Economics, Fear and AI

[DustyOne]

I worked for a highly competitive private business in the food service industry for 35 years in California.  We did a great job keeping the customers happy.  The competition was tough but so were we.  However, our biggest customers like Safeway, Vons, Kroger, Albertsons, Walgreens, Smart n Final, Whole Foods, etc. could have cared less about the service we provided because they knew they would be the priority over all others due to the shear volume of their account and they were right.  The problem was that when ever a new company came to town, they would threaten to switch for price alone.  We got to where the price was so low we could barely compete against these multinational corporations.

 

I'm not complaining about this in regards to why capitalism works so well, but more how I always felt like I could loose my job at any moment.  After time that really does take it's toll.  Yes, that constant fear does motivate you to do what ever it takes to survive thus it keeps prices low and service high, always tweaking your business model and service tactics and that is good, to a point.

 

What I found was It started affecting everything in my life.  I was always working and spending less time at home with my kids.  It made me less empathetic to everyone around me so I not only had the battle at work but it became a battle to be at home.  My wife and kids were endlessly supportive but I became more and more frustrated, depressed and disengaged at home.

 

What I was experiencing is not only common throughout the US, it has become pathological.  Some people do better than others in that environment (young single males) but look at the corporate/political/Geopolitical condition of the world today, it's ruthless and highly unstable.  It made me start to think that there just has to be a better way.

 

It doesn't look like anything will change now since multinational corporations and international banks are running the world corrupting the body politic and most everything else in their path.  However, this problem certainly explains why so many people are trending towards socialism / communism as a way to relax the constant fear thus creating more and more susceptibility to the "languasites' Stefan described in podcast FDR3263.  I am aware that as long as the current economic structure (fiat money, Keynesian economics and "languasites') are dominant, there is little to no chance of this changing any time soon so my timing on this subject is no doubt out of sync, but I think it is relevant to a bigger picture.

 

Ruthless business models are a big cause of destructive family environments in so many ways it's too much to go into here.  People equate this false capitalism as actual capitalism, the cause of their constant anxiety, thus we see the popularity of Bernie Sanders types, along with more and more talk of resurrecting so many historically destructive political systems. The near total loss of freedom seems to be more acceptable than the current work environment and social instability.

 

Capitalism did give rise to this phenomenon even in it's infancy and in it's purest form.  I think the purest capitalistic system is susceptible to this regardless of how 'pure' it is.  Money corrupts even the most ethical of humans so governmental systems will always have to exist until either the average IQ gets over 110 or the population decreases below levels that existed before Kings, Queens and religion.

 

I have often thought that the only viable government would have be an AI programed in such a way that it's primary objective is for humans to eventually no longer need it, thus no longer needing government to force cooperation. This is based on the idea that it's impossible to bribe a machine but then there is always the programmer.  There could be something like a medical cure for low IQ across ethnic lines (as Stefan described in a recent podcast) or a medical cure to the 'virus' of sociopathic and psychopathic disorders though the odds of something like that happening is at best unlikely any time soon.  The peaceful parenting model is a necessary imperative but I fear a mufti-generational approach will not be enough to fix anything before we destroy ourselves or render the world uninhabitable.

 

The current social and political situation is dire -- I am not hopeful. (Comments Welcome)

 

Dusty Wiggins
'What this world needs are massive and spontaneous outbreaks of positive creativity.'

[dusty frog]

Indeed, the situation is awful. Abuse of natural and human resources is enormous, with staggering inefficiency. Uncontrolled mass migration and fertility rate skew for lower IQs. Add to that mess a widely accepted paradigm of forcible wealth re-distribution. Global socialism of languasites brings minds paralysis. It becomes understandable why it's so hard to survive. Competition is tough because of unprotected globalization and the overall ballast is simply unbearable. Without that hook, there shouldn't be any unsolvable challenges to have a great quality time for family and personal creativity. Moreover, after say 45+ to the end of one's life there coming another important possibility for honor & respect in society - to spend some time teaching others. Education is the key to changes, there is a screaming need for education of young and mid-aged parents and teachers. I don't see capitalism's undertaker yet. Maybe when the IQ < 110 starts to be a rarity? But yes, for now the time is running out...

[ObserveandReport]

I worked for a highly competitive private business in the food service industry for 35 years in California.  We did a great job keeping the customers happy.  The competition was tough but so were we.  However, our biggest customers like Safeway, Vons, Kroger, Albertsons, Walgreens, Smart n Final, Whole Foods, etc. could have cared less about the service we provided because they knew they would be the priority over all others due to the shear volume of their account and they were right.  The problem was that when ever a new company came to town, they would threaten to switch for price alone.  We got to where the price was so low we could barely compete against these multinational corporations.

 

I'm not complaining about this in regards to why capitalism works so well, but more how I always felt like I could loose my job at any moment.  After time that really does take it's toll.  Yes, that constant fear does motivate you to do what ever it takes to survive thus it keeps prices low and service high, always tweaking your business model and service tactics and that is good, to a point.

 

What I found was It started affecting everything in my life.  I was always working and spending less time at home with my kids.  It made me less empathetic to everyone around me so I not only had the battle at work but it became a battle to be at home.  My wife and kids were endlessly supportive but I became more and more frustrated, depressed and disengaged at home.

 

What I was experiencing is not only common throughout the US, it has become pathological.  Some people do better than others in that environment (young single males) but look at the corporate/political/Geopolitical condition of the world today, it's ruthless and highly unstable.  It made me start to think that there just has to be a better way.

 

It doesn't look like anything will change now since multinational corporations and international banks are running the world corrupting the body politic and most everything else in their path.  However, this problem certainly explains why so many people are trending towards socialism / communism as a way to relax the constant fear thus creating more and more susceptibility to the "languasites' Stefan described in podcast FDR3263.  I am aware that as long as the current economic structure (fiat money, Keynesian economics and "languasites') are dominant, there is little to no chance of this changing any time soon so my timing on this subject is no doubt out of sync, but I think it is relevant to a bigger picture.

 

Ruthless business models are a big cause of destructive family environments in so many ways it's too much to go into here.  People equate this false capitalism as actual capitalism, the cause of their constant anxiety, thus we see the popularity of Bernie Sanders types, along with more and more talk of resurrecting so many historically destructive political systems. The near total loss of freedom seems to be more acceptable than the current work environment and social instability.

 

Capitalism did give rise to this phenomenon even in it's infancy and in it's purest form.  I think the purest capitalistic system is susceptible to this regardless of how 'pure' it is.  Money corrupts even the most ethical of humans so governmental systems will always have to exist until either the average IQ gets over 110 or the population decreases below levels that existed before Kings, Queens and religion.

 

I have often thought that the only viable government would have be an AI programed in such a way that it's primary objective is for humans to eventually no longer need it, thus no longer needing government to force cooperation. This is based on the idea that it's impossible to bribe a machine but then there is always the programmer.  There could be something like a medical cure for low IQ across ethnic lines (as Stefan described in a recent podcast) or a medical cure to the 'virus' of sociopathic and psychopathic disorders though the odds of something like that happening is at best unlikely any time soon.  The peaceful parenting model is a necessary imperative but I fear a mufti-generational approach will not be enough to fix anything before we destroy ourselves or render the world uninhabitable.

 

The current social and political situation is dire -- I am not hopeful. (Comments Welcome)

 

Dusty Wiggins

'What this world needs are massive and spontaneous outbreaks of positive creativity.'

You had to compete with the multinational corporations on unequal footing, no? They could enjoy the benefit of limited competition due to huge government barriers to entry. As I understand it, regulation and government interference benefits the large companies this way. In other words, if there were a flood of other competitors, your costs would have been lower and the bigger guys wouldn't have had quite the same competitive advantage. This could be illusory for our current setup, but it's what came to my mind.

[utopian]

An answer I have found is to diversify your skillset, the same way one might diversify their portfolio. When the job market is lacking in one area, you can always switch to another. I currently work at a restaurant. The wage is low, but the work stable. I expect I will lose my job when the minimum wage becomes 15 dollars an hour here. I don't sweat it, because I am actually only at the restaurant for fun, and for the experience I missed from being a spoiled rich kid. I am also a certified computer networker, and have done private contracts for foolish old baby boomers for as much as 100 dollars an hour. I have been paid as much as 100 dollars to pick a lock. I have a purple belt in jiu-jitsu, and have taught classes. Last but not least, I invest. Currently my investments are doing quite well for me. If they do as well as I think they will, I should be buying a nice house here in a year or two. Point being, there is always something I can do for money, because I diversified my skillset.

 

 

A conundrum that has always perplexed me about libertarianism is, every time someone relinquishes power, all they are doing is leaving it up for grabs for someone else. Either you take control, or you let someone else, and that someone else could be your enemy. The state's gonna state. You have to be able to adapt whether it is there or not. Even Darwin noted it was not actually the strongest that survived, but the most adaptable. 

[Des]

 

A conundrum that has always perplexed me about libertarianism is, every time someone relinquishes power, all they are doing is leaving it up for grabs for someone else. Either you take control, or you let someone else, and that someone else could be your enemy. The state's gonna state. You have to be able to adapt whether it is there or not. Even Darwin noted it was not actually the strongest that survived, but the most adaptable. 

 

As a species, we now adapt our environment to suit ourselves, and the state is one example of that. Our environment will be more adapted to our species without the state (because the innovation of insurance is better than the [earlier, and now obsolete] innovation of the state), so, we will probably get rid of it, if I am correct in predicting that correct ideas win out over time, especially with life-expectancy increasing to hard-to-imagine lengths (how many lies will a man still believe when he has lived 1000 years?).

[Fleedoom]

Capitalism is all about competition with disregards on how U win. GOVT is the ONLY way to level the playing field for all to have a nominal existence.

 

If U support Capitalism then U also support the oppression & misery of those that cannot compete.

 

Socialism is the ONLY way to provide a certain human condition for all. It is just that simple.

 

All humans have a Right to life, liberty (law), family, health, food, shelter & travel.

 

* all my post are my opinions.

[aviet]

 

Capitalism is all about competition with disregards on how U win. 

 

Taken alone, capitalism needs to have regard for private property to exist. For me, capitalism is equal to property rights. And property rights are one of the staples required for a 'free' society. Though, like yourself, I think more than capitalism is required for a free society. I think you will find that supporters of capitalism, in their various forms, also believe in other principles that offset those that cannot compete. I've yet to come across someone who thinks nothing else should exist.

 

I agree that at the moment, there is a requirement for socialism, but how much of that is due to the entrenchment of socialism is questionable. However, ultimately I believe that socialism could be replaced by high IQs and an educational revolution. Under these circumstances, the pool of unskilled labour would shrink to the degree that the unskilled people could demand higher wages. If you look at how much money goes to charity in Western societies, it is not hard to see how the genuinely incapable who have no one to care for them could be provided for.

 

If you look at Hong Kong, one of the richest countries in the world with one the highest standards of living, their overall tax burden is about one third of the average in Western Europe. In most categories the top three countries in the world are Lichenstein, Hong Kong and Singapore. They're also arguably the most capitalist countries in the world. And they don't have huge underclasses. I think its more important to look at why these countries have done so well (in such a short period of time) rather than just looking at the quickest route to sate the poor somewhat.

 

 

All humans have a Right to life, liberty (law), family, health, food, shelter & travel.

 

If you believe this, there is a question about how you want to achieve it. Hong Kong et. al. have had better results in these areas and they have not chosen a vast welfare state to do so. Their systems are more sustainable.

Finally, using 'U' does not lend to your arguments.

 

----

 

In the above posts there are some great and through-provoking comments. Enough to write a long essay.

 

As for the ultra-competitive nature of some areas of business. In 19th century Europe, vast numbers of people were involved in agriculture (I think 80%). There were many occupations like coppers, wheelwrights, carriage makers, blacksmiths and so on. Those occupations have now all but gone and the percentage of people involved in agriculture has dropped to about 2% in Western Europe. One result of the agricultural and industrial revolutions was mass unemployment, growing populations and urban destitution. Living in 2016, would you now go back in time and undo the industrial and agricultural revolutions just to keep more people in work? In doing so you'd put a stop to all the progress that means people have a much higher standard of living today. From the sound of it, the OP was involved in retail, or supplying retail. Just as there were agricultural and industrial revolutions, there is today a retail revolution. This means that lots of people are going to loose their jobs. But just as people had to adapt to the agricultural and industrial revolutions, people will have to adapt to the retail revolution. And the best way to do that would be a new educational revolution. I'm sure if you go back to the 19th century, you will find political cartoons and sentiment that mechanical machines will take over the world and there will be little space left for people. It's people job to adapt. If there was a central diktat that everyone must have X degree of job security, innovation will drop through the floor and that will steal as much from the present as the future.

 

When talking about topics like this. You need to think about the big picture and not just tomorrow and yourself. As the OP describes, the capitalist system can be tough, but as SM has commented, 'resistance builds strength'. Look at the level of competition in government school and know why they are a dead-end for innovation. There is no strength in a system that has little to respond to.

 

Utopian has good comments regarding skills. To this I would add that if you don't like competition (as I don't) then you should think about entering a niche where you are unlikely to face much if any due to the bar to entry. I have chosen a niche in which I am unlikely to face any real competition as the array of skills I posses are so unique and of such an unusual tapestry that it would require a team of people that would cost more than the possible profits as to make entry to the market a bad idea. I have decimated everyone else in the niche and there is nothing they can do about it, as it would cost too much for them to bring people in to help.

 

---

 

As for negative attitudes for the future, there were times in the past when people thought they were living in the end times, as they do today. We obviously have a cornucopia of civilization-level challenges for the future. These have existed in the past: world war, famine, plague, sectarianism and so on. Come on, chin up. Are you a bunch of independent libertarians or a contingent of communist wobblies?

[utopian]

As a species, we now adapt our environment to suit ourselves, and the state is one example of that. Our environment will be more adapted to our species without the state (because the innovation of insurance is better than the [earlier, and now obsolete] innovation of the state), so, we will probably get rid of it, if I am correct in predicting that correct ideas win out over time, especially with life-expectancy increasing to hard-to-imagine lengths (how many lies will a man still believe when he has lived 1000 years?).

Actually, I agree. But even though this might be the best way for us to operate, psychos will still be psychos, and sheeple will still be sheeple. The psychos will continue to manipulate the sheeple, which tends to be the majority, and get their way through a one sided process of democracy. How are we to overcome this, if not by playing the psycho game and beating them at it?

[dusty frog]

Actually, I agree. But even though this might be the best way for us to operate, psychos will still be psychos, and sheeple will still be sheeple. The psychos will continue to manipulate the sheeple, which tends to be the majority, and get their way through a one sided process of democracy. How are we to overcome this, if not by playing the psycho game and beating them at it?

I don't think the democracy in its current form is a feasible or sustainable social system. Don't we see that practically everywhere? So called "modern" democracy just can't provide any required protection against manipulating sheeple's psychos. Collectivists ideas will just rule among people with relatively low IQ. Democracy just has to be radically revamped to adapt to the current world situation. Lazy and rapists should have no any rights to vote or, as the matter of fact, even be welcomed to stay in the society. As such process can't be made easily and quickly without a war, looks like the only way to go is kind of Augusto Pinochet dictatorship that would make the necessary changes and preparations at will.

[Des]

Actually, I agree. But even though this might be the best way for us to operate, psychos will still be psychos, and sheeple will still be sheeple. The psychos will continue to manipulate the sheeple, which tends to be the majority, and get their way through a one sided process of democracy. How are we to overcome this, if not by playing the psycho game and beating them at it?

How? Perhaps by:

1. Giving warnings based on reason and available evidence. For example warning people of the negative results of threatening children rather than connecting with children; and warning people that government "solutions" are in fact new problems.
2. Giving correct interpretation of causes when negative outcomes arise from warnings going unheeded.
3. Avoiding manipulation as far as possible (and in my experience this is hard for me to do), so that people have a standard of kind-hearted consequence-prediction to compare with the psycho lying manipulative gaming.
4. If warnings prove incorrect, admitting it, analysing it, issuing apologies and explanations as appropriate.
5. Asking interesting questions such as why are multiculturalists embracing anti-multicultural Islam (Mohammed as poster-boy), but not multiculture-tolerant western masculinity (poster-boy Donald Trump)
6. Stating clearly and openly that this is our plan - because a clear statement of the plan is a non-manipulative and honest communication.

[dusty frog]

Sheeple with average and below IQ simply don't care about reasoning or evidence. They have their hobbies to brag about. When state became their best provider, women don't care anymore to be feminine or mothers transferring the family values. Asking interesting or challenging questions will just turn their backs on you. They will choose convenience over honesty any day.

[DustyOne]

After further thought and after reading some of these well thought out responses, I have come to the conclusion that the only real problem with the current system is how resources are distributed with force by government.  As Stefan talked about in a recent call in show,  FDR3278 “Why did the welfare state come into being in the 1930’s and 40’s?  Women got to vote.”  The only way I can see (though change is highly unlikely at this point) to semi-gradually move back into a sustainable economy would be to change the voting laws / system.

 

I don’t mean to suggest to go back in time where woman can’t vote again, it’s a better idea at this point, that people that receive government subsidies should be unable to vote while receiving those subsidies.  That way it would level the playing field a bit.  So instead of women + government employees being able to vote, it would be only men and women not receiving any government handouts get voting rights.  I’m sure there would be many cool tweaks that could be done, like education level, age or maybe even IQ, but that’s the basic idea.

 

This would apply to everyone in government as well as corporations that receive bailouts or direct government contract money including all people that are working in any corporation receiving any government subsidies as well as school teachers, Forestry service, IRS, Military, any federal agency or organization. Anyone receiving a government paycheck. 

 

People will always vote for their best interest, so remove the votes of people that benefit directly from government taxation then take another look at the capitalism in a truly free market and America would take on a whole new meaning. You work for government, you can’t vote for the time you work for the government. That would shrink government pretty damn fast I would think.  Yes, I know, it's a pipe dream fantasy, but it's always good to conceive of ways to improve an already pretty damn good system.

 

Just a thought.

[dusty frog]

@DustyOne

 

Indeed, it's a pipe dream. Current two centers of collectivists power both understood the importance of democracy and ideology as the most effective tool pair to keep their power over population in a neatly masked and sort of "civilized" way. Political correctness, communism, national orthodox movement, you name it, are just fancy wrappers that might be changed on-the-fly if required any time. Your sarcasm about pretty damn good system is accepted, why would the ruling "elites" destroy their voting basis voluntarily by removing the most dependent on them out? Sure they either don't want to admit the inevitability of the global collapse they directly responsible for, or simply can't do anything to stop the train. I'd guess the first one is more probable. The competition between those centers probably forces them to maintain the permanent fear for loosing the power, thus the politics of ever expanding state facilities and collectivism as the only way to keep overall control. In fact, those centers have so much in common that I'd not want to even imagine what happens to our real last tiny hopes if and when they would merge into one world government or just agree to divide the world yet again.

[aviet]

change the voting laws / system.

 

I also agree that changing the voting system is the way forward. However, I think leftists would go nuts if it was suggested that people on benefits could not vote. It would be a hard sell.

 

I think the best move we could make is a move towards direct democracy in which each unit has the right to seceded from any federal programs or secede entirely, as in the Lichenstien Constitution:

 

Individual communes have the right to secede from the State. A decision to initiate the secession procedure shall be taken by a majority of the citizens residing there who are entitled to vote. Secession shall be regulated by a law or, as the case may be, a treaty. In the latter event, a second ballot shall be held in the commune after the negotiations have been completed.

 

 

You could sell something like this to leftists. Though I am having some trouble selling this to a friend who is a recovering socialist. He seems to have a hostility to any of my comments regarding the better living standards of countries that are freer.

 

The great advantage of such a direct democracy system is that at least you could organised with like-minded people to create a jurisdiction that is more favorable. Sure, there would be some jurisdictions that would go far-left insane. But how long would they last? In the UK, there is considerable difference in political opinion in different areas of the country, as in the US. Under direct democracy, each of these regions could be modified to better cater for their constitutes.

 

There are probably a number of issues with this system that would need to be thought about. The main one that I am concerned about is the ability for Islamists to section themselves of and chip away at the country at large.

[Des]

Sheeple with average and below IQ simply don't care about reasoning or evidence. They have their hobbies to brag about. When state became their best provider, women don't care anymore to be feminine or mothers transferring the family values. Asking interesting or challenging questions will just turn their backs on you. They will choose convenience over honesty any day.

Okay, if that is correct, then those of us who think better, protect ourselves (and perhaps each other) from what is to come, and when the inconvenience reaches the sheeple, we are ready to explain to them how to get back to convenience (of a different style).

[utopian]

I'm afraid I am going to have to agree with Thorn. The average- intelligence don't care enough for explanations. It's as if they are actively looking to AVOID anything that makes them think. I look around me, in real life, and all I see are people who can't wait to get high, drunk, and abuse their children they never considered they might had as they post selfies in their left hand while fixing it on their laptop with their right hand as the television subconsciously brainwashes them in the background. We have reached a Fahrenheit 451 scenario where people chastise you for daring to injure anyone's feelings with a hint of truth. They have no chance of comprehending the Federal Reserve, modern day slavery, or anything past the next five minutes of their lives. The average + intelligences are the only ones capable of that, and we are the minority who sees the 1% at the top leading it all to ruin. It's all so established. I would be surprised if any of it could be undone by anything less than wholesale nuclear fire.