Explore the Concept »
Politics

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
– Jiddu Krishnamurti

New technology challenges a profit-based economy the world over. Technology provides a more efficient means to care for society; therefore, less people will be required in the workforce. History has shown when unskilled labor is replaced by machines, people were encouraged to advance their education to become skilled labor. On the surface, this is a positive incentive. This is any capitalists dream–any CEO’s dream–where human labor gets more training for the same price and a capital investment could replace the remaining overhead; producing pure profits in the end.

Two problems arise: The first is when the “providers” become so efficient, they require less people to maintain society’s needs than the number of people living within it. Entire populations of people would actually become extraneous to a capitalist system. The second problem is when even skilled, educated labor, is replaced by more efficient technology. Widespread efficiency is where competition itself becomes detrimental. One (of many) examples is the standard healthcare system. Machines that can identify illness more efficiently and more accurately than a doctor, would destroy any incentive to submit to the rigorous education required to become one. Worse, tribal knowledge that garners wisdom, but not profit would also be obsolete–even discouraged. The demand would simply not exist in the mind of the CEO, according to a for-profit only world. Money created an economic system that allowed investors to weigh pollution standards in profit margins. Just a little fluoride only kills enough to make it worthwhile financially without setting off too many red flags. Just a little mercury poisoning the vast food source of the ocean makes just enough people sick to turn a profit without revolt. Consider the distribution of natural resources over the globe, and the entirely different distribution of where people choose to live; and that is not always the same as where the resources are used. As strange as this conclusion may sound, the goal is not to be vigilant survivors autonomous on every inch of land, but to develop the immeasurable comfort of the least among us. The goal of efficiency isn’t to increase jobs; it’s to reduce the need for jobs monopolizing people’s lives. Having a bad government shouldn’t signify the need for a small one.

zig zag zebra zillionaire zipperhead zealots are zeros who zestfully zoom to zone zen zirconia but zap zion and zing zeus a zany z-list zonker zoophile.

A rise in low wage wouldn’t be necessary if the market wasn’t flooded with devaluation in the first place, with nothing lasting to show for it. Raising wages only compounds the pain for the increasing number of jobless, actually segregating them even further. Burning money would increase the value of it without hurting the homeless (whose loose change income doesn’t shift with the economy), but burning money is a silly proposition as well: Whose get’s burned? Currency devaluation has to account for quality of life, and there’s a way to increase it more broadly.

A wage increase puts the burden on the companies, who, not being restricted in their pricing, increase prices to retain their bottom line, which hurts the jobless trying to survive. That’s the companies who survive, when a rise in the wage only allows high profit companies to survive. Conversely, free trade only helps countries with slave wages, compounding the despair and even causing people to wish for and justify the case for slavery. Doing both free trade and raising the minimum wage, worse selectively by states’ rights, is so contradictory it’s silly.

No, the solution is to reduce the bills for efficiencies (needs) through technology–air conditioning, electricity, communication broadband, water, healthcare–actually setting prices through elected officials, while being able to manufacture said amenities after a little overhead, which does the same thing as raising all wages without hurting the jobless or the break even businesses, and without instigating inflated prices for wants.

Think about inflation on different socioeconomic groups. A middle class income might have 30% in mortgage and 10% in food and 15% in car. But a millionaire wouldn’t necessarily need to hold those ratios to be satiated. Similarly, those in poverty spend 50% or more on food alone. Inflation disproportionately harms the poor in every case. Economics seems to neglect that in their pursuit of investor profits.

Interestingly, travel is often 10% of a person’s budget regardless of income, which means the poor don’t leave their home; except when their displaced by war, and they do so reluctantly and with nothing but the clothes on their backs. So travel being life and liberty, freedom of movement through the infrastructure of mass transit is a guaranteed right. Small government can’t do that.

Efficiency and long lasting products seems to go against the idea of capitalism. if things last longer then there will be less jobs, hence a growing need for social support. the slope is inevitable. The question is how should people who don’t have jobs and aren’t needed in a destructive society be paid? Hardships include finding a job when you’re not needed for society to function, then being lambasted for not succeeding.

These ideas didn’t come overnight. When people started losing their job, I wondered what would happen to them; but completely avoided the conversation and offered no assistance, as if bad luck were contagious.

The reckless decision to leave a paying job after the first year of the 2008 market crash helped in understanding; America has 240 million working aged people and 140 million jobs to distribute, and its just going to diverge even more. The benefits of efficiency should belong to the inhabitants of the planet, not to a few CEO’s. That’s why we need to expand government, not shrink it; and expand it globally, not cower in a corner with our hands over our eyes yelling “stay out.” 50,000 illegal alien children is 1% of america’s birthrate, and that even spread out across all age groups. Four million american teenagers leave high school every year with no signs of a slowing birthrate, and they’re becoming aware of the false dilemma faster than their parents, finally realizing the truth about technological efficiency in the top down job market.

Zero births would extinct us on the planet, but too many births mean a shortage of jobs, already dwindling from the machines. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other sources, and barring untimely deaths and high school graduation rates, 125 million people became adults from 1980-2013; whereas only 47 million jobs were created under both democratic and republican presidents during that same time. Of the 69 million people who died between 1980 and 2013, 35 million of them were already on social security in 1980. Social security also grew by 17 million over that time, of people who retired but did not die. 34m + 17m went on social security and or died, 47m jobs created; that’s 98 million spaces for 125 million new adults. Or look at it like this: With 4.0 million new adults, and 2.4 million deaths per year (half of them being workers) and with 500k retiring each year, we need to create more than 2.3 million jobs per year to break even. The average from 1980-2013 is 1.29 million jobs per year. What if your words had weight? Everyone wants freedom of speech, well with speech comes power. Many think that they have none, and are subsequently cavalier with their speech–actually causing affirmation for the deliberate infliction of pain we see in the “other half.” Even in 1886, railroad developer Jay Gould quipped, “I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half.”

This growing inequality can be resolved by doing the following: globalize the federal reserve, pay them only printing costs and per unit lifetime machine cost, simple overhead and 120% of transport. Let individual countries devalue their own currency if they need to expand, without paying for invisible principle. And in cases of common currency, locales can set price ranges of local products to attract consumers and savvy businesses. As would be appropriate, quality would follow each country’s own standards of currency. When a country decides to devalue their currency and stimulate consumer spending, strengthen that country by charging banks interest paid to that very government, not the federal reserve–a tactic that reduces the deficit. The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868. The federal reserve bank was created in 1913. Its creation violated said amendment–sacrosanct. Private invisible principle is not a creditor. That’s a hundred years of insurrection and the same 14th grants that to be subdued. Loyalty is a ruse. What’s the lesson in defending something objectionable?

The benefits of natural resources should also belong to the global inhabitants–not just a land owner–as much of the resources come from the ocean shouldn’t belong to anyone; and because inhabitants tend to live close to trade routes, not where the resources are hidden. Precious metals will one day be produced, not mined. Producing metals in a lab could increase the value of the host country, allowing for printing of money to inject into the market. Commodities shouldn’t be in the market of scarcity.

The price of oil per barrel should be set independently of demand. It would be nice to have that decision based on the elected public and not dictators, then we can decide how that money is best allocated and until it is obsolete. Until resources are produced, We should pay mining and drilling costs and 120% of transportation, and distribute the bulk wealth from natural resources accordingly: $2000 per human above the age of 18, anywhere in the world they choose to live (roughly 20% of resource wealth), strengthening where they live instead of giving them no option but to be displaced.

Settlers from all time have searched out opportunity, and leaped great obstacles to survive; how is jumping a wall now any different? Where do you draw the line? Would we tell extra terrestrials that they can’t even come to earth and live among us? They happen to have some pretty neat skills and technology just waiting to offer us. The real immigration is humans immigrating to being welcome among the peoples containing extra sensory perception, and it should be earned. The hypocrisy is that it’s right to allow people fleeing their home countries to better their lives by doing work that nobody else wants to do; but that’s not the immigration debate. That’s the side-effect of the debate and why both sides are correct and both are wrong without making that distinction. “Illegal” immigration is actually people of no particular descent, who were installed to sabotage the intelligence system rather than matriculate into it.

Here’s another example: An “oil pipeline” is not a priority with the “keystone” science of free energy at hand. Mixing the two creates a false situation, where no vote is correct without that distinction.

Next, allocate another $2000 to the municipality of closest proximity to encourage governments to keep the settlers happy ONLY through infrastructure and other services (20%); a portion to police pollution regardless of the extent or lack of extent; 5% to police the resources and another 3% to the local parliaments (based on tap proximity) and 2% to the parliaments based on refinery location, to avoid corruption and dissolution of country borders; a large chunk (35%) to be used to directly pay humans globally for educational matriculations instead of charging them. This encourages education even when there’s no job for them–especially humanities like philosophy and obsolete skill-sets, while preserving tribal knowledge. Next, eliminate income tax and instead tax by profits and inversely according to number of workers, which promotes hiring and cleans up the need for complicated subsidies, while drawing in a substantial untapped tax revenue. Eliminating income tax and instead taxing companies 15% of profits times median salary, divided by number of workers (encourages hiring) divided by actual salary (encourages raises). Farming is tricky. Do we decide between encouraging healthy or profitable crops? And what if there is not enough yield due to shitty fucking weather conditions? Subsidies for farming seem absolute–if not to keep risk low, than to establish pensions for the hard labor without affecting prices. Informed citizens of this planet should be able to figure this out democratically.

Next, Encourage companies to reduce prices once infrastructure is set up, like cell towers, data packages, MRI machines–or better, publicly own and share the machines and infrastructure like we do with most roads, and remove the company’s cost from the price of the service entirely.

So let’s analyze: Worst case on efficiency means lots of resources out of the earth, and large cash flows to spread according to the plan. Best case on efficiency means minimal use of resources. According to this plan, not enough shared profits would exist from drilling and mining to pay for all those people to enjoy their lives. That’s when you print money–not to devalue the currency–but to value the experience of life within a currency. Isn’t that better anyway, than everyone spending their paychecks filling, fixing, modifying and exchanging? Isn’t that better than printing money to endebt the country itself? Isn’t that better than begging for increasingly worthless coins?

your misunderstanding.
there misconstrued man.
whos base now?

People should be able to spend their money how they want, including the food stamp recipients buying sugar if they want diabetes and Alzheimer’s; but actually because a two dollar bag of chips will keep a stomach quiet for the whole day, and you only start out with six dollars a day. Spend how you want, including the mega wealthy participating in the political process; however, not to the candidates. Spend as much as you want on advertisements and correspondent time, but every candidate should get the same money to prepare for primaries, and those in a runoff should get equal portions to disseminate their cause fairly. The loss taken by mass media to allow for fairness should be subsidized through business taxes, freeing the voices in the media to speak on conscience rather than benefactor.

Congress should get paid more to reduce the demand to increase their lifestyle corruptly, and tax companies instead of selling congress’ seats. Big business runs the economy, so of course they need a louder voice in matters of it. If companies or individuals want to lobby their cause, it should be to the people direct through exposure to those ideas through media, not by monopolizing the time of representatives. Congress should be wise to consider an informed public when voting. Let the people weigh in after considering the paid viewpoints from commentators in the media, not be forced to vote on already bought candidates–but rather each issue itself. Then members of congress can openly go with or go against the public based on their personal political compass.

Then elected officials, made so by popular issues, can be used to decide on and endorse select businesses based on product quality and individual right to life, because they won’t answer to financial contributors. The elected, instead of being owned by business, can decide from conscience which products to endorse in the media to their constituents. Substandard governance shouldn’t insinuate no governance. Also, voting them out means early retirement with full pay for life; whereas keeping them in office means they have to address us until the public is informed enough to precisely cast their measured vote.

Trying to teach toddlers totalitarian tendencies takes tenacity.

Destroying a ton of greenhouse gas, HCFC-23, pays $100,000 or more.
An ozone-friendly refrigerant, HCFC-22, produces HCFC-23 as a byproduct.
So makers are overproducing the refrigerant (and consequent greenhouse gas) to get paid more to destroy it.

“The evidence is overwhelming that manufacturers are creating excess HFC-23 simply to destroy it and earn carbon credits,” said Mark Roberts of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a research and advocacy group. “This is the biggest environmental scandal in history and makes an absolute mockery of international efforts to combat climate change.” –Associated Press 8/23/2010

All these people claiming to be my friend, spinning wind, splitting end, hiding what was said, shooting dudes in the head, for wanting to be fed; their thoughts full of lead–making me see red.

One of three things must happen as a result of new technology: (1) society must disenfranchise entire populations of unnecessary labor due to the technology, (2) society must suppress technology from ever becoming efficient, (3) technology must destroy a profit-based system. The first two options are ludicrous. The only solution is to accept that technology will overwhelm a society based on the profit motive; leveling the playing field but not everybody is designed to be an entrepreneur or investment capitalist. How on earth can people suggest a small government, and leave it to non-governmental organizations to rely on optional donations to feed the world’s 800 million hungry every day? What’s your reaction to efficiency?



HomeConceptThe MathMemoirs



Take part in the discussion

Comments are closed.