Here’s my answer: a well functioning market will distribute wealth (or income) in the pattern of a bell curve.
The problem in the United States is that we’ve placed all value in the fantasy of a “free” market. There are two problems here:
- There is no such thing as a free market; all markets are constructs.
- The solution can never be pre-determined. Values have to be determined and outcomes measured against those values.
We have no idea what a successful market should look like. I’ve asked the following question of several economists and mostly received blank stares: “How do you know if a market is working?” It usually then moves to a discussion of jobs and unemployment numbers. But jobs aren’t the desired product of an economy, the desired product is wealth or income. Jobs can be artificially inflated: cut all jobs in half and you’ve just doubled employment.
The answer to the question (is the market working?) should be the core value of any economy. That seemingly few Americans even understand the question, let alone have a coherent answer, is a problem.
Here’s my answer: a well functioning market will distribute wealth (or income) in the pattern of a bell curve.
Is the market working? Simply overlay the graph of current wealth distribution (b) with a bell curve (a), and you get a visual representation of how well the market is functioning.
The degree to which the actual curve and the bell curve differ shows you exactly how off the market is; or said differently: B is a result of a poorly constructed market. B is NOT the result of harder working wealthy people.
I first developed these ideas here: Makers and Takers
The Buried Lede: “This will be unpopular: The Bible and the Koran and the like are the original “fake news” sources.”
“Facts” are extremely complex things; to understand that is to begin to think about philosophy and theories of mind.
The vast majority of advances in knowledge are going to tech. And tech can only build tools, it can’t navigate ethics and meaning and justice.
And despite what the tech focused world says, or the religious focused world, there can be expertise in things like ethics, meaning and justice. In law and economics and statecraft. Those things can be studied, understood, improved.
We’ve assumed that religion would fill that role; but religion is dead, it isn’t growing. And the very inability we have to point out errors in religion, the rewards we give out to bad thinking by labeling it a “Right” has, in my estimation, set the foundation for a world where “facts” can be anything you choose.
And lest I pick solely on religion, the same holds true in any communally reinforced grouping of ideas. Progressivism, Conservatism, Socialism, Energy Healers, Reiki, etc.
If the very foundations of existence can’t be questioned, if we must accept as valid all beliefs, if we are unwilling to point out bad thinking in the core beliefs of individuals, is it any surprise that we now have a population, Right, Left and Center, who are woefully unskilled at detecting bullshit? Both from others, but more importantly from self?
This will be unpopular: the Bible and the Koran and the like are the original “fake news” sources. But we don’t call it out, and therefore, the vast majority of humanity’s foundation of knowledge is based in fake news.
So, tech built the internet which disseminates vast quantities of information, but humanity doesn’t yet understand the foundational issues of knowledge. Opinion isn’t knowledge. Belief isn’t knowledge. But information is now in the hands of everyone, and everyone believes they are right, that they have knowledge. But knowledge, facts, truth…these are complex topics.
The idea that knowledge acquisition isn’t considered a skill, that it’s simply thought of as the discovery of new information, freely available to any and all, and that the opinions of any and all have merit, has brought natural human division to new depths. We now have burger flippers and hairstylists and Lawyers who think they are experts in global trade and economics and politics and race-relations, and they are driving the world. Into a ditch.
The internet brings this all together in a mirror image of the primordial soup from which we arose, into which we now descend.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters will prove to be the worst thing to happen to the Left in decades. And his followers, who have very little understanding of realpolitik, do not have anywhere near enough support to implement their flawed ideology; but they have enough to hamstring the unity needed to disrupt any serious effort push back on the Right.
Right now, the DNC, which has much less power than Berniecrats have been lead to believe, have created a “Unity” committee, which will be formed with Clinton appointing 9 members, and Bernie Sanders appointing 7 members.
Think about this: Bernie Sanders still refuses to identify as and commit to being a Democrat, and yet he’s being given huge power to shape the party. And the Berniecrats, who haven’t won any political race of any significance, fancy themselves as experts on how to take back the Country.
Remember the platform committee? Bernie put Cornell West on that committee; he who promptly endorsed Jill Stein after the effort.
The Berniecrats are toxic, ill informed, and frankly, immoral (go research their treatment of Delores Huerta in the Nevada primary caucus to deflate any notion of the movement’s moral superiority). The net result of this is that they will only have enough power to kill the Democratic Party; not enough to kill Trump.
And that has the potential to kill America.
“Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.” — Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation
‘Living here, in this brand new world
Might be a fantasy
But it taught me to love
So it’s real, real to me”
— “Home” from The Wiz
Note: Stephanie Mills is preferred over Diana Ross
During my exit from Mormonism and for a few years after, I engaged in intensive discussion and study on the questions of God, Faith, Religion and Philosophy. One of the more influential thinkers I encountered in that journey is a man named Lincoln Cannon. Mr. Cannon remains committed to the LDS Church and Mormonism, and provided a foil by which many of my views of mormonism specifically and religion generally could be tested. He pushed me to learn and to grow.
In the ensuing years, Mr. Cannon has founded The Mormon Transhumanist Association. In that effort, Cannon seeks to find common ground between secular technologists who seek after The Singularity and his chosen faith.
Seemingly to that end, Mr. Cannon produced what he calls The New God Argument. It’s purported to be a logical argument for faith in God. The form of the argument leans heavily on The Simulation Argument by Nick Bostrom. I’ve watched this argument develop over the years, and noted as Cannon presented it in various forums, and published it in various journals.
I’ve long wanted to do an analytical review of the argument. And now I have.
The “New God Argument” by Lincoln Cannon purports to be a logical argument for faith in God. It is modeled after Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument. In this paper I do an analytical review of the New God Argument including the sub-arguments: The Faith Assumption, The Compassion Argument, The Creation Argument and The God Conclusion. I analyze the logical structure of the arguments and seek to determine if they are valid and sound. Finally, I make a determination as to whether or not the entirety of the New God Argument holds. I have analyzed version 3.3 of The New God Argument.
Read it here:
- Intentional self-harm
- Accidental self-harm
- Intentional other-harm
- Accidental other-harm
On this list, protection is statistically the least likely. Uses 2-5 are much more common than is protection. So, when a gun is introduced into a home, it is significantly more likely to be used for unintended reasons than for the intended reason.
That would be true in a home of one person. Now let’s multiply the above list by the number of people who have proximity to that gun:
- Family Members
- Visitors to the home
None of us can predict future circumstances or know of future mental states. None of us can predict the potential for mental illness (either permanent or temporary) either in ourself or in those with proximity to the gun.
Gun x Unintended Uses x Others x Unknown Future = Danger
Take the statistically more likely uses for the gun (2-5) and multiply that by the number of people proximity to that gun, and multiply that again by the unknown future mental state of any of those with proximity, and you begin to understand why a gun in the home is significantly more likely to be used in a manner that is not intended.
Homes with a gun are more dangerous than homes without a gun.
NOTE: While there is a humorous tone to this post, I take the issue quite seriously. Trump is simply not fit to be POTUS. This is an attempt to envision the Cuban Missile Crisis under a Trump Presidency.
President Trump learns on Twitter that Cuba has nuclear weapons.
Trump Tweets: “Putin and Cuba are so COOL; they’re like bullies. Big respect for that. Looking forward to meeting him soon!”
President Trump convenes his top advisors, Chris Christie, Trey Gowdy, Ivanka Trump and Michelle Bachman to discuss his concerns. The meeting lasts 20 minutes.
Trump Tweets: “We’re going to CRUSH Cuba. BIG League. They won’t know what hit them. And then we’ll take the Island. Hey…new HOTEL?” Read more
I get that many of you are conflicted. I understand that you dislike the policies of the democratic party, and think that Hillary would take us down a path opposite where you think we should go. I’m being honest; I can sense the gut wrench of your decision, and don’t envy it.
If Donald Trump is elected President of the United States, the dignity of the office would be forever tarnished. The dignity of the United States would be forever tarnished.
Trump is not a viable option to lead this country. He’s quite simply the worst candidate ever to be presented for the office. Most of you know this. I don’t need to recount the why’s of it. A GOP candidate who has been rejected by every past living GOP president, who has been called a con man by your last presidential nominee. You don’t have to take my word, just listen to members of your own party.
Let’s be honest…
Trump is not a republican. You can have no faith in what he says; you cannot rely on him to enact conservative policies. He’s simply all over the board. You know this.
Trump is not a moral man. I understand that many of you consider yourselves moral voters. There simply is no case to be made that Trump will bring any dignity to the office of President. You know he does not represent nor does he live your values.
Trump is a dangerous man. He’s impulsive. Can we really trust him on matters of foreign policy and heading the military?
It’s not enough to not vote for Donald Trump. Donald Trump has to be defeated. That means someone else has to win. If you agree with me that Trump represents a dire threat to the Country, please use your vote not just to withhold by voting for a third-party candidate, but rather, use it to ensure that Trump loses. And that will require you to do what previously may have been unthinkable: Vote for Hillary Clinton.
We The People. We are still in this together.
Information, on its own, is neither good nor bad. Rather it is either valid or invalid.
Signal-to-noise ratio is a measure used in science that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise. In communication theory, this indicates the amount of valid information (the signal) to the amount of invalid information (the noise).
Signal can’t be analyzed apart from noise. An increase in good signal does not automatically mean we are better informed; if there has been an even greater increase in bad noise, we are less informed.
The current presidential campaign is instructive. Turn on any news channel; by the end of the program, you will be left with more questions than answers. This is due to being given more noise than signal. And each day is increasing the noise, and thereby decreasing the signal.
Brandolini’s Law: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it
News and journalism should increase signal & decrease noise. There can be no doubt news is now increasing noise. In fact, most journalism now revels in noise, because noise can create controversy, and controversy can increase viewers and readers.
It may be that humanity has not evolved in a way that allows us to process information as quickly as it is being presented. We have not been adequately educated to separate signal and noise.
The point is this: we are less informed today than we were yesterday. But, you may respond, what about all the new information we have received!?! It’s true; we’ve been blessed with unprecedented levels of good information in the recent past. But if in that same period we have been flooded with misinformation, the net result is a reduction in knowledge, not an increase. If there is more noise, there is simply less signal.
This is not a small problem. It may very well be the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. And we are losing.
Billy, an Alt-Left voter, is trying to decide who to vote for in the upcoming Presidential Election.
- Candidate Green and Billy share the same opinion 100% of the time.
- Candidate Blue and Billy share the same opinion 75% of the time.
- Candidate Orange and Billy share the same opinion 0% of the time.
On Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2016, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Internal Revenue Service. The focus of my request is for any documents which confirm that anyone with the last name “Trump” is currently being audited, whether or not such an audit is completed, and a list of names of IRS employees who are assigned to any audits relating to anyone with the last name Trump. Read more
- She’s dishonest
- She’s really in it for the power
- She doesn’t really care about the issues
- She doesn’t really love Bill
- She’s a cold, distant mother
- She’s a cold, distant grandmother
- She’s shrill
- She’s really in it for the money
- She’s in the pocket of Wall Street
- She’s really a Republican
- She’s really a Socialist
- Who’s being dishonest?
The following is consistent with the principles of capitalism. The economy must match the values of the community in which it resides. Those community values are defined in the Constitution both of the Federal Government and the State Government. The economy must also benefit the community as a whole; the existence of a stable market requires the existence of a stable government and a stable community. This proposal maintains focus on a market economy, rooted in the notion of a fair market.
If the cost of living in a given community is $30,000, the AVERAGE wage in that community would be $1,500,000. Want a raise?
There is a fallacy known widely as a free market; free markets do not and cannot exist; they are theoretical. Absent regulation, a market will tend to favor the powerful and diminish the weak; over time, this will destabilize both the community and the economy. If free markets were to exist, they would naturally approximate what I have outlined below. The degree to which an economy veers from what I have outlined below is the degree it differs from a theoretical free market. Contrary to popular belief, the approximation of a free market requires rather than abhors regulation. Put another way, Libertarianism is the opposite of a free market.
The primary goal in the following economic model is to produce a bell-curve distribution of wealth and income. If a free market were to exist, it would naturally produce this bell-curve distribution. Read more
There’s a common narrative this election cycle that most voters are simply holding their nose and choosing the lesser evil. For example, Chris Cillizza tweeted this today:
This election is about voters choosing the least worst candidate. That's where we are in our politics.
— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) September 4, 2016
The problem with this narrative is that it is overwhelmingly false. Here’s why:
In recent polling, the favorables for Clinton (and Trump) were broken out into many different groups. But let’s focus on one very important group to dispel the notion that Mr. Cillizza is spreading above: Clinton Voters.
Of those voters who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, here’s her Favorable/Unfavorable numbers:
Not Sure: 7%
Or stated another way, only 9% of those voters who are choosing Hillary Clinton could reasonably be described as “holding their nose.” 91% hold favorable views or are not yet sure.
This dispels the oft-repeated myth of lesser evilism. And perhaps more interestingly, this common narrative is really only rooted in certain narrow voter demographics. For example:
Among African Americans, there is very little holding of noses regarding Clinton:
Not Sure: 10%
Among Democrats as a whole, a similar story:
Not Sure: 10%
Not Sure: 7%
Stop buying the spin. Hillary Clinton is a widely admired candidate, and her voters recognize her as such.