically tied to a particular 'worth' of your body, what is the interplay between body integrity/personhood and your reputation worth?
We already see insurance companies assessing people based on their personal risk, with clear economic and social penalties. Would we want that transposed over the whole economy?
A below passage from the 'The Repossession Mambo' that might be interesting to illustrate the social conundrum.
During the repo training seminars, they threw a basketful of statistics our way; out of the thousands that fell out of my brain as soon as they entered, one managed to stick in there: At any given time during the days before the Credit Union made widespread artiforg implantation possible, there were 120,000 people in the United States alone waiting for someone or another to die off and give up the goods. And despite the impressive methods with which many folks knocked themselves off during those years, there were never enough donors to meet the requirements, so a staggering number of citizens—some good, some bad, all dying—got sent on their way for want of a few organized cells.
But my point is that this is an anachronism; today, only the very poor or those who have abused their credit to the point of criminal activity are unable to secure loans for their artiforgs. Some cut-rate houses even cater to those with less-than-stellar credit histories, attaching their material goods as collateral. Heard about one place overseas which lends out Jarviks by the boatload, and all you have to do to get one is sign a note of indentured servitude of ten years. Decade of work for a new lease on life—that’s not a bad trade.
So when the Credit Union people approach with a ream of paper and a pen, the instinct is to clam up and sign, sign away. That’s what I did.