On 22 Nov 2013, at 19:36, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The New Scientist article that Liz linked says essentially that crises happen when workers outnumber the available jobsespecially elite jobs: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029382.400-the-maths-that-saw-the-us-shutdown-coming.html#.Uo-iDdK-qFATurchin has found what he believes to be historical cycles, two to three centuries long, of political instability and breakdown affecting states and empires from Rome to Russia. In a book he is finishing, he argues that similar cycles are evident in US history, and that they are playing out to this day. He admits that his theory, built on a model that combines social and economic data, must be tested against real events – but unlike most historical theories, it can be. Meanwhile, he says, it "predicts the long-term conditions that led to this shutdown".Workers or employees make up the bulk of any society, with a minority of employers constituting the top few per cent of earners. By mathematically modelling historical data, Turchin finds that as population grows, workers start to outnumber available jobs, driving down wages. The wealthy elite then end up with an even greater share of the economic pie, and inequality soars. This is borne out in the US, for example, where average wages have stagnated since the 1970s although gross domestic product has steadily climbed.This process also creates new avenues – such as increased access to higher education – that allow a few workers to join the elite, swelling their ranks. Eventually this results in what Turchin calls "elite overproduction" – there being more people in the elite than there are top jobs. "Then competition starts to get ugly," he says.The richest continue to become richer: as in many complex systems, whether in nature or in society, existing advantage feeds back positively to create yet more. The rest of the elite fight it out, with rival patronage networks battling ever more fiercely. "There are always ideological differences, but elite overproduction explains why competition becomes so bitter, with no one willing to compromise," Turchin says.
Thanks Richard. Interesting. May be true! Bruno
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:On 21 Nov 2013, at 22:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:Bruno,The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax burden for over 100 years.Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash usually followed by war. That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was followed by the Civil War within a decade.Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of 1929->WWII.In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash. We have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see the stock exchange reaching never before heights. So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s are repeated,the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles. Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation resulted in the invention of derivatives.So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger than the value of the entire world.That sounds like a form of comp (;<)I am not entirely convinced. I think other factors have to be taken into account, and that the correlation you describe can be the symptom of some other problems. I really don't know, I need more data, and clever algorithms to manage them :)I agree on deregulation and the foolishness of many pseudo- economical ideas, which here also can only help to influxes black and grey money, this little by little amounts in the financial circuits, slowly but persistently, which makes the bandits taking the banks into hostages. Something like that.I distinguish black money (100% of the value is based on a lie), and fake money (the sur-price of a legal medication which would be replaced by a less expensive medication if it was not illegal).What is the "real" value of one dollar?It is the value of work + speculation. The speculation can be based on evidences or lies. The amount of lies creates a fake value, which leads to economical catastrophes. But if the "rich" is a bandit, he speculates on those catastrophes too.Solution? Step 0: education. Step 1: stop prohibition of food and drugs. Denationalize food and drugs, in all nations. Allow free competitions in the art of life. We can take the complains into account and still enforce some respect for the neighbors, but not much more.Alas, we live at a time where a lot of humans still like (or are encouraged) to delegate their thinking to the local authorities, and the problem is that the bandits and "authorities" can exploit this.BrunoOn Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: <snip>If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their localpowers, the central power can be used as an arbiter. I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any systemthat could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's thedanger with ideologies. I agree. My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance", not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed societies. OK. My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to sociopathic manipulations.About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the "little bureaucratic sort of bosses". With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists, nor even that it is on a near horizon.The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling tothink by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the times. The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to authority. We have never been "modern".I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problemin society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the short run, so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of logicalvalidity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the logician's sense of humor).The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all the time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing CO2, etc. It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th century, earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into account, and it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits that we have since a very long time. In the long run, we will have to escape the planet and continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have to accommodate with the finite resourcing, with or without global warming. That's a reason more to fight against corporatism, special private interests, international whitecollar criminality, etc.Right, but the hope of some people who propose a radically free marketis that it would work more like the immune system, and that it would allocate resources in a more efficient way than central control.I am for a free market. The market should be independent of the (central) power, except for the modalities of the contracts, the selling technic, etc.The long term view is not foreign to markets. This is precisely what investments are. Warren Buffet became extremely rich by taking a longview on investments, not by doing high-frequency trading. But again, Isay this with the human evolution caveat in mind.Local powers can easily design laws against foreigners, and develop selfish local profits method. In the UD this could enlarge the gap between black and white, or between middle class and lower classes. I would favor a stable central power, which would enforce few but basic important laws and rules, on which everyone agrees. Then the local powers can implement special politics and experiences. Somehow I do believe that the Americans were close to this, but they failed to prevent prohibition, and that remains a bit of a mystery for me. I am open to the idea that there has been a real well prepared conspiracy, not by "illuminati" but by by a collusion of special interests (paper, oil, pharma, military, jails, and the black market, etc.).I'm also strongly in favour of experiments. For example, and this would certainly annoy most libertarians, I am very excited by the Swiss plan to provide a base level of income to all citizens. I have always defended that idea. I like it because it's so simple and non-intrusive. You just give everyone the same base income, no matter how poor or rich they are.Yes. That is what the communist never grasped. It makes no sense to distribute the money from the rich to the poor, this makes the richer less rich, and very quickly the poor even much less rich. As long as people don't use lies and dishonest methods, people should be able to enrich themselves as much as they want. But we must find a way to prevent the bad use of money to enrich oneself. And this asks for very special laws against the fake speculation. The problem is that with enough money, you can multiplied your richness easily by dishonest means, and this perverts the system.Hopefullyit will remove unnecessary and even counter-productive jobs, free morepeople from meaningless lives and attack the entire "job mentality". One can hope...I agree. I believe that it will be more easy to avoid counter- productive jobs if there is a minimal salary. It would stabilize the little markets, and would annoy only those who are addicted to "more money at all price". For the "job mentality", I'm afraid we will need a coming back to seriousness in the human sciences, but this will take time, and some catastrophes. The "job mentality" is not unrelated to the current institutionalized religions, and the current conception of reality.Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.