Is History Over?

[rjaypeters]

Currently I live in the bottom decile. I have the following:

A car, a rented house,...plenty of food. etc. etc. etc.

...

So tell me - if the rich are stealing all my money how come I'm living so well?

You are living in an unstable and unsustainable situation. Whence comes your Social Security check? You, netizen MSimon, have done no little amount to remove some of the unsustainability of the way we, in the United States, live. You have many fine goods, did you accumulate them while _earning_ in the bottom decile?

I'm happy there are wealthy people, even if I am not one. My concern is what the concentration of money does to our Republic.

Keep in mind too, that top 1% now pay more taxes than the bottom 50% -- a pretty good deal for the latter.

Is it axiomatic capital tends to concentrate? This is not a good situation either. Do we want the concentration of income/wealth trend to continue? Do we want a pyramidal society; a few wealthy, small middle class and large lower class? Is it good for the Republic? The answer provided by the philosphers is no, republics do not do well with pyramidal societies. They become something else.

Then read my subsequent posts. Though you, MSimon, are not guilty of envy, you are the minority.

[GIThruster]

...What noone understood was how difficult it would be to have Iraq birth a replacement.

The record does not agree. Lots of people pointed out the difficulties of replacing governments, especially Iraq's.

Sorry, but the truth is we thought we had a replacement when we first went in there, and later found we'd been duped.

IF Iraq had had the WMD's the whole world seemed to think they did and IF we had had a replacement leader to work out a democracy, most of the last ten years would have gone much better and the world would be singing the praises of neo-con nation building.

Fact is though, we still don't know whether the idea CAN work at all.

I'm not sure what I think about the notion that any ethnic group or groups need to be ready for democracy. The notion seems like well poisoning just to ask it. Aren't all people ready to live free of oppression? Just seems they don't always have the opportunity, which is almost agreeing with the neo-cons and the notion of nation building, I know; but isn't it true all people are ready to live without oppression?

[Diogenes]

I don't worry so much about that; they're probably doing what we want them to -- that is, the programs are designed with goals (e.g. less hunger) and parameters for reaching them (e.g. mass sterilization is unacceptable) we would all generally agree with (that's actually what makes them so dangerous). There are long-established SDLC protocols to ensure software is doing what the functional designers intended, and they generally work reasonably well. To the extent functional designers have different goals, they would probably represent separate polities, or at least different constituencies.

Some amount of "trust the machines, they're always right" is inevitable, but we're going to have to be sure people are still allowed to be irrational, both individually and as a polity.

What I am getting at is that such a thing is likely impossible. Altruistic machines would need to be created by Altruistic people, and while I can imagine them in small batches, the vast bulk of human history is filled with the other kind. The conniving power hungry sort.

I find it far more likely that once sufficiently advanced machines were created they would be used to suppress dissent and serve the interest of those in power. Think of it as a million man robot army under the command of Barack Obama, and you might get the appropriate chills down your spine.

If you can suggest some method for achieving a negative feedback effect should the controllers become tyrannical, then my fears might be unwarranted. At this point, though, the very idea fills me with unease.

[Diogenes]

Forgive the cherry-picking. It is my understanding we are to be the guarantors of our own freedom, not of others

A very sound position and very popular in the US in the 1930s. And then reality intruded.

It turns out, given the alpha male problem and the "smaller" world it is not a very pragmatic position.

We are in the position (or condition) of the world these days that either every one gets liberty or no one gets it. And it is going to cost us. But think of the cost of "no one gets liberty".

The intrusion of reality on 11 Sept. 2001 caused me to break with the doctrinaire Libertarian position.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/

An epiphany! Perhaps in time you'll see the wisdom of the Socon position?

[TallDave]

What I am getting at is that such a thing is likely impossible. Altruistic machines would need to be created by Altruistic people, and while I can imagine them in small batches, the vast bulk of human history is filled with the other kind. The conniving power hungry sort.

Sure, but liberal democracies channel Man's conniving power hungry nature into productive tasks. That's why they work so well. For instance, probably something like 90% of stock trades are now carried out by computerized trading programs. 99% of ERP planning is done by machine calculation.

The reach of expert systems continues to grow -- it's likely they will increasingly move into medical diagnostic systems and law over the next couple decades. Policymaking is already being driven by GCMs and other computer simulations.

Think of it as a million man robot army under the command of Barack Obama, and you might get the appropriate chills down your spine.

How many robots is the Pentagon up to now?

[rjaypeters]

GIThruster: In that part of the thread, I thought we were writing about the first Persian Gulf War. Were we, humanity, ready to do the work then? No, or we'll never know because there was no attempt. Replacement? I'm guessing you mean Chalabi? Was he ready for the First Persian Gulf war?

"IF...IF..."? No WMDs found. People in the program say there weren't any because S. Hussein was spending his money elsewere and making it look like he had WMDs. Why the deception? Because it kept Iran and others from attacking.

On the other point: I submit no leader, or group of leaders, could have prevented the last seven years of turmoil and bloodshed in Iraq. The "group" wouldn't have trusted each other, so no unity. Any single leader would have belonged to one of the factions, Shia, Sunni or Khurd. Automatic distrust and resistance from the other factions. Don't forget the unreconstructed Ba'athists, they would fought against any new regime.

Why has the American Experiment succeeded, so far? Well, I'm not going to write those books because it has already been done. One of the main ingredients were the people of thirteen colonies were ready. Far greater than I have written extensively about the character of a people needed to keep a republic/democracy.

I'll entertain arguments the people of Iraq are getting ready, in part because of the US example and others.

The people of Afghanistan? Central government is antithetical to their world view. The King of Kabul had better rule lightly or he will loose support.

but isn't it true all people are ready to live without oppression?

How I wish it was so. No, some will immediately seize power to oppress the opposition. Look at Iraq since the invasion. Ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, oh heck, the whole country.

Two of the characteristics of people who will keep a republic are moderation and respect for citizens with whom you disagree. Find a majority of people like that in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Not trying to poison a well. Trying to see what is there.

[GIThruster]

I'm happy there are wealthy people, even if I am not one. My concern is what the concentration of money does to our Republic.

I think the point is there's no way to avoid this. If you were to take everyone's money, all of it; and redistribute it equally amongst the masses so that everyone had the same amount, then wait a year--what you would certainly find is the money once again will be concentrated. There will be people with none, people with some, people with lots more and still others whose ability to concentrate money will astound.

The inequities in monetary concentration are a result of normal life. Some people push themselves, others do not, the variety here bewilders.

The real issue in a free and open society is not the concentration of wealth, but the opportunities provided to everyone to succeed. If the nastiest parts of the free market don't provide opportunity to everyone, then this is one of the few things that can justify regulation, entitlements, redistribution of wealth. The goal cannot ever be to make everyone equal, nor even to raise the standard of living for everyone to some arbitrary point. The goal must be to create opportunity.

Imagine the class wars we'll have when the first gene therapy comes out that can extend human life by centuries but it's fantastically expensive. Just imagine. . .what people are going to do in the name of what they believe is "fair".

[rjaypeters]

I think the point is there's no way to avoid this.

This = concentration of money

I agree and I'll stop harping as soon as my correspondents stop telling me there isn't a problem. The following is taken from series of Slate.com articles by Timothy Noah about the Great Divergence. He guessed at the percentage of increasing income difference caused by different factors. So, take the numbers with a grains of salt. Look at the number of operative factors Mr. Noah found in talking with lots of people about the situation:

*Race and gender are responsible for none of it, and single parenthood is responsible for virtually none of it.
* Immigration is responsible for 5 percent.
* The imagined uniqueness of computers as a transformative technology is responsible for none of it.
* Tax policy is responsible for 5 percent.
* The decline of labor is responsible for 20 percent.
* Trade is responsible for 10 percent.
* Wall Street and corporate boards' pampering of the Stinking Rich is responsible for 30 percent.
* Various failures in our education system are responsible for 30 percent.

The goal cannot ever be to make everyone equal, nor even to raise the standard of living for everyone to some arbitrary point. The goal must be to create opportunity.

I agree with the three statements above. But only one of my correspondents have answered about what the wealthy do with their money, particularly as it influences political processes. E.g. 'the first things Capitalists do is get a law passed to close the market to new competitors.'

From 24 Sep 10:

Before some take up arms, I do NOT support government income redistribution schemes...

My main concern for the US role in the future is concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands makes those hands less accountable and responsible to the vast majority of the people of the US.

Imagine the class wars we'll have when the first gene therapy comes out that can extend human life by centuries but it's fantastically expensive. Just imagine. . .what people are going to do in the name of what they believe is "fair".

To borrow from the ancient myth: "Don't forget to ask for eternal youth at the same time!" Or "That's why we need the wealthy, we need them to be guinea pigs for the new medical technologies."

[Diogenes]

What I am getting at is that such a thing is likely impossible. Altruistic machines would need to be created by Altruistic people, and while I can imagine them in small batches, the vast bulk of human history is filled with the other kind. The conniving power hungry sort.

Sure, but liberal democracies channel Man's conniving power hungry nature into productive tasks. That's why they work so well. For instance, probably something like 90% of stock trades are now carried out by computerized trading programs. 99% of ERP planning is done by machine calculation.

The reach of expert systems continues to grow -- it's likely they will increasingly move into medical diagnostic systems and law over the next couple decades. Policymaking is already being driven by GCMs and other computer simulations.

Think of it as a million man robot army under the command of Barack Obama, and you might get the appropriate chills down your spine.

How many robots is the Pentagon up to now?

I wish I had your faith and optimism.

[Diogenes]

GIThruster: In that part of the thread, I thought we were writing about the first Persian Gulf War. Were we, humanity, ready to do the work then? No, or we'll never know because there was no attempt. Replacement? I'm guessing you mean Chalabi? Was he ready for the First Persian Gulf war?

"IF...IF..."? No WMDs found. People in the program say there weren't any because S. Hussein was spending his money elsewere and making it look like he had WMDs. Why the deception? Because it kept Iran and others from attacking.

On the other point: I submit no leader, or group of leaders, could have prevented the last seven years of turmoil and bloodshed in Iraq. The "group" wouldn't have trusted each other, so no unity. Any single leader would have belonged to one of the factions, Shia, Sunni or Khurd. Automatic distrust and resistance from the other factions. Don't forget the unreconstructed Ba'athists, they would fought against any new regime.

Why has the American Experiment succeeded, so far? Well, I'm not going to write those books because it has already been done. One of the main ingredients were the people of thirteen colonies were ready. Far greater than I have written extensively about the character of a people needed to keep a republic/democracy.

I'll entertain arguments the people of Iraq are getting ready, in part because of the US example and others.

The people of Afghanistan? Central government is antithetical to their world view. The King of Kabul had better rule lightly or he will loose support.

but isn't it true all people are ready to live without oppression?

How I wish it was so. No, some will immediately seize power to oppress the opposition. Look at Iraq since the invasion. Ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, oh heck, the whole country.

Two of the characteristics of people who will keep a republic are moderation and respect for citizens with whom you disagree. Find a majority of people like that in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Not trying to poison a well. Trying to see what is there.

At one time I would have loved to discuss this issue with you. However, I and others have beaten it to death previously, and my current attitude concerning it is ennui. In any case, I disagree with many of your initial assumptions, (You haven't defined the scope of the problem widely enough) and I also disagree with your conclusions. (based on incomplete initial assumptions.)

[Diogenes]

I'm happy there are wealthy people, even if I am not one. My concern is what the concentration of money does to our Republic.

I think the point is there's no way to avoid this. If you were to take everyone's money, all of it; and redistribute it equally amongst the masses so that everyone had the same amount, then wait a year--what you would certainly find is the money once again will be concentrated. There will be people with none, people with some, people with lots more and still others whose ability to concentrate money will astound.

The inequities in monetary concentration are a result of normal life. Some people push themselves, others do not, the variety here bewilders.

The real issue in a free and open society is not the concentration of wealth, but the opportunities provided to everyone to succeed. If the nastiest parts of the free market don't provide opportunity to everyone, then this is one of the few things that can justify regulation, entitlements, redistribution of wealth. The goal cannot ever be to make everyone equal, nor even to raise the standard of living for everyone to some arbitrary point. The goal must be to create opportunity.

Imagine the class wars we'll have when the first gene therapy comes out that can extend human life by centuries but it's fantastically expensive. Just imagine. . .what people are going to do in the name of what they believe is "fair".

Evolution is unfair. Yeah.

[Diogenes]

I think the point is there's no way to avoid this.

This = concentration of money

I agree and I'll stop harping as soon as my correspondents stop telling me there isn't a problem. The following is taken from series of Slate.com articles by Timothy Noah about the Great Divergence. He guessed at the percentage of increasing income difference caused by different factors. So, take the numbers with a grains of salt. Look at the number of operative factors Mr. Noah found in talking with lots of people about the situation:

*Race and gender are responsible for none of it, and single parenthood is responsible for virtually none of it.
* Immigration is responsible for 5 percent.
* The imagined uniqueness of computers as a transformative technology is responsible for none of it.
* Tax policy is responsible for 5 percent.
* The decline of labor is responsible for 20 percent.
* Trade is responsible for 10 percent.
* Wall Street and corporate boards' pampering of the Stinking Rich is responsible for 30 percent.
* Various failures in our education system are responsible for 30 percent.

The goal cannot ever be to make everyone equal, nor even to raise the standard of living for everyone to some arbitrary point. The goal must be to create opportunity.

I agree with the three statements above. But only one of my correspondents have answered about what the wealthy do with their money, particularly as it influences political processes. E.g. 'the first things Capitalists do is get a law passed to close the market to new competitors.'

From 24 Sep 10:

Before some take up arms, I do NOT support government income redistribution schemes...

My main concern for the US role in the future is concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands makes those hands less accountable and responsible to the vast majority of the people of the US.

Imagine the class wars we'll have when the first gene therapy comes out that can extend human life by centuries but it's fantastically expensive. Just imagine. . .what people are going to do in the name of what they believe is "fair".

To borrow from the ancient myth: "Don't forget to ask for eternal youth at the same time!" Or "That's why we need the wealthy, we need them to be guinea pigs for the new medical technologies."

This is getting interesting. Some of the things you are suggesting resemble ideas that I have been toying with for some time. Time for an Anecdote!

I have a friend with whom I was discussing the high oil prices a couple of years ago. He told me that his mother was really enjoying the rise in the price of crude. I asked why? He said prior to the price hike, she was already getting $18,000.00 / month in royalties for the oil wells she owns, and now she was probably getting double that!

My immediate thought was that she was as proud of that as if she had put the oil in the ground herself! So then I began to ponder why it was that this woman was entitled to $18,000.00 / month for having done no work to earn it? Well, it's because she holds legal title to the asset. So how did that come about? When you think about it, it all goes back to the rules this society operates under. Obviously NO ONE earned the oil that was in the ground, they just came along and declared that it was their's, and the system protects those who make such claims early enough.

It occurred to me that people who might be resentful of others who are given these magical gifts of a leisure life might be rightfully resentful, for why should one person own this when another should not but for the luck of the draw?

It is a question to which I am still pondering the answer.

[TallDave]

I agree and I'll stop harping as soon as my correspondents stop telling me there isn't a problem.

Given the state of things -- we're enjoying the highest standards of living ever and are as democratic and liberal as we've ever been -- the burden of proof falls on the person claiming this is a problem.

E.g. 'the first things Capitalists do is get a law passed to close the market to new competitors.'

This is a real problem; markets need to be free. But they can't do this if voters don't let them -- and in fact they are less successful in USA 2010 than they have been in the past or in other places. "State champion" industries are the norm in Europe, as they were in the pre-Roosevelt era, but in the modern U.S. the notion is quite unpopular. To the extent we are seeing such things today, they tend to revolve around notions of "green technologies."

So why is that? As it turns out, the process of getting rich by enriching others also empowers the individual -- so when your rich capitalist tries to get a law passed to make life diffifult for competitors, he generally finds the going very difficult.

[TallDave]

Obviously NO ONE earned the oil that was in the ground, they just came along and declared that it was their's, and the system protects those who make such claims early enough.

Well, remember, a lot of people got rich wildcatting, but a lot more didn't.

She made her money by investing it correctly to find and extract that oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcatter

[rjaypeters]

the burden of proof falls on the person claiming this is a problem.

I agree, to a point. Those who claim the current situation is good also have a burden.

I am not confusing causes with effects. It is useful to examine the causes of our current situation. Timothy Noah (from his Slate.com articles) guessed the following amounts of responsibility for the "Great Divergence." Great Divergence = increasing disparity in income. I've eliminated factors he raised but dismissed as not having any effect and changed his order. I'm not going to write about immigration or tax policy.

* Immigration is responsible for 5 percent.
* Tax policy is responsible for 5 percent.
* Trade is responsible for 10 percent.
* The decline of labor is responsible for 20 percent.
* Various failures in our education system are responsible for 30 percent.
* Wall Street and corporate boards' pampering of the Stinking Rich is responsible for 30 percent.

Some questions for the reader:
Do you believe the decline of organized labor is good for the Republic? When it is time to negotiate my wage with my employer, how will I fare better, alone or collectively with my fellow wage earners? After all, it is my capitalist duty to get the maximum amount of money for my labor, isn't it?

On the whole, I don't object to the increase of trade with other countries. One effect seems to be the decline of manufacturing in the US. Do you believe the decline in manufacturing in the US is good for the Republic?

Do you believe various failures in our educational system are good for the Republic?

Do you believe Wall Street and corporate boards' pampering of already well compensated people is good for the Republic? Modern Walmart is an interesting example:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart- ... d=11067470

Quote: "Smith, an alderman in Chicago, presented posters at a city council meeting showing that Walmart CEO Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92. By comparison, at a Walmart store planned for the Windy City's Pullman neighborhood, new employees to be paid $8.75 an hour would gross $13,650 a year.

Smith's numbers could be a bit off. Equilar, an executive compensation research firm, calculates that Duke earned just south of $20 million in 2009 and $28 million in 2008, not counting millions of dollars in potential performance awards. But the alderman argued that there's still a "sad" contrast between Duke's compensation and the wages of his employees. End quote.

Sam Walton and the people who worked with him created an international phenomenon. Walmart's effect on the economy of the United States and the world is difficult to overstate, but did Michael Duke, running an established company, work that much harder and smarter than his lowest-paid employee? Is Michael Duke responsible for the creation of that much wealth?

If you think the current situation is good, do you also think the trend to even greater income disparity (or wealth) is a good thing? At what point will you think income disparity (wealth)will be a bad idea? Will you draw a line between good and bad? Where?

E.g. 'the first things Capitalists do is get a law passed to close the market to new competitors.'

This is a real problem; markets need to be free.

...so when your rich capitalist tries to get a law passed to make life diffifult for competitors, he generally finds the going very difficult.

Not that difficult. Let's look at copyright law in the US:

From Wikipedia: "The first federal copyright act, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted copyright for a term of "fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof", with a right of renewal for another fourteen years if the author survived to the end of the first term. The act covered not only books, but also maps and charts." And:

"Works created in or after 1978 are extended copyright protection for a term defined in 17 U.S.C. § 302. With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter."

Who benefitted most from these increases in copyright term? Why the fifty or twenty-five special benefit to works created by a corporation? That Sonny Bono must have loved him some corporations!

Finally, Bill Gates. To whom is he leaving the vast majority of his fortune?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z114GFAF5n

'We've chosen not to pass it on to our children."

'We want to give it back to society in the way that it will have the most positive impact.

He said he did not want to leave it in his will for his children and added: 'It's like saying which children are most important."

BTW, isn't Bill Gates giving half his fortune to charity before he dies? Warren Buffett? Go look at the Wikipedia article for Warren Buffett and read the 'Philanthropy' section.