Why is systemic poverty intractable?

[Human_Action]

@tralfamadoran777

“Thus while Marx, Keynes, and Friedman all accepted the Quantity Theory, they each placed different emphasis as to which variable was the driver in changing prices. Marx emphasized production, Keynes income and demand, and Friedman the quantity of money.” Quantity theory of money - Wikipedia

While there is near universal acceptance that, in the long term, prices will rise to match money supply, there is significant doubt that prices can be radically affected in the short term simply from the increase in money supply, so a short term increase in money supply can serve to increase production and convert to capital before having any effect on prices.

You aren’t talking about a short-term stimulus, which can be beneficial in certain circumstances (which you haven’t demonstrated are in existence at this time) though, but rather a permanent, global program. Further, the scale of the expansion is crucial.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
The outline of how the implementation could manifest specific to the U.S. is partially funded through taxes, only because that is how sovereign debt is repaid. The requirement for shares to be invested securely expects much of that to be sovereign debt.
[/quote]

Why not cut out the middle man and just fund it with taxes? All the taxes paid to interest are just being wasted, that’s funds that could go to the basic income payments or another useful purpose.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
From Hyperinflation - Wikipedia

“Models:
Since hyperinflation is visible as a monetary effect, models of hyperinflation center on the demand for money. Economists see both a rapid increase in the money supply and an increase in the velocity of money if the (monetary) inflating is not stopped. Either one, or both of these together are the root causes of inflation and hyperinflation. A dramatic increase in the velocity of money as the cause of hyperinflation is central to the “crisis of confidence” model of hyperinflation, where the risk premium that sellers demand for the paper currency over the nominal value grows rapidly.” (This is foreign interest, or lack there of, in the subject currency.)

“The second theory is that there is first a radical increase in the amount of circulating medium, which can be called the “monetary model” of hyperinflation. In either model, the second effect then follows from the first — either too little confidence forcing an increase in the money supply, or too much money, destroying confidence.
In the confidence model, some event, or series of events, such as defeats in battle, or a run on stocks of the specie which back a currency, removes the belief that the authority issuing the money will remain solvent — whether a bank or a government.”
(So this would require a loss in confidence in all currencies)
[/quote]

Your proposal would supply that loss of confidence in all currencies. If they are all hyperinflating, then people will abandon them for barter, durable goods, etc.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
“Because people do not want to hold notes which may become valueless, they want to spend them. Sellers, realizing that there is a higher risk for the currency, demand a greater and greater premium over the original value. Under this model, the method of ending hyperinflation is to change the backing of the currency, often by issuing a completely new one.” (like maybe an international currency of a specific quantity, stable relative to population, that is only used to underwrite sovereign debt)
[/quote]

What does that do for all the people holding the basic-income shares? Getting off the diluted currency stops the bleeding, but it doesn’t make whole all the people who were wiped out. It doesn’t undo the damage.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
“In the monetary model, hyperinflation is a positive feedback cycle of rapid monetary expansion. It has the same cause as all other inflation: money-issuing bodies, central or otherwise, produce currency to pay spiraling costs, often from lax fiscal policy, or the mounting costs of warfare. When business people perceive that the issuer is committed to a policy of rapid currency expansion, they mark up prices to cover the expected decay in the currency’s value. The issuer must then accelerate its expansion to cover these prices, which pushes the currency value down even faster than before. According to this model the issuer cannot “win” and the only solution is to abruptly stop expanding the currency. Unfortunately, the end of expansion can cause a severe financial shock to those using the currency as expectations are suddenly adjusted. This policy, combined with reductions of pensions, wages, and government outlays, formed part of the Washington consensus of the 1990’s.”
(In the proposed case, the new capital would be input through investments that would be transformed to things of value, not held as cash. Business people (foreign influence) would not perceive a policy of rapid expansion, as one would not exist. The implementation would need to be agreed on, so planning could be made with certain expectations.)
[/quote]

Rapid expansion is exactly what you’re proposing, unless you plan to phase in this program over a few centuries, by keeping inflation under 2%.

Do you understand how funds that are invested produce a return? They aren’t held as cash, they are spent on materials, wages, land, buildings, and so forth. That requires the funds being circulated.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
“Inflation becomes hyperinflation when the increase in money supply turns specific areas of pricing power into a general frenzy of spending quickly before money becomes worthless.” (With actions being deliberated well in advance, no worthlessness is reasonably expected.)
[/quote]

Adding $5 quadrillion makes people reasonably expect worthlessness. Anyone who held any currency now would become desperate to exchange it for something of inherent value: land, tools, food, etc.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
“Because rapidly rising prices undermine the role of money as a store of value, people try to spend it on real goods or services as quickly as possible. Thus, the monetary model predicts that the velocity of money will increase as a result of an excessive increase in the money supply.” (So money can be spent on real goods and services. Again, the excessive rate is a characteristic of your assertion, not a rational implementation of the utility)
[/quote]

Find me a single instance where the money supply was expanded to the degree you advocate and hyperinflation didn’t result, and I’ll back down from my assertion that the growth rate would be excessive and cause hyperinflation.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
"During a period of hyperinflation, bank runs, loans for 24-hour periods, switching to alternate currencies, the return to use of gold or silver or even barter become common. Many of the people who hoard gold today expect hyperinflation, and are hedging against it by holding specie. There may also be extensive capital flight or flight to a “hard” currency such as the US dollar. This is sometimes met with capital controls, an idea which has swung from standard, to anathema, and back into semi-respectability. All of this constitutes an economy which is operating in an “abnormal” way, which may lead to decreases in real production. If so, that intensifies the hyperinflation, since it means that the amount of goods in “too much money chasing too few goods” formulation is also reduced. This is also part of the vicious circle of hyperinflation. (Flight to what? This is why I say that proportional increases in all currencies limit this activity.)
[/quote]

I don’t believe you are reading this critically, but rather searching for nuggets that support your ideas. Flight to what? It’s right there in that passage: gold, silver, and barter. Anything that can’t be diluted away: land, food, durable goods, etc.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
"Although wage and price controls are sometimes used to control or prevent inflation, no episode of hyperinflation has been ended by the use of price controls alone, because price controls that force merchants to sell at prices far below their restocking costs result in shortages that cause prices to rise still further.
Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman said “We economists don’t know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can’t sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you’ll have a tomato shortage. It’s the same with oil or gas.” "
(So, don’t set prices too low, if that even is deemed appropriate.)
[/quote]

This is what I mean: you quote a section about how price controls can’t stop hyperinflation, and your takeaway is that price controls must be carefully set, and then they’ll work fine to stop hyperinflation. This is confirmation bias run amok.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
Another obvious mechanism to limit inflation is in place, in that increased velocity adds sales tax revenue by multiples. This excess tax revenue, and any taxation deemed appropriate, can be held out of circulation. Currency boards, like the Bulgarian that halted their hyperinflation in the month, are based on holding a stable foreign currency.
[/quote]

…Thus removing more purchasing power from the very people you’re trying to help in the first place. Diluting currency, then sucking it back in through sales taxes, is literally the worst of both worlds.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
The 2% limitation on injecting new capital is not with standing as expansions far in excess of that have been sustainable for long periods of time. In China they’re whining about not maintaining 8%. The time required to reach target level would be whatever planning and confidence can arrange, if that is long, it will be worth it.
[/quote]

China’s GDP is growing at about 8% per year, so they can increase their money supply more than the U.S. can and get away with it. Remember the formula? The growth rate of their output is high, so they can get away with a higher growth rate of the money supply without an incease in the price level. That’s what matters, stability in the price level. 2% isn’t a magic number, it’s the U.S.'s GDP growth rate.

You can’t legislate GDP growth, it’s the result of productivity and innovation.

Further, I submit that sloooooowly phasing this plan in through growth in the money supply is fundamentally unjust, since it means either a slow trickle of income, or the issuance of the million-dollar-+ shares to a few people at a time. A tax-funded basic income could be installed overnight, with everyone getting a liveable basic income at the same time.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
It should not be difficult for you to believe that I am not a mathematician or economist, along with the vast majority of humans.
[/quote]

That’s fine. Perhaps you should look for economists who support your ideas, and if you don’t find any, perhaps that means something.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
But I do understand a good deal more than most about calculations.

A bumble bee defies physics by flying, because it doesn’t know physics, or because the calculations are somehow lacking? A dome requires massive support to resist being ripped apart at the base, until the spherical form is greater than half and the forces resolve, (like the ones on minarets.)

With current technology and the array of tools to control hyperinflation, it can not be a given.
[/quote]

This would be much more persuasive, as an incitement to give it the old college try, if you could articulate meaningful benefits of your plan over an NIT or the Swiss tax-funded basic income. All you’ve given is vague psychic benefits like “enfranchisement”, and that an NIT or universal basic income could be ended through an act of the legislature, which is a feature, not a bug. It’s a good thing to have programs that can be tweaked for best performance, or to respond to current conditions, and if you believe in democracy, then the people having the right to choose leaders that will enact a basic-income plan also entails the people having the right to choose leaders that will end a basic-income plan, if that is what the people desire.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
Hayek favored a basic income, social security system, but he also spoke often of coercion as a major impediment to the healthy function of the market, and of society.

As long as a human needs to be approved of, or judged by another, to receive “some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health,” there is a potential coercion, and a government can not be expected to leave a power unused.
[/quote]

The government, in your scheme, has just as much power. The share accounts could be closed, the investment criteria changed, tax rates hiked to soak up the money supply increase, etc, etc. In a society under the rule of law, government always has the power to coerce. We want it to have that power, because that’s what keeps bandits from cracking my head open and carrying off my livestock. That is why governments exist: to coerce.

[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
A self image is established or reinforced by the relationship of dependence and subjugation. While that has little effect on those better adapted to succeed in our modern society, it is hardly reasonable or humane to single out and treat those in need as though they have less right to the sustenance and natural wealth of the planet than any others.

Happy people are more productive, pursuit of happiness is a right.

Positive reinforcement is far more effective than negative reinforcement. Choices between positive and negative reinforcement during treatment for escape-maintained behavior - PMC

Since we have the tools and resources to provide each person with a meager but sovereign share of the earth, the half measure of handouts to those who can prove a need and fill out all the forms and don’t use any prohibited plant substances one country at a time would be sad.
[/QUOTE]

Then endorse the Swiss proposal, where everyone gets the basic income, regardless of how wealthy they are. Again, there are efficiency concerns there, since for net taxpayers that means paying more and then getting a check right back, but if it’s filling out forms you’re worried about, it neatly solves that problem.

And, once more, the government throwing a million quatloos into an account in your name so you can live off the returns from investing it is just as much a handout as any other basic-income scheme.

[tralfamadoran777]

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
“Thus while Marx, Keynes, and Friedman all accepted the Quantity Theory, they each placed different emphasis as to which variable was the driver in changing prices. Marx emphasized production, Keynes income and demand, and Friedman the quantity of money.” Quantity theory of money - Wikipedia

While there is near universal acceptance that, in the long term, prices will rise to match money supply, there is significant doubt that prices can be radically affected in the short term simply from the increase in money supply, so a short term increase in money supply can serve to increase production and convert to capital before having any effect on prices.
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

You aren’t talking about a short-term stimulus, which can be beneficial in certain circumstances (which you haven’t demonstrated are in existence at this time) though, but rather a permanent, global program. Further, the scale of the expansion is crucial.

No, I am pointing out that the money supply can be increased to some degree without causing immediate price changes, so, with the increased economic activity, money can be added at whatever rate money can be moved from circulation to investment, which is accelerated by having more money available, (a short term stimulus, followed by another, as frequently as the system can convert money to non-monetary wealth.

“Keynes argued the amount of money was determined by the purchasing power or aggregate demand. He wrote
“Thus the number of notes which the public ordinarily have on hand is determined by the purchasing power which it suits them to hold or to carry about, and by nothing else.””

He is saying that what ever money is pushed into circulation, people will only hold as much as they feel they need, or what ever they can, whichever is less. So this too acts as a control to prevent hyperinflation.

A very efficient system exists in the world economy for collecting whatever can be dislodged from the general population. You may have been subjected to the recent note that 85 people hold as much wealth as 3.5 billion, this is testament to that efficiency, but also reveals the vast capacity for wealth in terms of investment outside the money supply.

The scale of the expansion is crucial, and it is similarly crucial that the expansion be universal, to support the needed scale, and to actually address the world problem.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
The outline of how the implementation could manifest specific to the U.S. is partially funded through taxes, only because that is how sovereign debt is repaid. The requirement for shares to be invested securely expects much of that to be sovereign debt.
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

Why not cut out the middle man and just fund it with taxes? All the taxes paid to interest are just being wasted, that’s funds that could go to the basic income payments or another useful purpose.

The taxes paid to interest would fund the basic income payments, so universally, sovereign debt would be owed to the citizens and the interest rate would be low and stable.

The middle man is, in this case the people, who are cut out from the natural wealth of the planet by kings and governments. The specific intent of this system of enfranchisement is to establish a proper relationship between and among people and governments.
—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
From Hyperinflation - Wikipedia

“Models:
Since hyperinflation is visible as a monetary effect, models of hyperinflation center on the demand for money. Economists see both a rapid increase in the money supply and an increase in the velocity of money if the (monetary) inflating is not stopped. Either one, or both of these together are the root causes of inflation and hyperinflation. A dramatic increase in the velocity of money as the cause of hyperinflation is central to the “crisis of confidence” model of hyperinflation, where the risk premium that sellers demand for the paper currency over the nominal value grows rapidly.” (This is foreign interest, or lack there of, in the subject currency.)

“The second theory is that there is first a radical increase in the amount of circulating medium, which can be called the “monetary model” of hyperinflation. In either model, the second effect then follows from the first — either too little confidence forcing an increase in the money supply, or too much money, destroying confidence.
In the confidence model, some event, or series of events, such as defeats in battle, or a run on stocks of the specie which back a currency, removes the belief that the authority issuing the money will remain solvent — whether a bank or a government.”
(So this would require a loss in confidence in all currencies)
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

Your proposal would supply that loss of confidence in all currencies. If they are all hyperinflating, then people will abandon them for barter, durable goods, etc.

Hyperinflation would not occur if this was manifest, because in order for it to be, the best qualified people, and those 85, would determine the best and most appropriate implementation. Everyone concerned would position themselves as they deem appropriate for specific and deliberate changes that they can be confident will occur.

People will not abandon currency.
—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
“Because people do not want to hold notes which may become valueless, they want to spend them. Sellers, realizing that there is a higher risk for the currency, demand a greater and greater premium over the original value. Under this model, the method of ending hyperinflation is to change the backing of the currency, often by issuing a completely new one.” (like maybe an international currency of a specific quantity, stable relative to population, that is only used to underwrite sovereign debt)
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

What does that do for all the people holding the basic-income shares? Getting off the diluted currency stops the bleeding, but it doesn’t make whole all the people who were wiped out. It doesn’t undo the damage.

I fear you are beyond rational consideration of anything beyond the imaginary problem you have assumed.

Since the stable international currency would be created and in place, backing all currencies through sovereign debt, that stability will extend to all currencies, so imagined hyperinflation would not occur.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
“Inflation becomes hyperinflation when the increase in money supply turns specific areas of pricing power into a general frenzy of spending quickly before money becomes worthless.” (With actions being deliberated well in advance, no worthlessness is reasonably expected.)
—End Quote—
Adding $5 quadrillion makes people reasonably expect worthlessness. Anyone who held any currency now would become desperate to exchange it for something of inherent value: land, tools, food, etc.
[/QUOTE]

What would be added, over time, is $5 quadrillion of debt.
—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
“Because rapidly rising prices undermine the role of money as a store of value, people try to spend it on real goods or services as quickly as possible. Thus, the monetary model predicts that the velocity of money will increase as a result of an excessive increase in the money supply.” (So money can be spent on real goods and services. Again, the excessive rate is a characteristic of your assertion, not a rational implementation of the utility)
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

Find me a single instance where the money supply was expanded to the degree you advocate and hyperinflation didn’t result, and I’ll back down from my assertion that the growth rate would be excessive and cause hyperinflation.
For special pleading to be a logical fallacy, the situation must not be special. Since what I suggest has never happened, no similar occurrence can be cited, neither can a resultant hyperinflation.

You keep asserting that I advocate the immediate disbursement of $5.25 quadrillion in cash into the money supply. I do not, and have clarified that repeatedly.

You also do not specify what money supply you refer to, alternately suggesting that it may be one of the M’s or all wealth on the planet.

Our M2 has increased to 5 times what it was 30 years ago. MB has more than doubled since 2007 while quarterly growth rates have ranged from -8% to nearly 5%.

What I do advocate is a controlled expansion of the world economy to provide a minimum ownership stake. If that expansion is slow or is primarily in developing areas that have greater capacity for expansion, I don’t see a problem with that, it is still worth doing.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
"During a period of hyperinflation, bank runs, loans for 24-hour periods, switching to alternate currencies, the return to use of gold or silver or even barter become common. Many of the people who hoard gold today expect hyperinflation, and are hedging against it by holding specie. There may also be extensive capital flight or flight to a “hard” currency such as the US dollar. This is sometimes met with capital controls, an idea which has swung from standard, to anathema, and back into semi-respectability. All of this constitutes an economy which is operating in an “abnormal” way, which may lead to decreases in real production. If so, that intensifies the hyperinflation, since it means that the amount of goods in “too much money chasing too few goods” formulation is also reduced. This is also part of the vicious circle of hyperinflation. (Flight to what? This is why I say that proportional increases in all currencies limit this activity.)
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

I don’t believe you are reading this critically, but rather searching for nuggets that support your ideas. Flight to what? It’s right there in that passage: gold, silver, and barter. Anything that can’t be diluted away: land, food, durable goods, etc.

The argument is about the likelihood of hyperinflation occurring during the implementation of a capital distribution, when in order for the distribution to take place a consensus among those involved would need to be reached on the exact amounts, rates, and voluminous minutia involved. The assumption that such an effort would result in those involved screwing the thing up to cause world economic collapse is a rejection of the economists whose authority you revere.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
"Although wage and price controls are sometimes used to control or prevent inflation, no episode of hyperinflation has been ended by the use of price controls alone, because price controls that force merchants to sell at prices far below their restocking costs result in shortages that cause prices to rise still further.
Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman said “We economists don’t know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can’t sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you’ll have a tomato shortage. It’s the same with oil or gas.” "
(So, don’t set prices too low, if that even is deemed appropriate.)
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

This is what I mean: you quote a section about how price controls can’t stop hyperinflation, and your takeaway is that price controls must be carefully set, and then they’ll work fine to stop hyperinflation. This is confirmation bias run amok.

No, I am saying that price controls can help avoid hyperinflation. It is one of many tools available. The passage says “alone,” not that price controls don’t work. This is just selective reading, and of course projection, like clinging to the notion of hyperinflation when the conditions for it have been begged.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
Another obvious mechanism to limit inflation is in place, in that increased velocity adds sales tax revenue by multiples. This excess tax revenue, and any taxation deemed appropriate, can be held out of circulation. Currency boards, like the Bulgarian that halted their hyperinflation in the month, are based on holding a stable foreign currency.
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

…Thus removing more purchasing power from the very people you’re trying to help in the first place. Diluting currency, then sucking it back in through sales taxes, is literally the worst of both worlds.

WTF? Having spent the months dividend, the purchasing power is realized. The stuff has been purchased. Sales taxation already exists. As you have continually noted, excess cash is not purchasing power, you have stated that excess cash would reduce purchasing power, and now removing it would.
—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
The 2% limitation on injecting new capital is not with standing as expansions far in excess of that have been sustainable for long periods of time. In China they’re whining about not maintaining 8%. The time required to reach target level would be whatever planning and confidence can arrange, if that is long, it will be worth it.
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

China’s GDP is growing at about 8% per year, so they can increase their money supply more than the U.S. can and get away with it. Remember the formula? The growth rate of their output is high, so they can get away with a higher growth rate of the money supply without an incease in the price level. That’s what matters, stability in the price level. 2% isn’t a magic number, it’s the U.S.'s GDP growth rate.

You can’t legislate GDP growth, it’s the result of productivity and innovation.

Further, I submit that sloooooowly phasing this plan in through growth in the money supply is fundamentally unjust, since it means either a slow trickle of income, or the issuance of the million-dollar-+ shares to a few people at a time. A tax-funded basic income could be installed overnight, with everyone getting a liveable basic income at the same time.

2% is a target, and maybe near a long term average, but has been as high as 17% and as low as -10%. Historically, to end recessions, legislation spending deficit fiat money has increased GDP, by fueling production and innovation, and backs off spending to control inflation.

Little gets done overnight. A livable basic income is very different in different places, so even a slow trickle of income would produce positive results in much of the world. In the meantime an NIT would provide the intended income support, and if one was seriously considered I would certainly not oppose it, but ending poverty and stabilizing the world economy will not be the result of it.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
It should not be difficult for you to believe that I am not a mathematician or economist, along with the vast majority of humans.
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

That’s fine. Perhaps you should look for economists who support your ideas, and if you don’t find any, perhaps that means something.

For the most part that means that economists, like everyone else are too busy to read, much less consider, unsolicited concept papers.

From: Stephen
To: “alsheahen@prodigy.net” <alsheahen@prodigy.net>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 6:42 PM
Subject: Basic income funding

If this planet’s resources are assumed to be the property of all its inhabitants, and we agree that the planet has value, can we use this value as basis for a fiat currency, to be evenly distributed to each, and secured by the state in permanent local trust accounts providing a regular dividend, and maybe a place to hold votes, possibly finance the U.N.?

Al Sheahen
8/04/13

To: Stephen
Not a bad idea. A little more ambitious than a BIG for one country, but it makes sense for the future.

I looked this up to see if Al was an economist, apparently not, but he did get “Basic Income Guarantee: Your Right to Economic Security,” published in 2012. I’m a little distressed to find that he died a few weeks later. I remember a follow up message he sent shortly after this one, but I must have deleted it.
—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
But I do understand a good deal more than most about calculations.

A bumble bee defies physics by flying, because it doesn’t know physics, or because the calculations are somehow lacking? A dome requires massive support to resist being ripped apart at the base, until the spherical form is greater than half and the forces resolve, (like the ones on minarets.)

With current technology and the array of tools to control hyperinflation, it can not be a given.
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

This would be much more persuasive, as an incitement to give it the old college try, if you could articulate meaningful benefits of your plan over an NIT or the Swiss tax-funded basic income. All you’ve given is vague psychic benefits like “enfranchisement”, and that an NIT or universal basic income could be ended through an act of the legislature, which is a feature, not a bug. It’s a good thing to have programs that can be tweaked for best performance, or to respond to current conditions, and if you believe in democracy, then the people having the right to choose leaders that will enact a basic-income plan also entails the people having the right to choose leaders that will end a basic-income plan, if that is what the people desire.

If enfranchisement is a vague psychic benefit, of no importance, so then is democracy.

If we are considering the tractability of poverty, which is far more of a problem outside of the U.S. or Switzerland, then any plan that is restricted to one country can not service the need.

It is a good thing to have programs that can be tweaked for best performance, or to respond to current conditions, and I realize that I am not qualified to make those tweaks, but I am just as certain that some are, and that the earth can support an economy of plenty, where maybe they have to adjust rates or remove money supply through taxation for a time.

You note that China’s expansion is warranted because of their level of economic activity, owing largely to money flowing in to their economy. So why is the rest of the world, or for your perspective, the U.S., immune to increased economic activity from money flowing into the economy?

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
This may be why you don’t care much about “other” people, that is, that you would accept taxation to get the homeless out of your way, but not a system that would help all people.
—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
Hayek favored a basic income, social security system, but he also spoke often of coercion as a major impediment to the healthy function of the market, and of society.

As long as a human needs to be approved of, or judged by another, to receive “some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health,” there is a potential coercion, and a government can not be expected to leave a power unused.
—End Quote—

@Human_Action

The government, in your scheme, has just as much power. The share accounts could be closed, the investment criteria changed, tax rates hiked to soak up the money supply increase, etc, etc. In a society under the rule of law, government always has the power to coerce. We want it to have that power, because that’s what keeps bandits from cracking my head open and carrying off my livestock. That is why governments exist: to coerce.

Enforcing law and protecting property is not coercion. Coercion forces an action. Bandits are deterred from cracking your head open and carrying off your livestock only by the possibility of getting caught and punished, and by limiting those possibilities, things like that still happen.

The governments in my scheme are made debtors to their citizenry, which is a rightful position. The citizenry is endowed with the real ability to move his or her share to another state. Certainly a governments powers are unchanged, except as its citizenry demands, and those powers are exactly the things that will prevent hyperinflation.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
A self image is established or reinforced by the relationship of dependence and subjugation. While that has little effect on those better adapted to succeed in our modern society, it is hardly reasonable or humane to single out and treat those in need as though they have less right to the sustenance and natural wealth of the planet than any others.

Happy people are more productive, pursuit of happiness is a right.

Positive reinforcement is far more effective than negative reinforcement.Choices between positive and negative reinforcement during treatment for escape-maintained behavior - PMC

Since we have the tools and resources to provide each person with a meager but sovereign share of the earth, the half measure of handouts to those who can prove a need and fill out all the forms and don’t use any prohibited plant substances one country at a time would be sad.
[/QUOTE]

@Human_Action

Then endorse the Swiss proposal, where everyone gets the basic income, regardless of how wealthy they are. Again, there are efficiency concerns there, since for net taxpayers that means paying more and then getting a check right back, but if it’s filling out forms you’re worried about, it neatly solves that problem.

And, once more, the government throwing a million quatloos into an account in your name so you can live off the returns from investing it is just as much a handout as any other basic-income scheme.

The recognition of a humans’ rightful share of the planet, a persons’ property, is not a handout, it is a settlement, it is a universal sovereign credit default swap, a stabilizing force, a vote in the world economy.

The experience of poverty is not just a lack of dollars to buy food. If we are to access the rights we assume in our Constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we need the opportunity to achieve self actualization. While this no doubt seems meaningless or obscure to you, particularly if you are and see those who are not as inferior, the self respect and support, the societal infrastructure that aided your development is not available to all, nor is your intellect.

With current technology and the array of tools to control hyper

[Human_Action]

@tralfamadoran777

No, I am pointing out that the money supply can be increased to some degree without causing immediate price changes, so, with the increased economic activity, money can be added at whatever rate money can be moved from circulation to investment, which is accelerated by having more money available, (a short term stimulus, followed by another, as frequently as the system can convert money to non-monetary wealth.

“Keynes argued the amount of money was determined by the purchasing power or aggregate demand. He wrote
“Thus the number of notes which the public ordinarily have on hand is determined by the purchasing power which it suits them to hold or to carry about, and by nothing else.””

He is saying that what ever money is pushed into circulation, people will only hold as much as they feel they need, or what ever they can, whichever is less. So this too acts as a control to prevent hyperinflation.

A very efficient system exists in the world economy for collecting whatever can be dislodged from the general population. You may have been subjected to the recent note that 85 people hold as much wealth as 3.5 billion, this is testament to that efficiency, but also reveals the vast capacity for wealth in terms of investment outside the money supply.

The scale of the expansion is crucial, and it is similarly crucial that the expansion be universal, to support the needed scale, and to actually address the world problem.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
The outline of how the implementation could manifest specific to the U.S. is partially funded through taxes, only because that is how sovereign debt is repaid. The requirement for shares to be invested securely expects much of that to be sovereign debt.
—End Quote—

This is begging the question, again: you’re saying that because it is possible to expand the money supply without hyperinflation (as we do in the U.S. every year, for instance), then it must be possible to expand the money supply enough to give everyone a large dividend to live on without hyperinflation. That’s the huge gap in your plan: the distance between expansion that can be absorbed, and that which can’t.

By analogy: I might argue that everyone should drink a gallon of paint thinner, because in small quantities it’s not lethal, and there are means of treating poisoning.

@tralfamadoran777

The taxes paid to interest would fund the basic income payments, so universally, sovereign debt would be owed to the citizens and the interest rate would be low and stable.

Wait, what? Now you’re talking about issuing bonds to people for free, or what?

@tralfamadoran777

The middle man is, in this case the people, who are cut out from the natural wealth of the planet by kings and governments. The specific intent of this system of enfranchisement is to establish a proper relationship between and among people and governments.

We have the proper relationship now, at least in developed countries: governments serve at the pleasure of their people.

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
From Hyperinflation - Wikipedia

Hyperinflation would not occur if this was manifest, because in order for it to be, the best qualified people, and those 85, would determine the best and most appropriate implementation. Everyone concerned would position themselves as they deem appropriate for specific and deliberate changes that they can be confident will occur.

People will not abandon currency.

I am telling you that the conclusion of the best qualified people would be that the most appropriate implementation would be not implementing it at all.

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
“Because people do not want to hold notes which may become valueless, they want to spend them. Sellers, realizing that there is a higher risk for the currency, demand a greater and greater premium over the original value. Under this model, the method of ending hyperinflation is to change the backing of the currency, often by issuing a completely new one.” (like maybe an international currency of a specific quantity, stable relative to population, that is only used to underwrite sovereign debt)
—End Quote—
I fear you are beyond rational consideration of anything beyond the imaginary problem you have assumed.

Hyperinflation is not imaginary, it’s the result of a large increase of the money supply without a corresponding increase in output. An increase in the money supply wouldn’t increase output enough to match. We’ve been over this.

@tralfamadoran777

Since the stable international currency would be created and in place, backing all currencies through sovereign debt, that stability will extend to all currencies, so imagined hyperinflation would not occur.

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
“Inflation becomes hyperinflation when the increase in money supply turns specific areas of pricing power into a general frenzy of spending quickly before money becomes worthless.” (With actions being deliberated well in advance, no worthlessness is reasonably expected.)
—End Quote—
Adding $5 quadrillion makes people reasonably expect worthlessness. Anyone who held any currency now would become desperate to exchange it for something of inherent value: land, tools, food, etc.

What would be added, over time, is $5 quadrillion of debt.
[/quote]

Is this a new version? Before, it was direct deposits into accounts, with restrictions on how the funds could be used (i.e., it had to be invested in certain ways). Now you’re talking about issuing bonds?

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
“Because rapidly rising prices undermine the role of money as a store of value, people try to spend it on real goods or services as quickly as possible. Thus, the monetary model predicts that the velocity of money will increase as a result of an excessive increase in the money supply.” (So money can be spent on real goods and services. Again, the excessive rate is a characteristic of your assertion, not a rational implementation of the utility)
—End Quote—
You keep asserting that I advocate the immediate disbursement of $5.25 quadrillion in cash into the money supply. I do not, and have clarified that repeatedly.

You also do not specify what money supply you refer to, alternately suggesting that it may be one of the M’s or all wealth on the planet.

Our M2 has increased to 5 times what it was 30 years ago. MB has more than doubled since 2007 while quarterly growth rates have ranged from -8% to nearly 5%.

What I do advocate is a controlled expansion of the world economy to provide a minimum ownership stake. If that expansion is slow or is primarily in developing areas that have greater capacity for expansion, I don’t see a problem with that, it is still worth doing.

Until you grasp the difference between economic growth, and a growth in the money supply, this discussion will go nowhere.

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
"During a period of hyperinflation, bank runs, loans for 24-hour periods, switching to alternate currencies, the return to use of gold or silver or even barter become common. Many of the people who hoard gold today expect hyperinflation, and are hedging against it by holding specie. There may also be extensive capital flight or flight to a “hard” currency such as the US dollar. This is sometimes met with capital controls, an idea which has swung from standard, to anathema, and back into semi-respectability. All of this constitutes an economy which is operating in an “abnormal” way, which may lead to decreases in real production. If so, that intensifies the hyperinflation, since it means that the amount of goods in “too much money chasing too few goods” formulation is also reduced. This is also part of the vicious circle of hyperinflation. (Flight to what? This is why I say that proportional increases in all currencies limit this activity.)
—End Quote—
The argument is about the likelihood of hyperinflation occurring during the implementation of a capital distribution, when in order for the distribution to take place a consensus among those involved would need to be reached on the exact amounts, rates, and voluminous minutia involved. The assumption that such an effort would result in those involved screwing the thing up to cause world economic collapse is a rejection of the economists whose authority you revere.

Right, to avoid screwing things up, they wouldn’t do it at all.

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
"Although wage and price controls are sometimes used to control or prevent inflation, no episode of hyperinflation has been ended by the use of price controls alone, because price controls that force merchants to sell at prices far below their restocking costs result in shortages that cause prices to rise still further.
Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman said “We economists don’t know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can’t sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you’ll have a tomato shortage. It’s the same with oil or gas.” "
(So, don’t set prices too low, if that even is deemed appropriate.)
—End Quote—

No, I am saying that price controls can help avoid hyperinflation. It is one of many tools available. The passage says “alone,” not that price controls don’t work. This is just selective reading, and of course projection, like clinging to the notion of hyperinflation when the conditions for it have been begged.

Uh huh. Another thing you’re missing: yes, tools exist to stop hyperinflation. None of them leave the economy better off than it was before the hyperinflation, or make people actually wealthier. Tools exist to stop bleeding, none of them make the patient better off than he was before the cut.

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
Another obvious mechanism to limit inflation is in place, in that increased velocity adds sales tax revenue by multiples. This excess tax revenue, and any taxation deemed appropriate, can be held out of circulation. Currency boards, like the Bulgarian that halted their hyperinflation in the month, are based on holding a stable foreign currency.
—End Quote—
WTF? Having spent the months dividend, the purchasing power is realized. The stuff has been purchased. Sales taxation already exists. As you have continually noted, excess cash is not purchasing power, you have stated that excess cash would reduce purchasing power, and now removing it would.

If sales taxes are high enough to remove money from circulation to a degree sufficient to counteract the expansion of the money supply, then there’s no net increase in purchasing power. It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul.

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
The 2% limitation on injecting new capital is not with standing as expansions far in excess of that have been sustainable for long periods of time. In China they’re whining about not maintaining 8%. The time required to reach target level would be whatever planning and confidence can arrange, if that is long, it will be worth it.
—End Quote—
2% is a target, and maybe near a long term average, but has been as high as 17% and as low as -10%. Historically, to end recessions, legislation spending deficit fiat money has increased GDP, by fueling production and innovation, and backs off spending to control inflation.

Yes, as I have already written, in certain economic circumstances, some stimulus spending is a good idea. It doesn’t follow that your plan is a good idea.

@tralfamadoran777

Little gets done overnight. A livable basic income is very different in different places, so even a slow trickle of income would produce positive results in much of the world. In the meantime an NIT would provide the intended income support, and if one was seriously considered I would certainly not oppose it, but ending poverty and stabilizing the world economy will not be the result of it.

Your plan would destabilize the world economy.

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
It should not be difficult for you to believe that I am not a mathematician or economist, along with the vast majority of humans.
—End Quote—
For the most part that means that economists, like everyone else are too busy to read, much less consider, unsolicited concept papers.

From: Stephen
To: “alsheahen@prodigy.net” <alsheahen@prodigy.net>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 6:42 PM
Subject: Basic income funding

If this planet’s resources are assumed to be the property of all its inhabitants, and we agree that the planet has value, can we use this value as basis for a fiat currency, to be evenly distributed to each, and secured by the state in permanent local trust accounts providing a regular dividend, and maybe a place to hold votes, possibly finance the U.N.?

Al Sheahen
8/04/13

To: Stephen
Not a bad idea. A little more ambitious than a BIG for one country, but it makes sense for the future.

I looked this up to see if Al was an economist, apparently not, but he did get “Basic Income Guarantee: Your Right to Economic Security,” published in 2012. I’m a little distressed to find that he died a few weeks later. I remember a follow up message he sent shortly after this one, but I must have deleted it.

Here’s Basic Income Guarantee: Your Right to Economic Security. See page 5:

7. Who would pay for a BIG?

The U.S. federal government, out of the taxes it collects.

So, in his actual published work, he did not endorse anything like your plan.

Does anyone? Any published work?

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
But I do understand a good deal more than most about calculations.

A bumble bee defies physics by flying, because it doesn’t know physics, or because the calculations are somehow lacking? A dome requires massive support to resist being ripped apart at the base, until the spherical form is greater than half and the forces resolve, (like the ones on minarets.)

With current technology and the array of tools to control hyperinflation, it can not be a given.
—End Quote—
If enfranchisement is a vague psychic benefit, of no importance, so then is democracy.

Not at all. Democracy has material benefits: it makes the governors accountable to the governed, thus forcing them to do what the people want them to do or be removed from power. Compare democratic nations to non-democratic nations to see the material benefits in action.

I still don’t even know what you mean by “enfranchisement”, I read the definition as you advised me to do, and it’s something everyone in the Western world already has, without having an inflation-powered basic income program.

@tralfamadoran777

If we are considering the tractability of poverty, which is far more of a problem outside of the U.S. or Switzerland, then any plan that is restricted to one country can not service the need.

That’s another thing: if your program requires all the nations of the world to cooperate, well, that’s just not happening anytime soon. The 170+ nations of the world are far too different, culturally, to all sign off on something like this.

Conversely, Switzerland got their basic income proposal on the ballot, to be voted on via referendum soon. The U.S. came somewhat close to implementing a NIT under Nixon. A tax-funded NIT can actually be acheived.

@tralfamadoran777

It is a good thing to have programs that can be tweaked for best performance, or to respond to current conditions, and I realize that I am not qualified to make those tweaks, but I am just as certain that some are, and that the earth can support an economy of plenty, where maybe they have to adjust rates or remove money supply through taxation for a time.

Those tweaks are much easier when the program is based on taxation, and dispersed regularly via government, rather than being based on new money, and with the funds already paid into accounts.

@tralfamadoran777

You note that China’s expansion is warranted because of their level of economic activity, owing largely to money flowing in to their economy. So why is the rest of the world, or for your perspective, the U.S., immune to increased economic activity from money flowing into the economy?

Again, there’s a fundamental disconnect here. China’s level of economic activity isn’t a product of money flowing in, but rather of goods flowing out. That link between actual productivity and growth is crucial for you to understand the problems with your proposal.

@tralfamadoran777

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
This may be why you don’t care much about “other” people, that is, that you would accept taxation to get the homeless out of your way, but not a system that would help all people.

Hey, nice slander there. If your system would help all people, I’d support it. I’m telling you that it wouldn’t, any more than the similar program in Zimbabwe helped those people. Why didn’t it help them, pray tell? They all got a lot richer, didn’t they?

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
Hayek favored a basic income, social security system, but he also spoke often of coercion as a major impediment to the healthy function of the market, and of society.

As long as a human needs to be approved of, or judged by another, to receive “some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health,” there is a potential coercion, and a government can not be expected to leave a power unused.
—End Quote—

The Friedman NIT and the Swiss proposal require nothing more than being alive. No approval or judgment involved.

@tralfamadoran777

Enforcing law and protecting property is not coercion. Coercion forces an action. Bandits are deterred from cracking your head open and carrying off your livestock only by the possibility of getting caught and punished, and by limiting those possibilities, things like that still happen.

Um, yes, it is. What do you think enforcing law is, if not forcing an action?

@tralfamadoran777

The governments in my scheme are made debtors to their citizenry, which is a rightful position.

Those debts can only be repaid by taxes collected from those same citizens…it’s the people who owe the money, not the government.

@tralfamadoran777

The citizenry is endowed with the real ability to move his or her share to another state. Certainly a governments powers are unchanged, except as its citizenry demands, and those powers are exactly the things that will prevent hyperinflation.

You sure are confident of that.

@tralfamadoran777

—Quote (Originally by tralfamadoran777)—
A self image is established or reinforced by the relationship of dependence and subjugation. While that has little effect on those better adapted to succeed in our modern society, it is hardly reasonable or humane to single out and treat those in need as though they have less right to the sustenance and natural wealth of the planet than any others.

Happy people are more productive, pursuit of happiness is a right.

Positive reinforcement is far more effective than negative reinforcement.Choices between positive and negative reinforcement during treatment for escape-maintained behavior - PMC

Since we have the tools and resources to provide each person with a meager but sovereign share of the earth, the half measure of handouts to those who can prove a need and fill out all the forms and don’t use any prohibited plant substances one country at a time would be sad.

Hoo boy…

Getting free money from the government, if it renders someone “subjugated and dependent”, does so whether the money comes from an NIT or a direct deposit to an investment account. Both are handouts.

All basic income proposals presuppose that everyone has a right to basic sustenance, that’s their entire point.

I’m also in favor of drug legalization, so that wouldn’t be part of my NIT. The Swiss proposal doesn’t require documenting income, or filling out any more forms than yours (where the money goes). In fact, the Swiss proposal makes people freer than yours, because they can go whatever they want with their money, there are no investment rules, home-loan rules, and the other red tape of your plan.

“One country at a time” is a given, unless you can conquer the world and impose this on it.

@tralfamadoran777

The recognition of a humans’ rightful share of the planet, a persons’ property, is not a handout, it is a settlement, it is a universal sovereign credit default swap, a stabilizing force, a vote in the world economy.

It’s indistinguishable from a handout.

If the NIT checks were stamped “Settlement for Share of Planet”, would that suffice?

@tralfamadoran777

The experience of poverty is not just a lack of dollars to buy food. If we are to access the rights we assume in our Constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we need the opportunity to achieve self actualization. While this no doubt seems meaningless or obscure to you, particularly if you are and see those who are not as inferior, the self respect and support, the societal infrastructure that aided your development is not available to all, nor is your intellect.

With current technology and the array of tools to control hyper

What’s meaningless to me, is the distinction between Handout A (a monthly stipend from the government, funded by income taxes) and Handout B (a monthly dividend check, from funds deposited by the government, and funded by new money). For the recipient, setting aside all concerns of hyperinflation and whatnot, there is no difference whatsoever, let alone the grandiose ones you’re laying down here.

[Human_Action]

This is getting a bit long, so here’s some quick bullet points:

• Basic incomes are a fine idea.

• No international basic income or currency is acheivable at present. The structure to implement such a thing (a world government) simply doesn’t exist.

• National basic-income proposals do exist, and are predicated on paying the subsidy through the collection of income tax. This is not a coincidence. We can argue about inflation-control tools, and the hypothetical effect of universal inflation, but since we don’t have a world-sized laboratory, I’ll just point to the lack of basic-income proposals that plan on using new money to pay the subsidy, and the lack of economists who recommend that course, since we seem to agree that neither of us are experts.

• Saying the basic income represents a share of the planet, when it’s not actually redeemable for a piece of the planet, is empty rhetoric. There is literally no connection between the planet and the payouts of your plan.

[arielburns]

That if you look at nature as a whole, there is a balance in which it is forever shifting in favor of certain species, or species in this area in these conditions, and so forth. There is never a point when suffering and demise does not exist along side abundance and proliferation. We as animals are not going to somehow solve the issue of homeostatic balance. Not ever.

[arielburns]

@Human_Action

This is getting a bit long, so here’s some quick bullet points:

• Basic incomes are a fine idea.

• No international basic income or currency is acheivable at present. The structure to implement such a thing (a world government) simply doesn’t exist.

• National basic-income proposals do exist, and are predicated on paying the subsidy through the collection of income tax. This is not a coincidence. We can argue about inflation-control tools, and the hypothetical effect of universal inflation, but since we don’t have a world-sized laboratory, I’ll just point to the lack of basic-income proposals that plan on using new money to pay the subsidy, and the lack of economists who recommend that course, since we seem to agree that neither of us are experts.

• Saying the basic income represents a share of the planet, when it’s not actually redeemable for a piece of the planet, is empty rhetoric. There is literally no connection between the planet and the payouts of your plan.

What would be the actual point of eliminating poverty? Would that eliminate suffering or would we just be sometimes happy, sometimes miserable with a few more dollars in our pocket? I guess I felt the nuance of the question involved a sentiment toward eliminating suffering through enhancing economic status across the board. In that case, we’d have a new definition of poverty. People will always be without something they need.

[Human_Action]

@arielburns

That if you look at nature as a whole, there is a balance in which it is forever shifting in favor of certain species, or species in this area in these conditions, and so forth. There is never a point when suffering and demise does not exist along side abundance and proliferation. We as animals are not going to somehow solve the issue of homeostatic balance. Not ever.

Sure, suffering and death are here to stay. That doesn’t mean they can’t be minimized, though.

@arielburns

What would be the actual point of eliminating poverty?

The point would be improving the lives of others humans, because all human lives have value.

Would that eliminate suffering or would we just be sometimes happy, sometimes miserable with a few more dollars in our pocket?

Eliminate? No. Reduce? Yes. If the sort of suffering that comes from the lack of potable water, or access to medicine, is eliminated, it doesn’t follow that new, equally-bad forms of suffering spring up to take the place of the old sources. If that were true, humans wouldn’t have spent hundreds of thousands of years improving their material circumstances through work and ingenuity.

I guess I felt the nuance of the question involved a sentiment toward eliminating suffering through enhancing economic status across the board. In that case, we’d have a new definition of poverty. People will always be without something they need.

Not necessarily. I’m not without anything I need. I’m without things I want, but that’s completely different.

[arielburns]

@Human_Action

Sure, suffering and death are here to stay. That doesn’t mean they can’t be minimized, though.

The point would be improving the lives of others humans, because all human lives have value.

Eliminate? No. Reduce? Yes. If the sort of suffering that comes from the lack of potable water, or access to medicine, is eliminated, it doesn’t follow that new, equally-bad forms of suffering spring up to take the place of the old sources. If that were true, humans wouldn’t have spent hundreds of thousands of years improving their material circumstances through work and ingenuity.

Not necessarily. I’m not without anything I need. I’m without things I want, but that’s completely different.

Yes, whenever we make an advancement we do create new forms of suffering. Look at immunizations, population was controlled through the never ending waves of pandemics. One could make an argument on any advancement as having an effect, but not a clearly and only positive effect. The idea is that we experience life here not so much in terms of our conditions, but how we learn to live and find meaning despite them. In no way am I saying that people should not try, I’m rather defining the point that we need to find ways to cope, because solving world poverty at this moment doesn’t look realistic. I work with the homeless, btw. I work every day to make their suffering less. But do you know what they respond to more than anything? Love. Pure unconditional love. I could give them twenty bucks, or I could spend some time listening to their jokes, or their experience of the day and I know that the human side needs to know they are important, needed, and cared about before they need anything material. I’ve also worked many years of hospice, and with the wealthy, and man, I tell you what. Those that have never struggled definitely miss out on the great opportunity to experience things that define the common man through his experience with suffering. I guess that sort of thing is hard to relate. I truly believe this reality we are experiencing has an intentional element to all of its aspects. I worked the night shift, so I’m going to sleep. Have a good one.

[Human_Action]

@arielburns

Yes, whenever we make an advancement we do create new forms of suffering. Look at immunizations, population was controlled through the never ending waves of pandemics.

How has that created new forms of suffering? Dying from a plague is inarguably worse than the effects of an increasing population.

One could make an argument on any advancement as having an effect, but not a clearly and only positive effect.

The net effect is invariably positive.

The idea is that we experience life here not so much in terms of our conditions, but how we learn to live and find meaning despite them.

Our conditions have a tremendous effect on our ability to live and find meaning. Most obviously, conditions that cause people to die preclude them from living and finding meaning.

In no way am I saying that people should not try, I’m rather defining the point that we need to find ways to cope, because solving world poverty at this moment doesn’t look realistic.

Things are on the upswing, abject poverty is shrinking fast.

I work with the homeless, btw. I work every day to make their suffering less. But do you know what they respond to more than anything? Love. Pure unconditional love. I could give them twenty bucks, or I could spend some time listening to their jokes, or their experience of the day and I know that the human side needs to know they are important, needed, and cared about before they need anything material.

Maslow would disagree with you, without the material things that make life possible, emotional concerns cannot be met.

If the homeless person were starving, I wager they’d prefer the 20 bucks to someone listening to their jokes and experiences. Further, nothing about reducing poverty or suffering involves less human bonding like you’re describing; if anything, security of food, shelter, and physical safety would facilitate more of it.

I’ve also worked many years of hospice, and with the wealthy, and man, I tell you what. Those that have never struggled definitely miss out on the great opportunity to experience things that define the common man through his experience with suffering.

They probably believe with equal conviction that those who’ve always had to struggle miss out on the opportunity to experience things that define the comfortable man through his experience with security, plenty, self-expression, and so on.

I guess that sort of thing is hard to relate. I truly believe this reality we are experiencing has an intentional element to all of its aspects.

The world is what we make of it, nothing is dictated from outside ourselves but the laws of physical reality.

I worked the night shift, so I’m going to sleep. Have a good one.

You too.

[arielburns]

[quote=“Human_Action, post:269, topic:676127”]

How has that created new forms of suffering? Dying from a plague is inarguably worse than the effects of an increasing population.

The net effect is invariably positive.

Okay, well one example would be how modern diseases came about. When people could no longer migrate, due to population increase and lack of resources, they started farming. And because of the close quarters and change in the ecosystem, diseases popped up. Cow pox to small pox. In fact, influenza is only a few hundred years old. Many infectious diseases are present only because of population and the ability for them to mutate due to the closeness of everyone - they don’t die out like they did when people were migrating. And then there are arguments against possible problems associated with vaccinations. The whole of the medical industry is based on treating diseases that are created entirely by lifestyle. Heart disease, cancer, obesity - all related to culture. These things popped up when people stopped getting intense exercise and their diets changed to crap. Excess calories are known to shorten lifespan. While we could argue that life has changed - how has quality of life changed? They did a study I read, sorry I can’t cite, but it was about how people were happier when America was mostly farm based. Not everyone is happy about the end of small businesses, and those consequences. Have we really created a happier world?

Well when they come in we do feed them and take care of those needs. I was musing that once they had those needs met, if they would rather have kindness and personal interaction than me just being plain faced and throwing a twenty at them. They crave to be validated. Many of them are there because of neglect as children which lead to long term issues. So while we can say poverty can be solved, is it just through social conventions that increase access to housing, jobs, etc? Those in poverty have high, high rates of psychological problems, mental illness, chemical illness, domestic violence. Those things pass on to each next generation and if you offered those people work, some are so messed up they can’t and won’t. That’s the other side to poverty, it’s not only of resources.

[Human_Action]

@arielburns

Okay, well one example would be how modern diseases came about. When people could no longer migrate, due to population increase and lack of resources, they started farming. And because of the close quarters and change in the ecosystem, diseases popped up. Cow pox to small pox. In fact, influenza is only a few hundred years old. Many infectious diseases are present only because of population and the ability for them to mutate due to the closeness of everyone - they don’t die out like they did when people were migrating. And then there are arguments against possible problems associated with vaccinations. The whole of the medical industry is based on treating diseases that are created entirely by lifestyle. Heart disease, cancer, obesity - all related to culture. These things popped up when people stopped getting intense exercise and their diets changed to crap. Excess calories are known to shorten lifespan. While we could argue that life has changed - how has quality of life changed? They did a study I read, sorry I can’t cite, but it was about how people were happier when America was mostly farm based. Not everyone is happy about the end of small businesses, and those consequences. Have we really created a happier world?

The first few generations of agriculture were probably worse than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but that didn’t stay true for long. Agriculture is an investment in the future, and it allows for a food surplus, which allows for specialization of labor, which allows for pretty much every aspect of civilization. So, the net effect is absolutely positive.

Americans, obese as we are, easily out-live hunter gatherers, who have high rates of infant mortality and high rates of violent death, so again, a net positive.

52% of Americans work for a small business, by the way.

Lastly, comparing measurements of happiness is incredibly hard. What a society considers sufficient for happiness is not fixed.

Well when they come in we do feed them and take care of those needs. I was musing that once they had those needs met, if they would rather have kindness and personal interaction than me just being plain faced and throwing a twenty at them. They crave to be validated. Many of them are there because of neglect as children which lead to long term issues. So while we can say poverty can be solved, is it just through social conventions that increase access to housing, jobs, etc? Those in poverty have high, high rates of psychological problems, mental illness, chemical illness, domestic violence. Those things pass on to each next generation and if you offered those people work, some are so messed up they can’t and won’t. That’s the other side to poverty, it’s not only of resources.

That goes back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Sure, once sustenance is taken care of, people need more to be happy. So, let’s take care of sustenance as much as possible and go from there, eh?

[Hellestal]

@Human_Action

The first few generations of agriculture were probably worse than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but that didn’t stay true for long. Agriculture is an investment in the future, and it allows for a food surplus, which allows for specialization of labor, which allows for pretty much every aspect of civilization. So, the net effect is absolutely positive.

I thought the current anthropological consensus was that agriculture led to much worse standards of living for almost everyone until the modern era.

Hunger gatherers subsisted on a variety of different foods, leading to generally better health. Agriculturalists for most of history tended to live on their staples of just a few grain products with high carbohydrate (sugar) content. Examinations of bones from burial sites makes a marked contrast: the HGs were generally healthier with better teeth and better life expectancy. The agriculturalists had more rotted teeth, more disease from denser living arrangements and no way to migrate away from their own filth, and more diseases ultimately transmitted from animals. There was high infant morality and death by violence in both kinds of societies, until more recent centuries when agriculturalists started pushing very far ahead.

The advantage of agriculture was more food, which allowed a higher population, but it was a higher population of people who were (on average) notably less robust and healthy. It took a long, long time for these trends to change. I’m not an expert from this, and it’s all from memory so I could easily be wrong. But the bone comparisons really stand out in my mind, and a quick google search seems to back up my memory.

[msmith537]

@arielburns

Those that have never struggled definitely miss out on the great opportunity to experience things that define the common man through his experience with suffering. I guess that sort of thing is hard to relate. I truly believe this reality we are experiencing has an intentional element to all of its aspects. I worked the night shift, so I’m going to sleep. Have a good one.

I think that’s bullshit. No rational person would consider living paycheck to paycheck, being homeless, suffering from some sort of horrible disease or any other form of suffering as providing some sort of character-building benefit. That sort of thinking- complaining about the good life and bemoaning ones lack of direction or purpose - amounts to “rich people problems”. In my experience, a lot of people who “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” from poverty to wealth and success often carry with them lots of baggage and resentment as opposed to “better character”.

[Human_Action]

@Hellestal

I thought the current anthropological consensus was that agriculture led to much worse standards of living for almost everyone until the modern era.

Hunger gatherers subsisted on a variety of different foods, leading to generally better health. Agriculturalists for most of history tended to live on their staples of just a few grain products with high carbohydrate (sugar) content. Examinations of bones from burial sites makes a marked contrast: the HGs were generally healthier with better teeth and better life expectancy. The agriculturalists had more rotted teeth, more disease from denser living arrangements and no way to migrate away from their own filth, and more diseases ultimately transmitted from animals. There was high infant morality and death by violence in both kinds of societies, until more recent centuries when agriculturalists started pushing very far ahead.

The advantage of agriculture was more food, which allowed a higher population, but it was a higher population of people who were (on average) notably less robust and healthy. It took a long, long time for these trends to change. I’m not an expert from this, and it’s all from memory so I could easily be wrong. But the bone comparisons really stand out in my mind, and a quick google search seems to back up my memory.

Maybe “the first few generations” was inaccurate, but the rest of my points were not, especially if one factors in that almost every society switched to agriculture, suggesting that there was a perceived benefit. Being alive or not is the ultimate test of health, and if the hunter/gatherer lifestyle can’t sustain the numbers required of it, then it’s measurably worse than agriculture, even without factoring in that agriculture makes civilization possible.

[Hellestal]

@Human_Action

Maybe “the first few generations” was inaccurate, but the rest of my points were not, especially if one factors in that almost every society switched to agriculture, suggesting that there was a perceived benefit.

That doesn’t mean anything by itself. The “perceived benefit” is only relevant compared to how other people react.

In the Traveller’s Dilemma, both parties end up with 100 dollars if they can trust each other and cooperate. But the Nash equilibrium is 2 dollars. This is sometimes described as the “optimal” or “rational” choice (terms of art, not intended to be a fully accurate descriptions). Yet they’d be 50 times better off if they’d made their decision to move away from the Nash equilibrium. Agriculture might have changed the nature of the game. If everybody had stayed HGs, then maybe everybody would’ve stayed at 100. The introduction of agriculture might have created a new Nash equilibrium that penalized everyone who didn’t adjust to the new rules. That doesn’t mean they were “better off” switching to agriculture, compared to their previous existence. It just meant that it was the best choice given the options that were available to them after the game changed.

Maybe that’s what you meant, and I was just not reading your post right.

[Human_Action]

@Hellestal

That doesn’t mean anything by itself. The “perceived benefit” is only relevant compared to how other people react.

In the Traveller’s Dilemma, both parties end up with 100 dollars if they can trust each other and cooperate. But the Nash equilibrium is 2 dollars. This is sometimes described as the “optimal” or “rational” choice (terms of art, not intended to be a fully accurate descriptions). Yet they’d be 50 times better off if they’d made their decision to move away from the Nash equilibrium. Agriculture might have changed the nature of the game. If everybody had stayed HGs, then maybe everybody would’ve stayed at 100. The introduction of agriculture might have created a new Nash equilibrium that penalized everyone who didn’t adjust to the new rules. That doesn’t mean they were “better off” switching to agriculture, compared to their previous existence. It just meant that it was the best choice given the options that were available to them after the game changed.

Maybe that’s what you meant, and I was just not reading your post right.

We can’t assume that the choice to stay HGs existed, though. If agriculture was the only way to feed your growing population, or if your tribe didn’t have access to high-yield hunting grounds but did have arable land that could be planted on, then there’s no other choices but to start farming or die. That is, conditions other than agriculture itself may have made staying at “100” impossible.

And again, even if early agriculture means more cavities and whatnot, the long-term benefits are tremendous.