LOLâŠan iron man suit? Iâll take an iron maiden suit with all the sound tracks preprogrammed in.
Your use of the word âeverythingâ is hyperbole. Actually, my statements are far from exaggeration.
There are plenty of articles about the nature of our world that cover, just as I have, a myriad of issues that are actual events, not doom-saying paranoia. Wake up buster!
This is not the capitalist way. We create technologies in order to remove the need to pay humans to work. Technological growth is the only significant factor in economic output growth, besides population growth.
The money is not with the employed, but with the technology owners. As the return on capital more and more outstrips the return on labour, the money will drain towards the owners, who will have to provide enough to the labourers that they can buy things and make them money - otherwise thereâs no return on capital.
Itâs not that binary, of course: most âlabourersâ have pensions and savings that profit from the capital returns. But money will stagnate, and certainly if thereâs limited or no inheritance tax, society will to and weâll be back to a feudal hierarchy.
Money is relative to economic capacity. If you just print an extra million dollars per person, that will happen. If you use a more redistributive/less regressive financial system, it wonât on any significant scale.
The increased prices of everything can be caused by giving everyone more and more money or by the raising of wgaes, thus also by minimum wages. Then ( a new) immigration of poor people has to start in order to curb this process a bit, only a bit, and for a short time, only for a short time. So, indeed, in the long run, more and more humans become poorer and poorer, whereas less and less humans become richer and richer.
This development is unfair, destructive, dangerous, stupid, and it is going to be stopped (the question is only: when?). Even the question of how is not relevant, because at last nature is going to stop it.
What you have is this:
That is the natural stable power distribution of a free flowing aggregating substance (money through absolute Free-Trade). The inanimate universe itself conforms to this law (A true Philosopherâs Stone).
$$ e = \frac{1}{(1 + r^2)}$$
What you want is this, except times a million wide:
That is an organic distribution of power or information and wealth (similar to the cell structure in a living body). Note that it no longer has free flow of the wealth throughout the system. The wealth distribution is compartmentalized (âcellsâ). With such a structure (SAM Coops), a supremely stable, intelligent, and capable Man can form, but not be predesigned, rather allowed to grow by discovered need.
Both are stable distributions of wealth, but the first, inanimate distribution, has an upper limit, after which it can no longer contain or control any more mass (people and androids), thus chooses to eliminate the excess to avoid potential instability (Globalism). The organic structure allows for much, much greater stable growth with almost unlimited mass potential. If formed of living creatures, it is like the first is an amoeba and the second is a homosapien, billions of times more massive (more populated) and capable.
What is now being called âUniversal Basic Incomeâ cannot be profitable to the masses unless distributed as the second structure, simply because there are too many people for the first structure to remain stable. People in excess of the needs of the structure must be eliminated ⊠and will be (are being).
The challenge is one of how to prevent those still using their extreme power from continuing to lust for the first, inanimate (inevitably lifeless, Clock-Work Orange style) technological structure. In theory, the answer is simple - just compartmentalize opportunity for wealth. Businesses, companies and corporations already do that in their limited way and thus become powerful and organized. But businesses are not the entirety of life and hopefully never become such without first learning of MIJOT and stable distributions.
If it isnât being done the right way, it necessarily is being done a wrong way.
Compartmentalize wealth via âcell structuresâ, SAM Coops, donât just flood humanity with more syrup.
Absolute Free Trade doesnât and canât exist, because money is a human convention governed by other human conventions. Nature has no laws to aggregate matter more due to derivatives of matter, for example, no government bond particles, no energy generation in the firm expectation of future energetic transfer, and no consideration of minimal requirements that a society certainly has. In addition, a power law scales according to constants; the height of the peak and the width of the spread depend on arbitrary choices, and there is no closed system to validate it. So people can pick and argue post hoc for a profile that supports their politics, but it has little predictive power or relevance.
In short: thatâs nice, as far as Just-So Stories go.
A distribution that perfectly fits that curve doesnât exist either. And I hate to break it to you at your age in life, but humans and their wild imaginings are still all a part of nature and governed by natural law. But the reason that I specified âabsolute free tradeâ was that humans can naturally interfere with the natural free-flow distribution and aggregation of power, most specifically the religions have that capacity. That is what national boundaries are about (despite the pretense that they donât exist). But without mindful intention, power, even among humans, will follow natural laws of fluid mechanics and aggregation, especially money. Why do you think they call it âliquidatingâ and âamassingâ. Free flow is a free flow and amassing is aggregation. They occur at predictable speeds and due to specific principles. Nothing is actually random except to the naive.
That is your theory is it? Human affairs are totally independent of nature and the result of only free-will? Is that a theory that you have put a great deal of thought into or is it more like, âOf course no one can sail around the world. They would fall off!â
Again, a well studied conclusion, or ⊠just another off the top opinion? You seriously believe that there is no such thing as economic theory and economic science??
Get you tickets soon.
So youâre an avid supporter of the theory, âno one can knowâ, much like Feynmann and the Quantum Magi. Is that a derivative of the theory, âIgnorance is blissâ? Or perhaps that âignorance in others is powerâ?
Let me guessâŠ
You believe that the current power distribution among people today is very close to that first graph merely by accidental coincidence? Or is it due merely to evil Republicans?
By the way, the vaccine article was pretty laughable, somebody issues a dare and thereâs no mention whatsoever of anyone taking it up or otherwise. Itâs just implied that nobody would when it would be fine if someone actually did. Youâre missing tricks like these, because youâre only listening to what you want to hear and feeding your own bias. Try and stay critical and youâll come across less hysterical.
But besides slavery and voluntary work, isnât removing the need to pay humans to work the same as removing the need for humans to work? Unless that was your point - that the latter wonât happen and we are tending back towards slavery and or voluntary work (you mentioned going back to feudal hierarchy)? I agree that the capitalist way is to reduce expenses, i.e. reduce wages, so we are currently in the process of gradually removing pay from wage labourers and transferring it to capitalists, but the result of this will be that our economy will be reduced to a circulation of money amongst just them. How then will wage labourers continue to acquire things they need to live unless they are free or money is taxed away from capitalists and a basic income given to all the rest? UBI seems like a fairly obvious solution here.
I guess, the reason why many people do not understand this is that they do not really know the logic, especially the mathematics behind it.
The âuniversal basic incomeâ will never lead to a better economic/social status, but always to more injustice, because the same minority will become even richer, whereas the same poor majority will become even poorer.
If you have physical evidence of energy being created in response to confidence in future energy, or of matter accumulating at hyper-gravitational rates dues to additional force generated by the existence of gravity and not mass, please disabuse me of my theory and show youâre not handwaving. My theory doesnât rely on free will at all, though, just relations and processes - which are different in financial markets and economies to gas laws or physical relations.
Complete strawman. You present a scale-free power distribution as evidence of the free market following physical laws. Thatâs not an argument you can call âeconomic scienceâ. But Iâm certainly aware of economics, econometrics and economic science. Those latter two use large bodies of statistical data to investigate hypotheses, so please provide your evidence.
Saying âyouâre wrongâ is not saying âno-one can possibly knowâ. Saying âpeople can claim whatever they like with vague graphs and handwavingâ is not an ontological claim about the nature of fiscal transactions.
Is it? You have no axes, so itâs an easy claim to make. Are you plotting capital or income? Whatâs the population - world, US, US income earners?
As a probability curve, wealth within a society shows a long-tail distribution:
The curve parameters are clearly changing over time - compare the changes in the middle and the ends. What governs these parameters? What are the parameters for âpure free tradeâ? What are the optimal parameters for a society, maximised to which ends?
Power laws are used to approximate wealth distributions: Iâm not denying that. Depending on the society, a power law could be almost uniformly egalitarian or profoundly tyrannical - thatâs why you have measures like the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient, which basically assume a Pareto power distribution. Neither of which depend on pure free market capitalism or any other political philosophy.
Well, I actually can do that, but you have never been very good at analogies, I suspect youâre not bright enough to follow along. Prove me wrong about that.
It is a proven fact that ultra-minuscule EMR pulses veer into a higher density of ultra-minuscule EMR pulses. That is energy accumulating due to the detection of higher potential of energy. Energy, whether inanimate or social, is always merely freeing from one place or type and propagating toward another. It is never actually âcreatedâ in either case.
Of course you might want to argue that the original pulses were not conscious and thus did not have emotional âconfidenceâ in the same sense as human behavior, but then we are talking about an analogy of the same outward behavior, not the exact same mechanism for that behavior. Laws and principles are about the behavior, not the reasons for the behavior.
Now, did you follow that? Was it too complicated? Are you âdisabusedâ?
Iâd give you an analogy for that too if I knew what the hell you meant by it. Although I suspect that you have no idea that âgravityâ is merely a gradient of an ultra low-density mass field. Mass particles are made of âgravity-fieldâ and vsvrsa. Mass particles are merely extremely dense wheras the ambient âgravity fieldâ is much, much lower density (precisely following that first graph). And interestingly all due to the prior explanation of ultra-minuscule EMR (âAffectanceâ) veering into a traffic jam of the same, forming a âmass particleâ, cluster.
The âhyper-gravitational ratesâ would be due to the fact that the affectance propagates at the speed of light (it IS âlightâ). Particles migrate toward each other (âgravitateâ) at a much, much slower speed than the affectance (the ultra-minuscule EMR) that veers into mass particles.
Economically, the analogy is that a mass particle is analogous to a bank with money flowing in and out tof the ambient population. The bank accumulates to a maximum set by the region in which the bank does business, the âambient fieldâ. Subatomic mass particles do that exact same thing with âenergyâ or âultra-minuscule EMR pulsesâ or âaffectanceâ.
As far as âgravity without massâ, the thing they now call âdark matterâ is exactly that, a higher density mass field than normal, but not close to that of actual mass particles. And when approaching a higher density field, such as stated prior, random EMR veers into the higher density at literally âlight speedsâ, not gravitational speeds.
I donât know how much that really fit what you were trying to say, but it seems to cover the bases.
How different they are is merely a matter of one being able to see the analogous patterns. As I said, that isnât something you have shown to be very good at doing. One canât prove to a dog that the Internet is real.
Well, you DID deny that, but okay ⊠moving onâŠ
Well, you were doing good until that last statement. You began by saying âdepending on the societyâ but then ended with âindependent of political philosophyâ. How can you have both?
The social construct and/or political structure determine how free the monetary flow actually is. It isnât merely about being capitalist or not. How secure people feel has a great deal to do with it, thus even their religious beliefs and physical comforts get into the game. My statement was that when the monetary flow is free of obstructions, regardless of whatever causes, banks and banking will cause an accumulation (a âmass particleâ) that will reach a saturation level for the region that the banks encompass. Those who own the banks, accumulate the wealth (because it is a usury con game).
That is exactly what has taken place over the last 100 years as all economies gradually got absorbed into the global economy. And that is exactly why you now have that first graph with only 1-3% of the population with a fantastic wealth and only 1-3% of those with ultra-extreme wealth.
That is just the money part. I was actually referring more to the complete power package, not merely monetary gains. Money is a crude and not always accurate measure of social power, which is formed of directed social energy or effort (the very source of moneyâs value).
And since you mentioned it, I am not the first to realize the similarity between physical power distribution and social:
Perhaps the distinction is merely that I know Why.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypDrw4CHhw[/youtube]
But note that the universe is NOT one huge particle, rather countless minuscule particles - DISTRIBUTED ENERGY/WEALTH (a lesson for dictator and god wannabes).
Thus maintain cohesion and stability by having information-linked multiple peaks of power, thusly:
Unwittingly, Aristotle said the same thing in his [Aristotle, Politics, book II], as does the Talmud.
So the argument is something along the lines of âthis Pareto-style wealth distribution that we have is necessarily going to occur, so UBI will do nothing to change thisâ?
Why does this distribution happen though?
In developed countries, it strikes me as partly the fault of the less wealthy as well as the more wealthy. Standards are set, partly as a result of a naturally emerging consensus amongst people and partly artificially by the advertising industry. Wherever you appear to stand comparatively determines the first impressions of others, which are made up in an irrationally short period of time. It takes a disproportionately long time and large amount of effort to rectify these, so it âpaysâ to try and live up to them.
Obviously business is set up to supply the good and services required to live up to these expectations, and to add to the challenge these expectations change over time - because once too many people come to successfully adhere to these standards they lose their competitive edge, the consensus evolves and advertising moves on to creating new fashions. To be âcomfortably offâ is to be able to stay on top of these moving goalposts, to be particularly ârichâ is to be pushing the boundaries of what it looks like to live the most desirable kind of life, and to be âpoorâ is to be struggling to meet social standards at all.
Itâs important to remember that these qualifications are culturally dependent, to people inside certain cultures the vast majority of what you are exposed to is within your own culture. Even if you are fantastically rich compared to the poor in less developed countries, that is mostly off your radar and isnât âyour lifeâ. And in more developed countries, we have a good view of ALL levels of wealth⊠but almost no view of what it takes to get there. Itâs patently obvious why there is resentment amongst the âpoorâ amount inequality in living standards, but itâs a favourite of pro-capitalists to criticise them on the grounds of envy (when really, envy is driving the whole thing from bottom to top - all levels of wealth develop feelings of entitlement based on their expectations based on what they are exposed to. Itâs just only a problem when you canât afford it, which is most notable amongst the poor).
All of this should be pretty obvious stuff.
So given the struggle of the poor in light of what they are exposed to, there is huge incentive to spend all of your money - no matter how much that is - to keep up with appearances. The media answered this by creating a kind of worship of the well-off, particularly the nouveau-riche and the unintelligent - to maximise jealousy. The credit industry offers the extra cash to make it seem even easier to reach the standards being sold to the less wealthy - but of course just as a way to lock them into paying the company owners in reliable installments. The poor demand the supply and the rich supply the demand⊠so to speak.
There is the âyou could die tomorrowâ strategy that falls foul to the above and there is the prudent strategy, which just allows capitalists to set prices higher (inflation). The latter stalls the prudent and accelerates the desperation of the former.
So you could say the poor bring it on themselves, but the rich take advantage of it. And UBI would just enable this exploitation and inflate prices such that the struggle simply moulds to new parameters?
Currently the power of capitalists to control the running of their businesses means they can just adapt because they are the ones in control. Currently, the shaming and demonising of the excessively rich is doing nothing to stem their ascension. There are no effective controls in place to keep the top in check. Tax havens go unchallenged, sympathy for the rich being penalised for working hard endures, and as I covered before: advertising/branding facilitates the illusion of product differentiation, creating faux-monopolies/oligopolies within markets of essentially similar products that would otherwise be kept more in check by âperfect competitionâ.
Given the absence of effective controls to keep the top in check, forcible taxation is the only way to get money to circulate back amongst the less wealthy.
But without further controls over capitalists, the above cycle will persist rendering even solutions by taxation ineffective.
The challenge therefore is to come up with effective controls over the more wealthy, either within the current economical model or through a new one, such that the inevitably encroaching need for solutions such as UBI will actually work long term.
No, the argument is that the UBI-alone will make it worse because what is causing it is the relatively unobstructed global free flow of money or influence. UBI alone will cause even greater fluidity.
And the only way to do that is to form a stable wealth system that is compartmentalized. Compartmentalization causes the natural stable aggregation of wealth to be widely distributed. If the compartments are small enough, the distribution is inherently very wide, getting to literally everyone. Such also brings the bottom and the top of the wealth scale much closer together, not merely in money but in life style and understanding. Have many atoms, not merely one big black hole.
And you cannot force taxation on those funding the law making.
I believe this is what the Classical Liberal ideal is meant to achieve with perfect competition, and I agree that it is a favourable distribution of power. But I agree because even though your ânaturalâ power distribution has less people in power, and that makes decision making easier and faster, your âorganicâ power distribution is able to be more nuanced - and whilst fluidity may be compromised âhorizontallyâ it is increased âverticallyâ, which keeps the âtopâ in check. As I said, we are currently lacking controls to keep the top in check, and in the sense that your compartmentalised model does this, I support potential solutions such as this.
Seeing as something like UBI is becoming increasingly necessary due to the rise in technology replacing the need for humans to work (or at least to âpayâ humans to work), I would be willing to consider anything that can allow it to work.
Assuming that individual businesses are the âcellsâ in the organism, the problem is that their own success causes them to get cancerous and grow at the expense of other surrounding cells. I wonder if the reason we havenât been able to cure cancer is the same reason we have been unable to cure our economy? Of course, itâs not considered a success when actual cells get cancerous, itâs due to self-replication errors as far as I understand. By the same analogy, businesses are able to make certain concessions such that they are able to grow out of proportion, so we need some kind of immune system to stop that from happening for the benefit of the whole economy.
As I covered, one of these concessions may be the distribution of misinformation via advertisement. This is an entire industry dedicated to the fostering of irrationality and distorted decision making. If youâre in the same industry as your competition, say so - donât spend huge amounts of time, energy and money on trying to falsely differentiate yourself. If there isnât any intrinsic motivation to do this (I donât think there currently is) then this is where the immune system has to come in.
Another source of misinformation is that companies are private, their inner workings are opaque. The most fundamental inner working that is not being communicated is that of the âfor-profitâ model. Quite literally this is the excess of revenue relative to expenses, and quite literally this is what all contributing parties earn relative to what they are paid. Profit is quite literally the act of paying people less than what they earn the company. This needs to be understood. Also, knowledge of one anothersâ wages are opaque to those within the company. Would you still feel motivated to work for a company if you knew how much everyone else was being paid, and if you knew that everyone else knew this too? Most likely you would be happy for some people within the company to be paid more than others, but to what extent?
Both internal fluidity of information about the company is needed and external fluidity of information about companies in general are needed.