SERIOUS WONDER | What Will the Future Economy Look Like?

chat rencontres ado gratuit Photo Credit: PixabayCC

sites rencontres mayotte If one could visualize our economy, what would it look like? Would it look like a graph or a string of numbers? Our economy represents a collection of transactions, and if one recorded and traced each transaction geographically, an image would emerge like a flat web among constellations. If one pinpointed each location of concentrated wealth to scale the image topographically, we would see many peaks and valleys. But none of these locations are fixed–their values change and individuals, institutions, and their extensions roam. The result is a boiling image, resembling the patterns of Chaos and harmony of the universe itself, like the surface of the sun.

28èmes rencontres cinéma de gindou This is a description of a complex system. They occur everywhere in nature on different scales. The universe is a complex system, our brains are complex systems, trees are complex systems, so are hives and the weather. So when people talk about the unpredictability of the economy, some claim that we don’t understand it as a “dismal science.” But we do know things about defining characteristics of complex systems.

recherche prostituée sur grenoble Lack of stress weakens them. Chronic stress that doesn’t go away breaks them. Stress that resolves makes them stronger.

prostituées menin Something that grows stronger from stress is antifragile. Our bodies and minds are antifragile. Nature is antifragile. The economy is antifragile. This is important to grasp. It is important to understand how lack of stress weakens a complex system, making it vulnerable to break and collapse. It is also important to know that a chronic stress, meaning a stress that doesn’t go away, breaks antifragile systems. For the strongest complex system, you want to maximize its stressors that resolve.

rencontres langlois link A laissez-faire economy grows faster than any other economy. It maximizes market stressors, making everything stronger. We do not live in a capitalist or socialist society. There is a tug-of-war between the two. The debate: either government is not doing enough to make things more equal and fair, or the government is the source of the problem, making the system exploitable, crushing the middle class and keeping poverty where it is.

http://webinar.velocityxcelerator.com/be-ville-349da-hell-rencontre-sitemap-nosy-femme trouver prostituees tokyo This is how we treat our economy now: we impose regulations on the economy attempting to make it fair; our attempts deprive the system of natural stressors, resulting in unintended consequences. We compile regulation on top of regulation, depriving the system of more stressors, simultaneously creating chronic stressors that build up and never resolve.

This is how you break an antifragile system.

Photo Credit: Fast Future Publishing

I tell people I don’t care about the divide between the richest and the poorest, as long as everyone can expect their quality of life to improve. In a hypothetical future, I don’t care if the richest man has fleets and planets, as long as the poorest man has access to healthcare, food, shelter, and entertainment–while enjoying opportunity for upward social mobility.

Money is the currency of our economy, but money is just credit representing human value and work. So even in a future where “money” is obsolete, or different, there will always be an economy; a fluid system connected to human value to facilitate transactions, and make bartering possible. When I was at sleepaway camp, candy bars was our black market currency. Our access was limited, supply was low, demand was high, one could use sweets to barter. In prisons cigarettes are used as currency. In a world without “money,” or in a world with or without abundance, things will still be coveted. There will always be limitations to one’s access at any point stradling time. And this is not a bad thing; this is a good driving, motivating force.

When people think about equality, a common misconception I encounter is that the economy is a finite pie. There is a finite amount of wealth and everyone can only have a limited slice. In truth, the economy is like a bubble that inflates and deflates. The more free the economy is, the more everyone’s slice will grow. Meaning innovation will happen faster, become economically affordable sooner, and everyone will have more opportunity to improve their lot. This is a law of laissez-faire economics.

However, it is also true that in a free market pre-existing wealth grows at disproportionate rates. In a laissez-faire economy, the rich will get richer faster. Still, everyone’s general quality of life will steadily improve at a faster rate than otherwise, and it is the best environment to maximize everyone’s upward social mobility. I think the environment that benefits the most number of people, and maximizes well being, is the one we should choose for human flourish.

You may have heard about a Star Trek economy; being able to do things or go to places because you feel like it, but don’t forget there’s a hierarchy on the ship! There will be no world of perfect egalitarianism, but a world of maximum freedom. There are many people who imagine a world of perfect equality and abundance, but I believe they are naive to how complex systems operate.

Photo Credit: Manu Saadia

I’ve heard people lament that individualism and western ideals are bad and that we need more eastern ideals that embrace the group… I agree there must be balance.

I suggest thinking about western and eastern perspectives like a yin-yang; the best hybrid combines eastern and western cultural perspectives; and sees how to flip back and forth. No doubt we are all in this together, and we want to facilitate the best environment for human flourish and our survival throughout time.

In a future with AI guaranteed basic income, we will still need a free market to operate on top of it. Otherwise we’d risk stagnating our system and make it more vulnerable to unforeseeable events. It’d be impossible to equally distribute everything! Sure we will mine for minerals on asteroids, the ocean floor, and other planets, but this is not a property of scarcity and abundance, but a property of complex systems.

Even with overwhelming abundance there would be no way to remove hierarchies and different roles (no matter how fluid or interchangeable roles are). Egalitarianism becomes less stable the larger the system is. I know this first hand as a polyamorist, but also from my research and understanding of complex systems in nature.

As a species we want to grow as a machine civilization as fast as possible. There could always be bigger fish out there. The free market needs to be able to operate on top of the guaranteed income layer to maximize the system’s strength. People should be able to participate in a free market and compete.

Eventually, it might become moot. There may come a point when we are all members of a plugin-plugout hive-mind augmented by artificial intelligence. Your brain will be backed up in the cloud, you can have multiple bodies anywhere, doing anything; some in VR, others in the real world. You’ll sustain yourself on solar energy, so food will be a luxury; food might even be banned and you might have to get chemical/neurological triggers for illusions of food, because people might decide that it just doesn’t want to end life anymore because it can get all its energy from the sun. And at that point we’ll all be one saying “I am legion.”

But before we get that far, it is important to know Marx is a historicist. The foundation of Marx’s theory is not evolution. The foundation for Marxism is Hegel, History Theory, and the Dialectic. While Marx makes many astute claims about evolution, science, and the enlightenment, the bridge he uses to connect, justify, and claim his ideas don’t have solid pillars to stand on.

Evolution is the result of antifragility. Anyone who learns how complex systems work in Chaos, can see we need to employ biomimicry and learn from the wisdom of nature as we self direct it. We can build and design our systems, but we cannot change the laws of dynamic physics.

April 5, 2016 By Jules Hamilton

About the author

Jules Hamilton, renaissance man, is co-founder and author of the culture & lifestyle blog Polyglamorous. He’s a producer developing his first feature film, a satire on modern romance (w/ director Gil Freston), and he's the manager of R&B/hip-hop group 212 Green. Under his umbrella company Innomatic Studios he hosts a monthly panel called The Futurist Sessions at NYC’s SoHo House, where he occasionally speaks. He is also an ambassador for the non-profit A Generation Empowered.

jackarmstrong

Good morning, Jules.

Thank you for this very thoughtful response. I appreciate you saying you are willing to be proven wrong. I believe you have put your finger on the hallmark of real learning. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, from John Stuart Mill. Apologies for the length, but he was not a concise writer:

In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers — knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter — he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.

(from On Liberty, 1859)

Unfortunately I am crushed for time right now and can’t do your entire piece justice. But I would like to hit some high points.

“Unfettered capitalism” is what they have in northern Iraq. It’s what they had in Somalia before the partition. It may be that less regulation would be good for the US, but it is certain that having no regulation at all is a disaster. My response to anti-regulationism is the same as my response to any other purist doctrine: beware any formula that promises that you don’t have to think. Different situations call for different solutions. It has every been thus, and always will be.

“All politicians are bad.” It makes me sad to hear you say that. I wish everybody could have the experience I had. When I was your age I was cynical about the government, too. Then I went and worked on Capitol Hill. I had the opportunity to get to know some of the major players, to be there in the room when big decisions were made affecting millions of people. And I could not have been more surprised. I found out that Washington is an astounding assembly of brain power and public-spiritedness. And I learned that running the country is really hard. When we see our leaders arguing about what to do, it’s because it isn’t obvious what to do. Causes for problems are elusive, and predicting the outcomes of large-scale initiatives is extremely slippery. Yes, we have some very noisy bozos who make the whole system look bad. But we have many, many more who take the work seriously, and are genuinely doing their best.

Closed systems: you have a very interesting point there. I have to chew on that one a bit.

Now, sadly, I have to go. I look forward to next time.
Jules P. Hamilton

Okay this is really interesting. Jack, thank you so much for taking the time to type that out so thoughtfully. I value the views we share for this discussion, to anchor a foundation to build upon. I took extra time to write this, I hope it is well received. I share your love for knowledge, and searching for truth. I look forward to the possibility of us both learning new things, and arriving at net gains for everyone. I don’t mind losing an argument, because when I do– it means I’ve learned something new.

I am unconvinced unfettered competition leads to no competition. Aside I’ll say I see room for limited intervention, in defined terms such as for circumstances of dealing with disaster, and funding patent-less research. But I also think this should be voted on, instead of directed by central government. I’m a fan of democrat Gavin Newsom’s book Citizenville, how he says our democracy needs a software update, that we should outsource/crowdsource as many functions of government as possible. I’m in favor of giving people education vouchers, but the future of education will not be traditional. I believe the reason healthcare in this country is so expensive is because of regulations, the FDA, and lacking tort reform.

Let me define what I mean when I say unfettered Capitalism. The bigger the government, the easier it is for special interests to exploit the system. I am against this. Since the government is able to influence the market and economy, this empowers “big corporations” to influence passing laws in their favor. This is a huge reason why all politicians are bad, they are a product of the system. I am in favor of a government that is legally restricted from interfering with the economy in strictly defined terms. I would advocate an Economic Bill of Rights, defining what the government is and is not allowed to do. No such restrictions on government exist. This is very important, any chance of solving our systemic problems starts here.

Let’s talk about what you say is a law of nature, because maybe you are right. I’ll describe how I see it, and you can let me know what you think. All the examples you listed were closed systems, ordered by humans. I am unfamiliar with the game Battle. But as you describe it, that is exactly my point. In the closed system of “Battle,” designed by human rules we see two outcomes. It takes away the upward mobility of the weak, or creates stagnation. (Aside, shared scarcity is the result of lack of progress). The difference between a game of “Battle” and the complex system of nature, is that in nature order emerges from Chaos. The game of battle is a simulation, and pure order; chaos does does affect it the same way as it affects open systems. There is still randomness in the cards, but cards that didn’t previously exist will never emerge. I am not quite sure you see the laws of nature the way they are. You might have certain… blind spots.

In professional sports it’s the same thing. I agree with you, Football is a regulated game. It’s an elite closed system. Football plays in finite intervals, with a clear start, end, and score. It has strict rules for ordered play: it’s a regulated, extremely closed, and small system. Football is a simulation like the game of battle. There is still randomness involved, in fact much more randomness, like the weather, player health, etc– but new players or features won’t suddenly emerge in the middle of a game. Though they may in a new season. The NFL is a self regulating private industry subsidized by the government. In the economy, government doesn’t need to worry about whether or not its regulations are effective, because it will always exist (unless it collapses). This is unlike football, where customers can stop attending and spend their time elsewhere at a different industry competitor. People can’t stop paying taxes to the government if it sucks. They can only move if there are better options… if they can afford it.

I’m glad you brought up John D. Rockefeller. In my experience, the subject of monopolies is the clinch point, usually worthy of its own discussion. In brief, monopolies, by design, are unstable. You describe a monopoly to me in history, and I’ll tell you why it wasn’t a monopoly or worth fearing. Monopolies are apocryphal.

People design new search engines, despite Google’s dominance. We regulated the railroad “monopoly,” before trucks were invented. Then we regulated trucks to make it fair for railroads. Then we regulated plane deliveries to make it fair for trucks. All this regulation drives prices up, hurting the consumer.

Competition never goes away. Previously inconceivable disruptive innovations always emerge. It is good that competition never goes away in an open system. This forces someone like Rockefeller to lower his prices to drive copy-competitors out of business, selling his product below its value using deep pockets. When he raises his prices again, new entrepreneurs will try to compete. This cycle creates an equilibrium, averaging goods at their lowest possible price. This is good for consumers.

There has never been an example of an industry that withstood without competition, without direct government interference. It’s never happened. The larger a monopoly, the lower the average price for a service can go. This is why Amazon is driving major block book stores out of business, or towards innovation. Low cost services help the lower and middle class. Linux emerged to compete with Windows and Apple. We broke up the government-backed AT&T, which also didn’t foresee the invention of cellular, and now internet phones. Peter Thiel says it differently, he doesn’t say they don’t exist, he says monopolies are everywhere and that we want them everywhere. There are examples of companies that dominate industries, but none that could avoid competition without the assistance of government. This is also because companies compete for consumers across industry. This is because monopolies exist in open systems. The less open a system is that a monopoly exists in, the more dangerous it becomes… like the example you listed in Battle. We need to make the environment more favorable to entrepreneurs, so the more they will emerge to solve our problems. Because government never does. It’s strives to do good, and does more harm every time. Passing a law to help one, that hurts 5 is a bad law. Our regulations intend to help the lower and middle classes, and only contribute to an impassable divide.

Take Martin Shkreli, the pharmaceutical CEO who monstrously raised prices on his life saving drug. Few talk about how the patent on his drug expired several decades ago. The only reason no competitor can compete with Shkreli’s patent-less drug, is because the FDA has made it so prohibitively expensive to enter the market even with a pre-existing, approved formula. This is a perfect example of how government, with its good intentions, creates the exact monsters it is suppose to protect us from in the first place.

I agree we need a government, and I don’t think it should be a closed system. Government is the only American monopoly– but remember even governments are not alone on the global stage. Some governments are more closed than others. As I said before, I’m a fan of democrat Gavin Newsom’s idea to digitally update our democracy by outsourcing/crowdsourcing as many functions of government as possible. Even still, our government is not nearly as closed a system as football is; anyone can be elected into office. New laws and institutions emerge that didn’t exist before all the time. As long as we have an economically unrestrained government, it will continue to grow.

Here is where I’d like to ask you the same you asked of me. To consider your view on unrestrained competition in a free market. This doesn’t mean there would be no interventions. As I said above, disaster circumstances like the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-49 call for intervention. But rules for the market, for example, should be regulated by the system itself, like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a closed system, and none of its interventions or regulations are centralized. It’s a diverse ecosystem of contributors, vandals, and editors. This system works, in fact it works so well that it’s the world’s greatest encyclopedia.

The zig-zagging can’t continue, and I don’t think the system is working. I think it is failing in fact, and has been failing more every year.

Some report our economy is doing better than ever right now, but that’s because our government and China keep inflating the market flooding money into the system. Anyone who knows the history of the USSR, as you mentioned, knows that their economy BOOMED before it collapsed. This is not because it was “fully controlled.” It’s because it was too controlled.

And this is the problem with the tug-of-war. As long as we have a failing bureaucratic system that can’t be stripped away, only added onto– as long as we pass laws we can’t repeal, and as long as government has free reign to interfere in economic lives, it will only cause more problems than it solves. It will make it harder for entrepreneurs (or “new cards”) to emerge in the system. A government should not strive to do good. It should strive to prevent evil.

Some say the banks were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis; anyone familiar with The Big Short knows government made a law that required banks to offer loans to people who shouldn’t have qualified. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was a result of Banks trying to make money off of bad business decisions, forced by government’s hand. And Obama just encouraged banks to do the same thing again!… it’s insane. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html?postshare=6231459790795225&tid=ss_fb)

This is the problem. In my view, our economy is hinging closer to the point right before it bursts. The zig-zagging is a tug-of-war. One side will win eventually. Egalitarianism becomes more unstable the larger the system is. The more we lean towards socialism, the more we do all the things to break antifragile systems. Nothing is unbreakable. The more we impose too much order on the system, the more we burden it and close it up. You want to facilitate an environment for the strongest antifragile system; to survive shocks and unpredictable disruptions. The more open the system, the more it can progress from self regulation that inevitably occurs. The is a law of Chaos; order emerges from it. If we try to order a system too much, and make it too closed, we will take away too many stressors, and simultaneously create chronic stressors that never go away, build up, and then break the system.
jackarmstrong

Very stimulating piece, Jules. I agree with a lot of what you say: to hope
for everyone to be equal is a pipe dream. The economy is not a finite
pie. I absolutely agree.

But I would like to ask you to think about one caveat on the laissez-faire idea of
economy. It is true, as you say, that the economy is antifragile. Or,
as we old-timers would put it, “competition improves the breed.” Anybody
who doubts this need only look at the history of the USSR, which proved
for all time that a completely controlled economy is a disaster.

But completely unfettered economic competition doesn’t work either.
Ironically, it leads inevitably to no competition at all. It’s a law of
nature. Somebody wins. The card game “Battle” is the perfect model of
this: one player starts with a minute advantage, but that advantage is
self-reinforcing, as that player’s better cards allow him to win more
and more reliably, until the other player either runs out of cards or is
left with a couple of decent cards and the game goes static.

This happens in sports, too. Professional sports leagues recognize this.
That’s why the losing teams get to pick first in the draft. If there was
no draft, the winningest team would get the best new players, and after
a few seasons would be undefeatable forever, which would be boring,
people would stop watching, and it would be the end of the league.

Our laissez-faire economy in the late 19th century had the same problem.
John Rockefeller ran all his competitors out of business, and that was
the end of competition in the oil business. It happened in other
industries, too. The government recognized that this was bad for the
economy, so they created the Sherman Act, to prevent nature from taking
its course and letting a handful of players control the whole economy.

In the hundred years since, we have steered a zigzag line between more and
less regulation, trying as a group to find the fine line that maximizes
fairness and the innovation that comes from competition, while
preventing the giants from running all their competitors out of business
and creating stagnation. It’s working.

So to say, as a matter of principle, that less regulation is bad, is equivalent to
saying, as a matter of principle, that when navigating a ship one should
always turn to starboard. In reality, sometimes we need a starboard
course correction, sometimes port.