democratic principle: the personal wealth of each and everybody is limited from above (capped) to an amount equal to a max lifetime of average wages (assuming last year in your national economic system the average wage was 1000 units, your total personal wealth is limited to 130 years*12 months*1000~1.500.000 units).
freedom principle: the society has an obligation to provide to every citizen the minimum wealth necessary to cover the basic living needs (roof, clothes, food, energy, means of communicating).
education, healthcare and free access to research results are mandatory public infrastructure and off-limits to commerce (i.e. paid, in principle, directly from public taxes and not from private investments or acts of private benevolence which may follow the looting)
a society is stable and meaningful only between these two limits of personal wealth and on the infrastructure defined in point 3. debate it with your friends, put facebook/google to work in your favour for once.
in essence these are the parameters which will guide the economy and its modeling, and not the reverse.
Pay attention permanently whom you vote/let in public power: Any politician/bureaucrat who doesn't aim for these three principles explicitly is a demagogue, an impostor or an unevolved chimpanzee in a suit-and-tie, it doesn't deserve your vote=doesn't deserve an income from your trust/efforts/taxes.
See you younger next year!
Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments
Free-market is a non-theory, liberal capitalism is a huge cheat scheme, Adam Smith was wrong from the very start, "property" in all the capitalist-praising texts does not refer to your property, the individualism refers to a consuming/slaving slot, not to a being, and any currently "developed country" is not really developed, in comparison with socialism.
The above is not a poetic figure of speech, the details come in these few lines:
free market is never a realistic approximation of an economy, market never comes empty: it's filled from the beginning and you, the gullible, are most of the times cornered by it;
liberal capitalism seems to work (for a minority) until it fails them, then you, the majority, pay, to make up for the difference: the free-market promoting US, bailed-out its own banks with non-market public money when push came to shove; the liberal global trading rules are becoming tariffs if they don't serve the bullshitters.
the self-interest of all living humans cannot create an invisible hand as in
They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution
of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into
equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without know-
ing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the
Anyone with a Physics 101, or some bits of neocortex, would discover immediately that the first thing someone self-centred, with a random economic advantage, would do is to continue growing that advantage as far as possible, meaning that the resulting society is a pyramid, with a few ultra-rich on top, and all the rest forced to work for them just for own survival. If that's too abstract to you, here's an example: A self-centred idiot in the market finds a 100 bill in a corner, next thing he does: pays two muscles to "lobby" some other participant to give up its products or its bought merchandise. Then he sells the stuff and pays some more muscles and does it all over again. Next year, he's writing the law of the markets where he's the chief. Until his self-centred idiot neighbour kills him and proclaims himself chief/lawyer of the market. History shows that these guys only stop when they are divinity, that is, never alive. History also shows that this is obviously outdated for countries which practised socialism.
all the capitalist systems insist on "the property", the problem is that only the socialist countries managed to make their citizens property owners: don't believe me? check the statistics of the EU countries in terms of house ownership, you'll be surprised to find that all the previously socialist countries have a larger proportion of house owners than all the capitalist ones. And here property means truly owning it, not having a mortgage to pay.
So, in capitalism, it's not your property the economists and politicians are talking about.
no so-called capitalist "developed country" can or could afford free education and free healthcare. Socialist countries could. If you disagree, call your senator/president/prime-minister to prove it! I lived in a socialist country and I know it did.
So, to trash with capitalism and free-marketers and liberal economists: I certainly don't care to see them advising country policies for the next eon.
So, if we let a capitalist system evolve, it destroys the host society: it becomes a tribe with few rich and in power, and the rest of the population as a decorum fussing for the enjoyment of those few.
A capitalist EU does not have a future, the Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union reads:
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the
rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.
These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination,
tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
Let's focus on "freedom": if one has to wake everyday up to work only to survive, that's not at all freedom, it's exactly the opposite.
We can give some true, verifiable, non-bullshitting content to the word freedom: every person alive receives from society an Unconditional Basic Income, to ensure that freedom is not a word for suckers and really lets people live in dignity and all the rest above = anyone's personal wealth is limited from below.
Let's focus on "democracy": it doesn't mean only that anyone has a voting stamp, it means that each voting stamp is equal in weight with any other. Problem is, a person 1.000 times richer than you gets more ways into the political power than you do, gets a weightier voting stamp than you, then the rule of law becomes more and more his rule of law.
It follows that the personal wealth should be limited from above, and I suggest anchoring this limit to a statistical fact about the society you live in: let each personal wealth be limited to an amount equal to a lifetime of average wages. A technical formula no political group can abuse because it includes all the negotiated economical life of, say, the past year. Make an arithmetical exercise and multiply the monthly_average_wage_in_your_country (400-3000) with a_lifetime (130 years*12months~1500): that's the personal wealth limit.
No society is stable or peaceful if the personal wealth is not limited both from above *and* below. This window of wealth is the one that affords the rest: equality, human dignity and the rule of law; it's an engineering truth history will test always.
Outside this personal window of wealth we, or EU, or US, or any other country, do not have any future.
Call it socialism, if you like, but briefly it's this: a country can have a future only if its citizens have comparable political power, that is, their personal wealth is limited both from above and below, and its society provides free education and free healthcare to each citizen. Anything else and your life is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
I have no doubt now that the outcome of the search for the best AI will be the human. More precisely, a self-aware, informed and educated, true proletarian, whom no capitalist will manage cheating.
Until then, I'm also certain that many doctors, all the lawyers, accountants and priests will join the rest of the jobless pack in queues.
So, until then, these bullshitters should focus on promoting unconditional basic income before it's too late. The rest of the "middle class" is also welcome. Informed proletarians would not mind this either.
All in all, it follows that the Unconditional Basic Income is the optimal way to fund the artificial intelligence effort.
It follows from here: the evolution proved that we're the best infrastructure for intelligence (distributed and sophisticated battery, adaptability, society etc). So the best AI effort is to put an UBI in this infrastructure, any alternative AI based on chips will be vulnerable to weather and any cat's piss.
This type of work (thank you, Professor) is what academics should be doing, instead of converting public money (their salaries) into private money (copyrighted knowledge), as they do now.
I would've recommended his book "Understanding Marx", but it's under copyright.
BTW, here's what "knowledge society" means, it's not what you thought: a society awash with knowledge, nope; it's a society hoping to extract rent from copyrighting whatever it touches (see WIPO, TRIPS and future like-horrors).
Unsurprisingly, societies trying it become failed societies: knowledge is not shared (because you're supposed to make it a commercial item), so citizens become, individually, as intelligent as their pocket.
Circulation of knowledge degrades into the circulation of money. It's not bad just because it is a backward thing to do, but bullshit is promoted to "knowledge" just because its owners would be able to sell more copies of it. Just watch.
Internet was supposed to allow collectively the society jump into a wiser, more knowledgeable state, instead, the legal notions of copyright and intellectual property are hoarding more economic power for some few, who never had a special relation with the creation of knowledge in the first place.