QUESTION: Do you believe in a fairer system where there is a minimum income cap and a maximum asset cap? We live in an age where productivity has risen through the roof due to technological advancement. Don’t you think humanity is at the stage where it can afford to offer basic income to people so better checks and balances can be set in place to thwart the exploitation of people (see the third world).
A maximum asset cap would also act as a positive filter in business ownership, don’t you think? The businessmen interested mainly in greed won’t fill those positions, but those who are driven more by other means, hopefully positive ambitions, will fill those roles (CEO,COO, managers, etc.)
Can you form a good argument against an asset cap of, say, $20mm? Can you think of a situation where 1 individual NEEDS more than 20 million, aside from using it to exploit others? If a cap isn’t set, that leads to the development of a tycoon, i.e., exploiter, of an industry. Increased capital permits the further increasing of capital at the accelerated rate. When left unchecked, greed and self-serving goals create a net loss, rather than a net gain.
Remember Martin, everything is connected. You can’t think on an individual level and expect it to not hurt evolution. This is what life is about. Evolution.
We’re headed towards doom, and the enemy is not just socialism, political cronies, and economic mobsters.
ANSWER: The standard of living has collapsed and it now takes two incomes to survive not one. That isn’t because of wages are not high enough. Do not forget, if you raise the wages you raise the cost of production and the consumer will pay that higher level in the end. There is no one-sided solution – you cannot raise wages without prices also rising. People would have more disposable income and would bid up prices by demand. If there was no 30-year mortgage, the price of houses would decline sharply because if people had to PAY CASH for a house, then the price of a house would fall to the point where the average income could afford it. Roosevelt created the 30-year mortgage to try to give people LEVERAGE to buy real estate to raise the price. That LEVERAGE has now impacted prices over the course of decades.
The answer lies in the consumption of wealth not that someone has more assets than another. Eliminate taxation and you will reduce the cost of labor, bring back jobs, and you will also eliminate the lobbying to escape taxes. Henry Ford invented the assembly line and brought the cost of cars down to the middle class at $240. He made a lot of money and expanded his business with it. If there was a cap on assets, you would destroy job creation. It REQUIRED the concentration of wealth to create innovation. If wealth is evenly distributed, you will not get enough people to agree to risk it all. Most small businesses fail after start-up. Some make it while a few really strike it big. That is the risk reward.
Big corporations die because they become eventually run by lawyers not entrepreneurs. I have been called in to many board meetings and watched the process first hand. As soon as a new company becomes public, the bureaucrats enter and the creativity vanishes. This is why they pay huge money for start-ups because they create what the big companies cannot – innovation.
It is not what an individual needs that is the issue. Take all the money away from Bill Gates. How will this improve your life at all? The issue is HOW MUCH is government consuming. But as long as they point to the “rich” they get to waste your money.
Social Security has altered society in ways people do not respect. Previously, family units were stronger because the system was the young took care of the old. Introducing Social Security changed everything. What children today save to take care of their parents? That’s the state’s job. Welfare altered the system by rewarding women not to get get married. New Zealand nearly went bust on its program that sounded nice that if a woman had no idea who the father of the child was, the state took care of everything and gave her a house. They ended up with the highest percentage of women who had NO IDEA who the father of their child was. What woman does not know that except victims of rape?
China’s one child rule has seriously altered society there as well. Couples are now offering their estate to females to come in from SE Asia if they will take care of them. You cannot create these types of changes without seriously impacting society.
Pictured above at the beginning is the tax burden upon society back in 1988. Even currently, the top 1% pay about 33% of all income taxes. At the start of 2000, the total amount of revenue collected by federal and state government in the USA exceeded 40% of GDP. This is outrageous and this is why the economy is slowing declining. This has nothing to do if somebody earned $100 million or $50 million as a CEO. That has ZERO impact upon your life – but what government takes out of your pocket REDUCES your standard of living – DIRECTLY.
The solution is NOT to raise taxes on the rich, for government will still spend more than it takes in regardless of who pays. This is like fining your wife because the guy next door did not sort his trash for recycling. This is indirect. It is taxes that we must address – not how much someone else makes.
Thanks again Tylers for including some of Marty's posts.
This point;
"Social Security has altered society in ways people do not respect. Previously, family units were stronger because the system was the young took care of the old. "
Is very important. I think the idea of wanting to help the average joe who was down on his luck in the 30's Dust Bowl era was noble, But as Marty notes, The structures put in place have altered society in ways most don't discern.
Over a time original feelings change. It's day to day administration becomes a bureaucracy.
Any noble idea for a government, Any time you hear the phrase, "... They ought to have somebody handling that...."
In your mind the picture of it's implementation should appear as you visiting the DMV office. That's who would be carrying out of the paper work. DMV, TSA.
On the other side the "Users" of those safety nets begin over years to look more and more like the EBT, Welfare images everyone has in their head.
So in the end, I don't we are mature enough in aggregate as a race to attempt such things.
We're just humans and reality is so far over our heads...
Utter nonsense. Go back and look at the life span of Americans even in 1950. Prior to WW2, it wasn't even an issue because large parts of the population especially males dropped dead before they reached 65.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/022.pdf
Could you two work this into a debate? I'm kind of not sure what points to contemplate here.
And, no, I'm NOT being sarcastic. I think that this is an interesting topic for debate.
More about Optimal Taxation and Social consequences
See http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/03/gini-and-rubble-of-empire.html
GINI and the Rubble of Empire .
Andre Willers .
16 Mar 2014
“Grasping all , they lose all” AW
Synopsis :
What we see as the glory of Rome is really just the rubble of the rich, built on the backs of poor farmers and laborers .And things are worse today .
Discussion:
1.GINI measures unequal income . It measures desperation in hunger and medicine .
The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income—and everyone else has zero income).
Easy to remember : No 1 has it all .
The rest have nothing except what is doled out in the Camps .
2.Not even the Roman Empire had as high Gini ratio’s as present so-called democracies .
See http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index_2014_0.html
Xx
A short summary of the most important countries .
Where would you like to live if you were (a) rich . Or (b) at the bottom .
This differential drives Revolution and Migration .
RSA Gini= 0.63
China Gini = 47.4
USA Gini = 0.45
Russia Gini = 0.417
UK Gini = 40
Japan Gini= 0.376
India Gini = 0.368
Germany Gini= 0.27
xxx
Roman Empire (150 AD) : Gini = 0.42
This basically means that a Roman slave in 150 AD had a fairer deal than a salary slave in most of the present Western world .
Note the exception of Germany .
See Appendix A for Roman Empire Gini .
3. Reserve considerations .
See Appendix C on how to calculate optimal reserves ab-initio .
Reserve arguments can be used .
The society should build up reserves . This is usually held in individual hands (your savings) , but it shows up in Gini statistics as lowering the ratio .
The Optimal GINI would then be in the band 0.28 – 0.33 – 0.38 , with the sweet spot at 0.33 .
4.Some corollaries :
If GINI < 0.28 , instability ensues . Insufficient reserves. Usually collapse . Cities deserted as the good citizens just walk away .
( See http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/01/evanescence-of-cities.html ) .
Or the collapse of the USSR . See http://www.roiw.org/1993/23.pdf
The 1989 Gini of USSR = 0.275 . It shouldn’t have led to collapse , but they were in an arms-race with USA . Insufficient reserves .
The system went into shock and collapsed .
If GINI > 0.38 , instability ensues . Too much reserves in too few hands . Usually revolution .
See Arab Spring , Syria , Occupy Wall st , etc etc .Or any peasant rebellion in history , a-la-France or Russia .
5.Where are we now 2014 ?
Every country with a Gini bigger than 0.38 and social media access is a revolution waiting to happen .
Countries with Gini smaller than 0.28 have to be propped up .
According to this argument , Germany appears strong now , but might need aid in the near future . Can this be correct ? Remember verreine . Huge reserves are locked up in the verreine . But how is classified in the Gini calculation ?
6.What does this mean ?
Big , top-heavy states will continue to break apart .
Ukraine now , UK (Scotland) later this year .
A big Empire like the USA is showing distinct signs of strain . The tail is attempting to wag the dog . Be interesting to see who is the last man standing in the ruins .
“Better dead than red” used to be the motto . But can get enthusiastic about Donkeys and Elephants ?
7 RSA ?
The same story . Another artificial mini-empire tacked together by the British . The extremely high Gini will force a break-up of the provinces . The usual civil war will ensue as the vultures pick the carcass apart .
See Appendix D on Neo-Vikings .
I would have hoped that they go off-planet , but they are too stupid and poor to do that .
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=16105240#editor/target=post;postID=632898708944473552;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=28;src=postname
8. What an exciting future .
Greed and stupidity finally does for the human race .
“Grasping all , they lose all”
Regards
Andre
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appendix A
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2d53lE/:Ix!ztvvU:fhbrmqFE/persquaremile.com/2011/12/16/income-inequality-in-the-roman-empire/
Over the last 30 years, wealth in the United States has been steadily concentrating in the upper economic echelons. Whereas the top 1 percent used to control a little over 30 percent of the wealth, they now control 40 percent. It’s a trend that was for decades brushed under the rug but is now on the tops of minds and at the tips of tongues.
Since too much inequality can foment revolt and instability, the CIA regularly updates statistics on income distribution for countries around the world, including the U.S. Between 1997 and 2007, inequality in the U.S. grew by almost 10 percent, making it more unequal than Russia, infamous for its powerful oligarchs. The U.S. is not faring well historically, either. Even the Roman Empire, a society built on conquest and slave labor, had a more equitable income distribution.
To determine the size of the Roman economy and the distribution of income, historians Walter Schiedel and Steven Friesen pored over papyri ledgers, previous scholarly estimates, imperial edicts, and Biblical passages. Their target was the state of the economy when the empire was at its population zenith, around 150 C.E. Schiedel and Friesen estimate that the top 1 percent of Roman society controlled 16 percent of the wealth, less than half of what America’s top 1 percent control.
To arrive at that number, they broke down Roman society into its established and implicit classes. Deriving income for the majority of plebeians required estimating the amount of wheat they might have consumed. From there, they could backtrack to daily wages based on wheat costs (most plebs did not have much, if any, discretionary income). Next they estimated the incomes of the “respectable” and “middling” sectors by multiplying the wages of the bottom class by a coefficient derived from a review of the literature. The few “respectable” and “middling” Romans enjoyed comfortable, but not lavish, lifestyles.
Above the plebs were perched the elite Roman orders. These well-defined classes played important roles in politics and commerce. The ruling patricians sat at the top, though their numbers were likely too few to consider. Below them were the senators. Their numbers are well known—there were 600 in 150 C.E.—but estimating their wealth was difficult. Like most politicians today, they were wealthy—to become a senator, a man had to be worth at least 1 million sesterces (a Roman coin, abbreviated HS). In reality, most possessed even greater fortunes. Schiedel and Friesen estimate the average senator was worth over HS5 million and drew annual incomes of more than HS300,000.
After the senators came the equestrians. Originally the Roman army’s cavalry, they evolved into a commercial class after senators were banned from business deals in 218 B.C. An equestrian’s holdings were worth on average about HS600,000, and he earned an average of HS40,000 per year. The decuriones, or city councilmen, occupied the step below the equestrians. They earning about HS9,000 per year and held assets of around HS150,000. Other miscellaneous wealthy people drew incomes and held fortunes of about the same amount as the decuriones.
In total, Schiedel and Friesen figure the elite orders and other wealthy made up about 1.5 percent of the 70 million inhabitants the empire claimed at its peak. Together, they controlled around 20 percent of the wealth.
These numbers paint a picture of two Romes, one of respectable, if not fabulous, wealth and the other of meager wages, enough to survive day-to-day but not enough to prosper. The wealthy were also largely concentrated in the cities. It’s not unlike the U.S. today. Indeed, based on a widely used measure of income inequality, the Gini coefficient, imperial Rome was slightly more equal than the U.S.
The CIA, World Bank, and other institutions track the Gini coefficients of modern nations. It’s a unitless number, which can make it somewhat tricky to understand. I find visualizing it helps. Take a look at the following graph.
To calculate the Gini coefficient, you divide the orange area (A) by the sum of the orange and blue areas (A + B). The more unequal the income distribution, the larger the orange area. The Gini coefficient scales from 0 to 1, where 0 means each portion of the population gathers an equal amount of income and 1 means a single person collects everything. Schiedel and Friesen calculated a Gini coefficient of 0.42–0.44 for Rome. By comparison, the Gini coefficient in the U.S. in 2007 was 0.45.
Schiedel and Friesen aren’t passing judgement on the ancient Romans, nor are they on modern day Americans. Theirs is an academic study, one used to further scholarship on one of the great ancient civilizations. But buried at the end, they make a point that’s difficult to parse, yet provocative. They point out that the majority of extant Roman ruins resulted from the economic activities of the top 10 percent. “Yet the disproportionate visibility of this ‘fortunate decile’ must not let us forget the vast but—to us—inconspicuous majority that failed even to begin to share in the moderate amount of economic growth associated with large-scale formation in the ancient Mediterranean and its hinterlands.”
In other words, what we see as the glory of Rome is really just the rubble of the rich, built on the backs of poor farmers and laborers, traces of whom have all but vanished. It’s as though Rome’s 99 percent never existed. Which makes me wonder, what will future civilizations think of us?
Source:
Scheidel, W., & Friesen, S. (2010). The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire Journal of Roman Studies, 99 DOI:10.3815/007543509789745223
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appendix B
http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index_2014_0.html
GINI in descending order per country where available .
Rank
Country
Value
Date of Info
1
.
Lesotho
63.2
1995
2
.
South Africa
63.1
2005
3
.
Botswana
63.0
1993
4
.
Sierra Leone
62.9
1989
5
.
Central African Republic
61.3
1993
6
.
Namibia
59.7
2010
7
.
Haiti
59.2
2001
8
.
Colombia
58.5
2011
9
.
Honduras
57.7
2007
10
.
Guatemala
55.1
2007
11
.
Hong Kong
53.7
2011
12
.
Thailand
53.6
2009
13
.
Paraguay
53.2
2009
14
.
Bolivia
53.0
2010
15
.
Chile
52.1
2009
16
.
Panama
51.9
2010 est.
17
.
Brazil
51.9
2012
18
.
Papua New Guinea
50.9
1996
19
.
Zambia
50.8
2004
20
.
Swaziland
50.4
2001
21
.
Costa Rica
50.3
2009
22
.
Gambia, The
50.2
1998
23
.
Zimbabwe
50.1
2006
24
.
Sri Lanka
49.0
2010
25
.
Mexico
48.3
2008
26
.
Singapore
47.8
2012
27
.
Ecuador
47.7
Dec 2012
28
.
Madagascar
47.5
2001
29
.
China
47.4
2012
30
.
Dominican Republic
47.2
2010 est.
31
.
El Salvador
46.9
2007
32
.
Rwanda
46.8
2000
33
.
Malaysia
46.2
2009
34
.
Peru
46.0
2010
35
.
Georgia
46.0
2011
36
.
Argentina
45.8
2009
37
.
Mozambique
45.6
2008
38
.
Jamaica
45.5
2004
39
.
Uruguay
45.3
2010
40
.
Bulgaria
45.3
2007
41
.
United States
45.0
2007
42
.
Philippines
44.8
2009
43
.
Cameroon
44.6
2001
44
.
Guyana
44.6
2007
45
.
Iran
44.5
2006
46
.
Uganda
44.3
2009
47
.
Nigeria
43.7
2003
48
.
Macedonia
43.2
2009
49
.
Kenya
42.5
2008 est.
50
.
Burundi
42.4
1998
51
.
Korea, South
41.9
2011
52
.
Russia
41.7
2011
53
.
Cote d'Ivoire
41.5
2008
54
.
Senegal
41.3
2001
55
.
Morocco
40.9
2007 est.
56
.
Turkmenistan
40.8
1998
57
.
Nicaragua
40.5
2010
58
.
Turkey
40.2
2010
59
.
Mali
40.1
2001
60
.
Tunisia
40.0
2005 est.
61
.
United Kingdom
40.0
FY08/09
62
.
Jordan
39.7
2007
63
.
Burkina Faso
39.5
2007
64
.
Ghana
39.4
2005-06
65
.
Guinea
39.4
2007
66
.
Israel
39.2
2008
67
.
Venezuela
39.0
2011
68
.
Malawi
39.0
2004
69
.
Mauritania
39.0
2000
70
.
Mauritius
39.0
2006 est.
71
.
Portugal
38.5
2007
72
.
Moldova
38.0
2008
73
.
Cambodia
37.9
2008 est.
74
.
Yemen
37.7
2005
75
.
Tanzania
37.6
2007
76
.
Vietnam
37.6
2008
77
.
Japan
37.6
2008
78
.
Uzbekistan
36.8
2003
79
.
Indonesia
36.8
2009
80
.
India
36.8
2004
81
.
Laos
36.7
2008
82
.
Mongolia
36.5
2008
83
.
Benin
36.5
2003
84
.
New Zealand
36.2
1997
85
.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
36.2
2007
86
.
Lithuania
35.5
2009
87
.
Algeria
35.3
1995
88
.
Latvia
35.2
2010
89
.
Albania
34.5
2008
90
.
Egypt
34.4
2001
91
.
Taiwan
34.2
2011
92
.
Poland
34.1
2009
93
.
Niger
34.0
2007
94
.
Ireland
33.9
2010
95
.
Azerbaijan
33.7
2008
96
.
Kyrgyzstan
33.4
2007
97
.
Romania
33.2
2011
98
.
Bangladesh
33.2
2005
99
.
Greece
33.0
2005
100
.
Nepal
32.8
2010
101
.
France
32.7
2008
102
.
Tajikistan
32.6
2006
103
.
Canada
32.1
2005
104
.
Spain
32.0
2005
105
.
Croatia
32.0
2010
106
.
Timor-Leste
31.9
2007 est.
107
.
Italy
31.9
2011
108
.
Estonia
31.3
2010
109
.
Czech Republic
31.0
2009
110
.
Netherlands
30.9
2007
111
.
Armenia
30.9
2008
112
.
European Union
30.7
2011 est.
113
.
Pakistan
30.6
FY07/08
114
.
Australia
30.3
2008
115
.
Kosovo
30.0
FY05/06
116
.
Ethiopia
30.0
2000
117
.
Switzerland
29.6
2010
118
.
Cyprus
29.0
2005
119
.
Kazakhstan
28.9
2011
120
.
Serbia
28.2
2008
121
.
Ukraine
28.2
2009
122
.
Iceland
28.0
2006
123
.
Belgium
28.0
2005
124
.
Malta
27.4
2011
125
.
Belarus
27.2
2008
126
.
Germany
27.0
2006
127
.
Finland
26.8
2008
128
.
Austria
26.3
2007
129
.
Slovakia
26.0
2005
130
.
Luxembourg
26.0
2005
131
.
Norway
25.0
2008
132
.
Denmark
24.8
2011 est.
133
.
Hungary
24.7
2009
134
.
Montenegro
24.3
2010
135
.
Slovenia
23.8
2011
136
.
Sweden
23.0
2005
137
.
Saudi Arabia
NA
NA
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appendix C
Calculation of optimal reserves
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2008/04/infinite-probes2.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Infinite Probes2
Infinite Probes 2
Andre Willers
30 April 2008
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/ “Infinite Probes’
From discussing this with various recipients , there seems to be a need for a simpler explanation . I thought I had explained it in the simplest fashion possible . The subject matter is inherently complex .
But , here goes .
How much must you save ?
If you save too little , a random fluctuation can wipe you out .
If you save too much , you lose opportunity costs . If you are in competition , this loss can be enough to lose the competition (ie you die)
Intuitively , you can realize there is an optimum level of saving .
Methods exist of calculating this optimum in very specific instances (ie portfolios of shares ,eg Kelly criteria , or tactics in war eg MiniMax ) .
The General Case
We need to hold a Reserve in case Something goes wrong . But we do not know what thing goes wrong .
Infinite Probes tries to answer the general case . What is really , really surprising is that a answer is possible .
The Infinite bit comes from using the mathematical expansion of the Definition of Eulers Constant e = ( 1 + 1/2! + 1/ 3! + … 1/n! + …)
Where n!= n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*…*(1)
This approaches a constant , widely used in mathematics and physics .
(e = 2.718…) .
All we need is a system that can be subdivided indefinitely (to infinity) .
First , we divide by 1
Then 2
Then 3
Then 4
And so forth till infinity .
What is important is not that we do know what these divisions are , only that they are possible . We also do not know which one element goes wrong .
The other critical insight is that it is the relation between elements that is important . (Permutations) (The failure of an element in total isolation cannot affect the whole system by definition .)
We can count the number of relationships where there is failure of one element .
It is n! , where n is number of divisions where only one failure .
Multiple failures are handled by summing :
Our Reserve(R ) is divided by n to infinity and summed .
TotReserve= R*( 1 + 1/2! + 1/ 3! + … 1/n! + …)
TotReserve= R * e
To find the boundaries of our Reserve , we set TotReserve = Cost
Then
R = 1/e * Cost
R ~ 0.37 * Cost
What does this mean?
This method measures the upper boundary of the reserve needed to survive failures in any element of the Cost-Universe . Ie , internal fluctuations .
This is the surprising bit . Any society that keeps at least 37% reserves , can only be destroyed by something outside it’s envelope . It is internally stable , no matter what .
Empires like the Ancient Egyptians , Romans , Chinese are possible , as long as there is no climactic fluctuation , new inventions , diseases ,etc . Rare events . Hence the technological stasis of old civilizations . The two are synonymous .
This is true at any scale (except quantal , by definition.) .
Individuals too . Humans can be seen as empires of noospheres .
The upper boundary does not take any double-counting into account . It is true for any system whatsoever .
A truly remarkable precise result from such general axioms .
The Lower Boundaries .
This is where it gets interesting .
Remember , we are just counting the number of ways in which permutations of one element can fail . We then sum them to get the effect of the failures of other elements
The easiest is the business that just starts and is not selling anything . It fails on n elements on every term . It’s floor capital must then be
R=Cost/(1+e)
R=0.27*Cost
This is the initial reserve to get off the ground .
This is true in any ecosystem . This is why it is so difficult to start a new business , or why a new species cannot succeed . Or why waves of pandemics are scarcer .
For the epidemically minded , this 10% difference is responsible for the demise of the Black Death ( smallpox outcompeted bubonic plaque variants for the CR5 access site.Ironically , the reason why we have only a limited HIV plague is the high competition for this site , probably some flu vectors . As one would expect , the incidence of HIV then becomes inversely proportional to connectivity (ie flights) .
A cessation of airplane flights will then lead to a flare-up of diseases like these .
Not exactly what anybody has in mind . )
When we find that we really need the spread of infectious vectors to stay healthy , then we know we have really screwed ourselves .
These are the two main boundaries .
The literature is full of other limits the series can approach . Keep a clear head on what the physical significance is .
Fat
I cannot leave the subject without the thing closest to human hearts : appearance .
Fat and fitness .
Sadly , the present fad for leanness is just that . The period of superfluous food is coming to an end .
Rich individuals can afford to be lean because the reserves are in the monetary wealth Women have to bear children individually , so they cannot store the needed reserves externally . Hence their fat storage is close to the theoretical optimum even in Western societies (33%) . In other societies the percentage is about 37-40% .
Human males have been bred (Mk III humans) for muscle and little fat (8% in a superbly fit male) . He does not have reserves to withstand even garrison duty (even little diseases will lay him low .) Note the frequent references to diseases laying whole armies low .
Note what is left out : the camp-followers . They survived The women and babyfat children . Every army seeded the invaded area with women and children .
The bred soldier has to eat a high-carb food frequently : not meat or fat , his body cannot store it . This is the definition of a wheat-eating legionary .
Ho ! Ho! Ho!
The Atkinson diet .
No wonder it does not make sense in evolutionary terms .
Mesomorphic humans have been bred not to transform expensive proteins and fats into bodymass .
The soldier-class were kept on a carbohydrate leash , which could only be supplied by farming .
The Smell of Horses .
Horses exude pheromones that promote body-leanness in humans . This has an obvious advantage to horses . Horses are breeding jockeys .
The time-span is enough : at least 8 000 years . (400 generations)
Because pregnant women cannot ride horses , there was a selection pressure to breed horses who have a pheromone that block female dominance pheromones , especially since females have to weigh more because of fat-reserve considerations .
Outside a farming environment , horses will sculpt their riders as much as the riders are sculpting them .
Small Mongolian ponies , small Mongolians .
This is why alpha-males like horses and horse-dominated societies were able to conquer and keep matriarchies .
Note the effect of the pheromones on women riders . Androgeny .
On males it becomes extreme blockage of oestrogen . It seems like a surge of male hormones , but it is just an imbalance . (If too much male hormones , the men just kill their horses )
This is why the auto-mobile had such a big sociological effect . No horses , so the men became more effeminate .
Want to be Lean and Mean ?
Sniff Horse sweat pheromone .
Perfumiers take note .
Dogs
The other leg of the human-horse-dog triumvirate .
Dogs accept female pack-leaders and have evolutionary reasons for blocking horse inhibitions of human female pheromones .
While the males are away , the females look after and rely on the dogs .
(The reason why Mongols ride from yurt to yurt: they are too scared of the dogs.)
With dogs around , the male testosterone activity is ameliorated . This is a well known effect , especially if horses are around .
Hence the female love of lap-dogs . They are actually quite ferocious , and exude large amounts of pheromones that soothes the savage male breast .
Your attention is drawn to the Pekinese lapdog , which has had a disproportionately large effect on human history .
If this sounds convoluted , it is because this is exactly how this type of bio-system operates : by inhibitions of inhibitions of inhibitions ,etc .
Andre
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appendix D
Neo-Vikings
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=16105240#editor/target=post;postID=632898708944473552;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=28;src=postname
Andre Willers
8 Feb 2014
Synopsis:
Raid-or-Trade is coming back in fashion as social orders collapses .
Discussion :
1.Climate shifts cause social disruptions .
2.This causes degradation in defence capabibilties .
3.Opportunistic raiders take advantage .
4.Past :
4.1Sea Peoples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples
or
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2009/10/ansari-gens.html
4.2 Vikings
Essentially , climate change weakened civilized defensive systems and also forced barbarians to go a-Viking .
http://www.ees.lanl.gov/geodynamics/Wohletz/Krakatau_6th_Century.pdf
“Modern history has its origins in the tumultuous 6th and 7th centuries. During this period agricultural failures and the emergence of the
plague contributed to: (1) the demise of ancient super cities, old Persia, Indonesian civilizations, the Nasca culture of South America,
and southern Arabian civilizations; (2) the schism of the Roman Empire with the conception of many nation states and the re-birth of
a united China; and (3) the origin and spread of Islam while Arian Christianity disappeared. In his book, Catastrophe An Investigation
into the Origins of the Modern World, author David Keys explores history and archaeology to link all of these human upheavals to
climate destabilization brought on by a natural catastrophe, with strong evidence from tree-ring and ice-core data that it occurred in
535 AD. With no supporting evidence for an impact-related event, I worked with Keys to narrow down the possibilities for a volcanic
eruption that could affect both hemispheres and bring about several decades of disrupted climate patterns, most notably colder and
drier weather in Europe and Asia, where descriptions of months with diminished sun light, persistent cold, and anomalous summer
snow falls are recorded in 6th-century written accounts.”
4.3 Formosans
http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Science/Our-Global-Neighbours-Pacific-culture-ancestry-in-Formosa
Something similar happened (from genetic evidence) in Formosa to trigger the population of the Pacific Islands .
Other cultural traits often point to Taiwan as the strong link in spreading Australasian-speaking people and their traditions through Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
Indeed Australasian people migrated via extraordinary maritime journeys as far as Madagascar in the west, Easter Island in the east, Hawaii in the north and New Zealand in the south. These migrants propagated their cultural traditions, often modified to suit local conditions and preferences.
- See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Science/Our-Global-Neighbours-Pa...
5.Future :
5.1 States lose the control of armed force .
This has already happened . Private security (essentially private armies ) ( cf Condottierry) offers services to wealthy individuals whishing to escape .
5.2 The traditional route to escape these troubles is by sea . But with newish technology , you need a fleet . Single ships simply won’t hack it .
5.3 Postulated Scenario :
Social order in RSA collapses .
The region is wealthy . It has a large shipbuilding industry . Also large private security companies.
Armed to the teeth , with very sophisticated logistics .
People flee via ships . They have to survive . They arm . They can only survive in large groups with heavy arms . Funding then has to be done via Viking-type raid-settlement-trade .
Do not worry about the primitive Somali pirates .
South African pirates fleets will be much worse , although a bit more professional .
I did not expect this .
But should have .
Oh Well .
Andre
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
geezus.
Let me get this fuckin straight. You been here 6 weeks and you do this?
You are either the dumbest fuck posting or you are a fuckin troll.
Tylers Delete this sabotage comment. It's only purpose is kill the thread.
Took me longer to scroll through it than to completely ignore it.
The government is controlled by the Super Rich.
Next.
Yeah, how hard can all this really be to figure out?
Further, if the "economy" is about growth, which I believe is so, and that this is a finite planet, then hardly can the govt and the Super Rich be to blame for the eventual collapse: remove them all and the System is still wired for self-destruction.
"Social Security has altered society in ways people do not respect. Previously, family units were stronger because the system was the young took care of the old. Introducing Social Security changed everything. What children today save to take care of their parents?"
And in many Northern European countries old people are looked upon as a burden.
"And in many Northern European countries old people are looked upon as a burden."
And Eskimo culture would have their elderly set themselves off to die so that they wouldn't be a burden.
Different times, different peoples = different actions.
Eliminate taxation? You're nuts!
yrbmegr,
I'm sure he's only referring to millionaires and billion dollar corporations.
i actually had a friend who keeps telling me the corporate tax should be zero, when i remind him that corporate tax as a % of GDP is at an all time low his eyes glaze over...and says, whhhaaaattt?
Also note all the special subsidies/incentives that local govts give to these entities: more and more of this will happen as US companies lose their security abroad- we'll see more and more "bringing jobs back to 'America' propaganda supporting this).
I don't worry too much about it because it's all just spitting into the wind. Economies of scale in reverse is going to start knocking off these entities left and right: consumers are maxed out (taxes are only a part), and there are far more debts accrued than can ever be paid back (the fun part of fractional reserve under contraction).
Down-voter, care to offer an explaination?
Is it not factual that govt gives corporate subsidies?
Don't think there will be a campaign to increase give-aways for "returning" companies?
Or, do you not think that I don't worry about these nuances if money shuffling (which, in the end, mean nothing)?
Logic pussies...
I believe that President Reagan commissioned a report on federal taxes - I forget the name of the man who headed it.
This commission found that NOT ONE PENNY of federal taxes collected by the IRS went into the U.S. Treasury to pay for expenditures by the U.S. government. Instead, it ALL went to the IRS (headquartered in Puerto Rico), then to the IMF and IBS to pay for interest on debt - primarily to the mega-banks.
So how does the U.S. government pay for its purchases? Through the various OTHER taxes, fees, etc. that it collects - and of course, by issuing more bonds as debt.
In short, federal incomes taxes pay for NOTHING in America!!! They all go toward paying off debt.
NOTE:
United States Government Attorneys DENIED via sworn affidavits in a court case that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is agency of United States Government.
Source: http://www.usavsus.info/IRSnotAgencyOfUS.htm
Hey, Martin, the economy is based a a false premise: perpetual growth on a finite planet. The economy is killing itself! Govts et al are no more than components that play in this dead-end game, they are not the CAUSE of the end.
People can talk all they want about entrepreneurs, but one cannot be an entrepreneur w/o physical resources. The pressures are building because the available physical resources is rapidly declining (courtesy of the exponential function.
Earth is not the only planet in our solar system.
Are you being sarcastic?
"Big corporations die because they become eventually run by lawyers not entrepreneurs"
yep, just like GM, Chrysler, JP Morgan, AIG, Goldman Sachs......oh wait....but that is the capitalism we have in the USA....BUT YOU BETTER NOT PAY MORE IN WAGES CAUSE THAT IS BAD BAD BAD!!
It ALL fails because it's predicated on perpetual growth on a finite planet. We spend so much energy pointing fingers and laying blame and it never would/could improve because we fail to understand what the REAL underlying source of the problem is: some are just plain ignorant, while others use all this as cover for deceptive actions ("profit" off of a crisis).
"Social Security has altered society in ways people do not respect"
correct, i do not repect the fact that i will never get back the $200K i've contributed.
damn, this guys sure has an agenda and don't you love how he brings Henry Ford into the discussion yet never mentions that Ford did the exact opposite of what this shill is says you should never do, raise wages...WHICH WAS HOW THE MIDDLE CLASS CAME TO AFFORD HIS CARS!!
BUT... it ALL breaks down when growth collapses.
Think things through here...
At some point there's an over-saturation. When everyone is driving a new high-quality vehicle then who is going to buy the next ones off the production line that you're working at? Trade-ins? Again, then where do the used vehicles go?
The early auto days were part of the oil boom days. The supressed consumer activities during WWII delayed the boom, but the boom DID come. As Kunstler would inform, it's been one big boom orgy based on fossil fuels.
As long as everything is predicated on perpetual growth the game ends the same no matter how you're slicing things up. The "Middle Class" existed on the growth bubble.
"i do not repect the fact that i will never get back the $200K i've contributed."
Never rely on anything that you have little control over... easy come easy go. Promises made, promises broken... have I ever mentioned that humans are naturally deceptive? (if you know the fundamentals then you're a lot less likely to find yourself perplexed)
I liked Limacons thread of data. For those with an ear. Anyways, there are ways I can test the latter ratios of the thread regarding reserves and sustainability. GINI coefficent is more widely understood by at least a portion of investors, but worthy bringing up here.
I liked it because it tells of probabilities of the population reacting a certain way based on these ratios. We all do come here to hedge do we not? But if no world war I believe we will see more people checking out like the Soviets did. Why work for 50 hours a week and never get ahead as it gets robbed? In fact the laws set up corral 50% the population into this very lifestyle. As stated, quantul computations are not factored in. However, even with 99.7 predictibility humans are not machines, they will evolve beyond the gaming.
"Why work for 50 hours a week and never get ahead as it gets robbed?"
You know, sometimes I have to ask myself what world people are looking at...
My wife is from the Philippines. Grew up DIRT poor. She is the antithesis of "entitled." Her old world (which she lived in until she was 45- no, I didn't go robbing craddles- I was looking for a partner in life) knows little of "retirement," yet, some of the most wonderful people can be found there. So, you ask, why "work?" What else are you going to do? What does nature do? I'm thinking that we're trying to fix/make sense of something that's based on a false premise (and refusing to question the premise itself).
"However, even with 99.7 predictibility humans are not machines, they will evolve beyond the gaming."
99.7, as though we can trust ourselves that we aren't decieving ourselves. Human hubris... we do all we can to pretend that we're NOT animals...
I don't think it is jobs that will be affected if you cap the rich. I seem to recall most jobs are created by small businesses, not the billionaires. I think most billionaires buy whole companies and then lay off people for 'efficiencies' and assert cannibalization
Ever look at what those small businesses are?
Not that many are responsible for manufacturing. Most are service-related or retail: selling and servicing what the billionaires are responsible for producing/promoting. I'm a REALLY small farmer: I KNOW small. However, and whether I like to admit it or not is not the point, I have to rely on things that are tied to those billionaires. I don't like Big Corporations, but, I'm a realist/pragmatist... NOTE: I am pushing away from BIG not necessarily because I find it revolting, rather, I KNOW it's going to fail, in wihich case there's only one direction to go...
"I think most billionaires buy whole companies and then lay off people for 'efficiencies' and assert cannibalization"
Assets are not going to be cannibalized if they are functioning well.
As to laying people off, yes, sometimes it's necessary to reduce bloat (from previous management/owners who were too kind).
Not defending anything other than logic. And the bottom line is the bottom line: what else can be used to best determine efficiencies? (and, striving to be inefficient just doesn't seem like a viable approach)
Monopolies are perfectly efficient for their owners. Some people would rather close down a business, throw thousands of people out of work, destroy as many lives in the process and make two dollars profit than they would keeping those companies running (that requires work after all), those families fed and only make one dollar profit. That is how some people think. If you don't believe me, then tell me why all those jobs vacated America and are now operating in China (but first, they parked in Mexico for a few years)
Supply-sider says we need tax cuts! We should borrow heavily to pay for them too!
If you can see that one side doesn't work then how can you believe that the other side can? It's the same (perpetual-growth-based) coin.
It is partly the Rich.
and...
Bollocks - it is not a linear equation.
But I thought all those Chinese investors paying cash for houses were pushing prices up, not down.
Whatever.
Free Jon Corzine! Cut Social Security! Give the oligarchs a break; they worked hard for those ill-gotten gains.
So according to this jackass the Rothschilds having accumulated $100 Trillion through their control of the right to create money has nothing to do with the resultant struggling economy and we should be blaming the government....what total BS.
A revolution that does not begin by confiscating the assets of the arch-oligarchs is a fake revolution that exist to enrich the arch-oligarchs. That is a given, but the means by which these potentates got their power was the overspending of governments, and the need to borrow what could not be collected in taxes. So we need to take the wealth from the Rothschilds, but also to sanitize our governments, to stop some other aristocratic usurer taking their place.
Not in defense of the Rothchilds', but even They are not the biggest problem we face. Clear all our debts (toss out/hang all the bankers), toss out all the politicans and appoint saints and we're STILL facing BIG problems: increasing population sizes and decreasing resources. I have no answer on how to "fix" this, I only know what it means, as well as what it doesn't mean.
The solution is to do nothing. When populations outgrow their resources, they diminish. Just let things take their natural course.
Yes, that's really pretty much it. And that'll be the reason why we'll see wars...
Beg to disagree.
As I have posted here since the beginning, its the Reaganista Mantra-- elaborated by the two catholic Kings of Supply side Neo-liberalism that has created the MINDSET, hubristic and elitist to the extreme; coupled to the subsequent NWO dogma and the outsourcing "slave arbitrage" labour meme; all under the aegis of NWO WTO architecture; --- that has blossomed venomously into Bubbleonomics : the derivative fed, Frankenstein Global fiat spaghetti economy.
Aided and abetted by the US MIC gun, from Mossadegh days to Nam and Iraq-Afghan plays; the legacy of Dear Henry's Metternichian Cambodian, Chilean-Condor and ME shuttle diplomacies; the very heart of Pax Americana's hegemonical construct of the 60-70s.
Thank you Maggie and Ronnie and all those shamans from Friedman to Greenspan to Robert Rubin of GS that built the Empire on the moving sands of Nixonian revoke of BW and the start of the Euro-petro dollar financial scam propagated from Citadel CITY of London town. WS/City, Twin pillars of the Anglo-saxon takeover of the world economy.
And now, as thieves fall out, and rival hegemonical Empires raise their ugly heads-- just like when Pax Britannica started to implode in 1910-1914-- its PAYBACK time; from Kiev to Crimea, from Libya to Syria to Tehran and Afghanistan, from Peking to Fukushima to those Islands in the South Sea tsunami land.
What Pax Americana has spawned, under its Post Aldous Huxley day traumatic morph in Dallas, it must now assume as its natural legacy to future generations.
To come back to the Financial thread, read what French Economist Thomas Piketty has to say about the causes of past-- and present-- financial crises and how the neo-liberalism Mantra of the Oligarchs, time and again, brings CRISIS AFtER CRISIS through inordinate accumulation of RENTIER and unproductive wealth.
Its not the FDR taxation of the rich that causes financial crisis, its the speculative economy of financially fed empires, which is in essence the slothful and corrupted child of rentier Oligarchy spawning that creates the delusional mindsets of repeated disasters concocted in Hubris.
...The main driver of inequality--returns on capital that exceed the rate of economic growth--is again threatening to generate extreme discontent and undermine democratic values. Thomas Piketty's findings in this ambitious, original, rigorous work will transform debate and set the agenda for the next generation of thought about wealth and inequality....
Capital in the Twenty-First Century eBook: Thomas Piketty, Arthur Goldhammer: Amazon.fr: Boutique Kindle
falak, all well and good, but the PRIMAY cause of these cycles of decline is GROWTH, rather, the inevitable slide down the other side as resource connsumption can no longer be satiated.
Sir John Glubb's wrting "THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL" pretty much documents that empires don't die due to ideological reasons. I really wish that more people would read this!
thats the longer term trend : moving away from the consumerista frenzy model and rebooting the economy away from the asymptote of fossil fuel fed industrial model of 19/20 th century.
We missed that bus in 1978, when peak cheap/conventional world oil was cleary heralded; but there again Reaganomics required that the Saud spigot be WIDE OPEN.
And NWO globalization did the rest.
Now we have to rethink the whole paradigm; when the US Oligarchy decides if they want WW3 or scrapping the Reserve fiat cum consumerista age of Bubbly NWO.
Its all about the pensions, stoopid.
Oh, and the SS
Oh, and the MIC
Oh, and the pork
Oh, and the wastage
Oh, and the failure to collect corporation taxes.
Plenty of slack in the system still, without taxing the folks some more.