Viser arkivet for juli, 2013
We subsidize that which give a tax income in the future. More specifically in this case we subsidize making children because more population provides more tax income.
This is a practice that provides diminishing returns. I will explain how.
Things scale up differently. For example, weight of a bone scales up as a volume (X*Y*Z), but the strength of a bone scales up as a surface (X*Y), because the strength of a bone is that of the cross-section of the bone, but the weight is that of a three-dimensional structure of bone-molecules.
Similar differences in scaling up exist in society. More importantly for our case, how the infrastructure and population scales up.
The population scales up in an exponential curve. And there’s really not much to limit growth in industrialized countries, not taking future housing and infrastructure into account.
The work-ability of the population does not increase exponentially at the same time as the population. Each new child has to grow for X number of years before the child can join the workforce. So While you can double population in 7 years, if you did so, you would have at least 50% of the population consisting of 1-7 year old children that can’t join the work-force for another 10 or so years.
Infrastructure also has problems with scale. Road-networks gain capacity as a function of area used, with slight diminishing returns due to an increasing number of stops and traffic-lights etc. Electricity grids gain capacity as a function of area of the cross-section of the connection between the consumer and producer. Water and sewage gain capacity as a function of height from source to destination as well as pipe cross-section area.
Buildings also do not scale linearly. So as population increases housing becomes more and more expensive at an increasing rate, not even counting psychological market forces, and hospitals become exponentially more expensive to build and run as they grow in height and area.
If how all these things scale up are put on a chart it is easy to spot the cause of many of the problems we have today. Algorithms can also be used to calculate optimal population growth/stagnation/decline. There may be conditions in which a declining or stagnating population provides an improvement in the potential tax-income-growth/tax-expenditure-growth ratio (I say potential to indicate that this tax income/expenditure growth is only based on population growth, infrastructure growth, etc, not tax law or actual welfare expenditure).
The country with the highest potential tax income growth to potential tax expenditure growth ratio is the country that can increase the quality of life of its citizens most in a set time period.
Another emerging series of technologies together termed Rejuvenation Biotechnology will allow scaling up of the lifespans of populations with drastic consequences. It is a competitor to subsidizing children to ensure future tax income.
Children costs 20 years of growth and education and tax cuts to parents, and then start at the bottom in pay-scale. If however a 60 year old person is made to be 40 years old, that person will have the paycheck of a 60 year old and tax-expense of a 40 year old. This may sound far-fetched, but it does not require reversing growth or spinning the planet backwards. Because growth stops at around age 25, the only thing that changes the body after that is accumulation of 7 types of damage. One substance that accumulates over time is 7-Ketocholesterol, it accumulates in the cells and eventually makes the cell-processes not function properly like they do when you are young. All that is required to “reverse age” is all else being equal to remove some of that 7-Ketocholesterol. No understanding of the underlying system that made the 7-Ketocholesterol is needed, and no intervention in how the body actually works is needed. It is like removing rust on a car to make it usable for another ten years, instead of going into all the expenditure of making a new one.
This also does not have the increased tax expenditure from all the things that must be scaled up when scaling up population by childbirth.
Over the next hundred years Rejuvenation Biotechnology will become the main way that governments assures and predicts future tax income. The fools who do not will die of 7-Ketocholesterol and leave the world to the new superpowers: The nations that successfully controls the health of their population can have the most welfare, lowest taxes, best business incentives, largest and most modern army, all at once.
Any nation (even poor ones) that implement Rejuvenation Biotechnology will outclass the best possible nation that does not implement Rejuvenation Biotechnology.
For more information about Rejuvenation Biotechnology, read the book Ending Aging, by Aubrey de Grey, PhD. And click the bar at the top of the screen and donate to Sens Research Foundation, who are in the process of developing a way to remove 7-Ketocholesterol from humans safely.
EDIT 02 August 17:14. Changed a piece to better convey the point without an inaccuracy in how populations scale. The new section reads as follows:
The population scales up in an exponential curve. And there’s really not much to limit growth in industrialized countries, not taking future housing and infrastructure into account.
The work-ability of the population does not increase exponentially at the same time as the population.
I woke up this morning and had four healthy slices of whole-wheat bread and a cup of green tea. I sat down to try to think up a letter that convinces the Norwegian government that substantial funding of rejuvenation biotechnology is feasible, desirable and not deferable until a later time. But my mind kept wandering.
You see, I think the only worthwhile use of my life is to extend my life as much as possible. It is the hunter-gatherer of today, instead of hunting and gathering to live another month, I lobby and exercise to live another hundred years, preferably even more.
My mind then kept wandering into what I might live to experience if I just managed to get one more person to donate to Sens Research Foundation. I already know that if I live as long as current medicine allow, I will live to be about 80-85 years, if I am of average health. This means I will live to see the year 2070-2075.
As this timeline of predicted events will tell you, that means I will almost live to see the world population reach 10 billion, which is predicted to occur in 2083.
I thought, what if I got a thousand people from now and until 2030 to donate monthly to Sens Research Foundation? Would I then live to see the world house 10 billion people? What if I did even better, could I possibly see near light-speed travel which Arthur C. Clarke thought would occur in 2095? Will I see a trans-atlantic railway? Will I see a mile-high skyscraper? Will I be able to go to Mars if I just do a little bit more than I normally would to extend my life? If I stand in a street-corner every afternoon telling people to support rejuvenation biotechnology, will I then be able to live to see humans make first contact with alien civilizations? If I get a million other people to also clamour for rejuvenation biotechnology, will I then be able to live so long in my current configuration that I can go skiing in another solar-system?
I concluded that I will redouble my efforts in extending my life, and the first order of business is to not buy a new phone and continue to use my 7 year old K810i, instead I will donate to the cause of rejuvenation biotechnology, and buy a couple extra Ending Aging books, and send them to various political parties inscribed “pass it on after a week” on the title page.
What about you, what would you like to live to see?
Support Sens Research Foundation by clicking the bar at the top of this website. And read the book “Ending Aging” by Aubrey de Grey, PhD. That book explains the difference between the growth that make you change until you are about 25, and aging, which makes you decay hence forth. But not only that, he explains a very feasible way of how scientists with realistic amounts of funding can repair and rejuvenate your decayed body, so you can potentially live forever as you were when you were about 25 years old.
By the way, there really is no other way of saying it, but you don’t know what aging is, we all think we do, but we don’t, its a biological process that accumulates 7 types of decay/damage, and if you repair that decay/damage, you reverse your biological age. That does not reverse your growth, so you don’t become a fetus if your biological age is reversed. And crucially, its not about slowing down how the complex biological process makes 7 types of decay/damage, that would lead to dangerous side-effects, it is about repairing the decay/damage after it has occurred. That is far easier. And does not impact the complex biology that is our body. Any fool can remove rust, but not everyone can make stainless steel, as it were. If we spent 1% of government budget on rejuvenation biotechnology we would in 20 years be able to remove the pension system, and your children would no longer blame you for their shorter-than-need-be lives.
You can always have the bad-assest car if you outlive the ones who have a bad-ass car now.
Har gått gjennom syv sider av Høyres Stortingsvalgprogram for å se hva de sier de vil gjøre.
Fra Side 10 til side 17.
Mindre byråkrati og rapporteringskrav OG karakterer fra 5. klasse. (s11-12).
Mindre byråkrati OG anonym retting av prøver (prøvene må sendes)(s12-13.
Mindre byråkrati OG Kvalitetsportal hvor informasjon innhentes fra alle barnehagene (s10 og 12).
Mindre byråkrati OG tilsyn av barnehagene (S10 og 12).
Vil ha færre lover og regler OG lovfeste en likebehandling av offentlige og private barnehager (S10).
Vil ha lavere skatt OG mer av masse som koster penger.
Økt lønn til lærere (s13).
Lærerutdanningen blir femårig masterutdannelse (s13).
Gratis pc til elever med lese- og skrivevansker (s12).
Etablere en felles IT-plattform for skolen (s12).
Livslang rett til videregående opplæring (s12).
Nye karriereveiledere (s13).
Økt inntakskrav til lærerutdannelsene (da må lønnen økes betraktelig for å ha samme antall søkere) (s13).
Styrke pedagogtettheten og videreutdanne barnehage-ansatte (s10).
Uavhengig tilsyn av barnehagene (s10).
Kvalitetsportal hvor informasjon innhentes fra alle barnehagene (s10).
Økte krav til norskferdigheter for ansatte i barnehager (s10).
Styrke skolehelsetjenesten (s12).
Rådgivere må ha mer etterutdanning (s12).
Legge til rette for at skolene sikrer daglig fysisk aktivitet for elevene (s12).
Sikre et bredt folkehøgskoletilbud (hvis de bare vil ha det slik det er fra før av, er det ikke en bedre og ny løsning) (s12).
La elevene evaluere undervisningen (mer rapportering)(s12).
Anonym retting (lærere kan ikke rette prøver rett etter at de har samlet de, de må utveksle prøver med en annen lærer, og det involerer mer arbeid uansett hvordan du vender på det, og det er nok til at det merkes på nasjonalt nivå)(s12).
Etablere en teknologisk skolesekk? (s12).
Øke lærlingtilskuddet (s14).
Endre privatskoleloven og tillate bransjedrevne opplæringsløp i hele eller deler av yrkesfagene og Stimulere til nye samarbeidsmodeller mellom bransjer og offentlige skoler (s14).
Øke grunnfinansieringen til utdanningsintitusjoner (s15).
Øke opptakskapasiteten innen ingeniør- og teknologifag (s15).
Innføre studiestøtte til førsteåret av bachelorstudier i ikke-vestlige land og til freshman-året av studier i USA (s15).
Bygge flere studentboliger (s15).
Styrke tekniske fagskoler og gjeninnføre statlig finansiering av fagskolene (s15).
Styrke NOKUT (nasjonalt organ for kvalitet i utdanningen) (s15).
Styrke forskningsinnsatsen for å nå målet om at forskning skal utgjøre 3 prosent av BNP innen 2030 (17 år fram i tid? Ingen mål er mer enn 4 år fram i tid om de vil gjennomføres)(s16).
Etablere nytt forskningsfond innenfor statens pensjonsfond utland, der avkastningen skal øremerkes til forskning, ingen andre ting vi kan trenge om 17 år (s16).
Øke investeringene i avansert vitenskapelig utstyr og annen infrastruktur for forskning (s16).
Styrke forskningsårdet åpne programmer (styrke betyr “gi mer penger”)(s16).
Styrke programmer for kommersialisering av forskningsresultater og sikre økte midler i såkornfondene (s16).
Stimulere til mer forskning i næringslivet (snu og vend alt du vil, det vil koste penger)(s16).
Gjeninnføre gaveforsterkningsordningen (s17).
Styrke den næringsrettede forskningen (s17).
Øke antallet rekrutteringsstillinger (s17).
Etablere en statlig stipendordning som gir norske forskere mulighet til å forske og undervise ved fremdragende utenlandske institusjooner, og en tilsvarende ordning for å trekke internasjonalt ledende forskere til Norge (s17).
Etablere hurtig-behandling av søknader om oppholds- og arbeidstillatelse for utenlandske forskere (s17).
Sikre statlig finansiering av sentrale kulturinstitusjoner (s17).
Flere gaveforsterkningsordninger, denne gangen for kunst og kultur istedenfor utdanning (s17).
Opprettholde en sterk norsk filmproduksjon og styrke regionale filmfond og sentre (s17).
Innføre insentivordning for utenlandsk filmproduksjon i Norge (s17).
Styrke det frie feltet, korps- og korbevegelsen (s17).
Bedre tilbudet ved kulturskolene (s17).
Sparer penger slik at man kan kutte skatt:
Ingen konkrete tiltak.
Høyres valgprogram er full av ting som koster penger, fulle av tiltak som motsier hverandre, og består av svært få konkrete ord om hvordan de vil senke skatten uten å enten ha underskudd eller kutte velferd. “nye ideer og bedre løsninger” er noe de sier uten å kunne bevise det. Og resultatet? Folk spiser det opp og vi vil nok få Høyre-regjering.
Jeg håper folk bruker hundrevis av timer på å bestemme hvem som er best for folket før de stemmer, fordi Høyre-stemmer jeg møter nekter å bruke mer tid på saken fordi de tror de er med i flertallet, som om flertallet automatisk vet best. Diskusjoner med Høyre-stemmer ender etter tre replikker med “jeg har rett hvis flertallet stemmer Høyre” (det er det de sier, med andre ord).
Jeg vet ikke hvilket parti som er best for folket, jeg har ikke brukt et årsverk på å finne det ut, jeg håper bare at gjennomsnittets stemme har brukt nok tid på saken til å velge det som er den riktige blandingen partier.
Jeg mener det ville vært dumt å endre på ting som vi vet funker og tok oss gjennom finanskrisen. Så jeg blir nok å stemme Arbeiderpartiet, fordi de sier de vil holde skattenivået og velferden slik den er, og ikke gjøre landet konkurs med silkeglatte veier og skattekutt. Så uansett hva har Stortinget godt av å ha Arbeiderpartiet til stede.
Skattekutt er som å kutte i sparingen, ja, du kan kortsiktig kjøpe mer dilldall du ikke trenger for å imponere folk du ikke liker, men når du virkelig trenger penger har du bare masse dilldall som ble ødelagt dagen etter garantien gikk ut, ingen oppsparte midler (å betale inn i skattesystemet er som å spare opp midler til du trenger det, feks når du blir syk, arbeidsledig, gammel).
Det er pussig at Norge, som tilsynelatende har gjort alt rett (vi er på toppen på alle statistikker det er bra å være på toppen av), nå ser utover etter bedre løsninger, istedenfor å utvikle løsninger selv. Det er pussig at vi ser til andre land sine veier og tenker “slike veier vil vi ha”, når de er konkurs på grunn av det de har gjort, som kan inkludere veiene. Det er pussig at vi ser på deres lavere skattenivå og tenker “jeg vil ha det der!” når det har ført til at landenes befolkninger lever i fattigdom nærmest på matrasjonering. Det er pussig at vi ser til USA når vi vil lære hvordan vi kan hjelpe industri, når USA tjener mer på finansielle tjenester enn tradisjonell industri. Det er også pussig at noen ser etter andre lands styreformer, når Konstitusjonelt monarki funker utmerket for oss. Vi ligger på toppen, ikke se nedover for tips om hvordan man klatrer høyere.
Vi er i posisjonen at vi må tenke ut nye ting, fordi vi har ingen over oss å herme etter.
PS: jeg kan være enig i noen av Høyres påståtte tiltak, men da kun om midlene kommer fra å tette hull i skatteloven eller implementering av toppskatt Nivå 3. Ikke hvis det resulterer i underskudd eller kutt i andre utgiftsposter.
Often people ask questions like “Why don’t people fight climate change? Why don’t people fight ageing? Why don’t people fight AIDS? Why don’t people fight poverty?” and lots of other similar “good fights” they themselves undertake.
On the face of it fighting climate change, aging, AIDS, poverty, all seem like no-brainers. So why don’t people do these things?
1. They think doing something won’t help enough.
2. They think the outcome would not be good.
3. They think it is not a problem of theirs at this moment in time.
Number One is easy to understand. If you think what you yourself can do is not enough to fight climate change, ageing or AIDS then you will not do anything. Number two is present even when it comes to AIDS and aging in some cases. Three is also somewhat easy to understand, most often people have not been thinking about the problem and so it is like an uninvited object they don’t consider theirs. Like if you go up to someone with a random dog-poo bag and say “is this yours?”; they say no if its just a tiny bit negative or something that seem quite out-of-place (there’s a time and a place for everything, it seems).
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop ageing (no one yet have managed to stop ageing, they think no one has managed to affect ageing, they think no one has a theory of how to succeed, they think ageing is a feature of humans untouchable by biotechnology, they believe this technology will come at the same time in the future no matter what they do).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping ageing will not be good (They think there will be overpopulation, that bad people will live forever, that science will progress slower if the old don’t die and make room for the new, they believe there will be lack of resources, they believe people should die to make room for the next generation, they believe stopping ageing will result in very poor quality of life because of boredom or very poor health, etc).
3. They think ageing is not a problem that they should concern themselves about right now (They believe they can’t do anything anyways, they believe it won’t be in time for them, they believe they have more pressing things to take care of first, they believe they might do it at another time and place when they can consider the question more, etc).
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop climate change (fex because they think its not manmade, or because they think everyone else will just continue to pollute even if they themselves stop).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping climate change will not be good (They believe it will bankrupt the nations to stop it, and a whole bunch of other things).
3. They think climate change is not a problem that they should concern themselves about now (They believe it is still so far away they have more pressing things to take care of first, or that the climate is not changing at all, or that climate change is not due to man).
The same three points can be written for any number of things, including but not limited to:
-Specific personal abilities.
-Opinions (personal and others).
-What leaders do (prime ministers, presidents, CEO, social group leader etc).
-Pretty much anything, even atheism and agnosticism and ignosticism (“I can’t imagine how life formed” is Type One, Type Two; “I don’t think atheism/agnosticism/ignosticism gives a good quality of life even if I became one” and Type Three is that they don’t feel they have to do all this intellectual work about this particular problem right now).
Most people are not consciously aware of which of these three Types need to be argued in order for them to change their minds. If the main reason they don’t stop aging is type One, Two or Three. And as such, most people fall into the others once one type has been argued against. If you argue against Type One they retort with Type Two or Type Three as if that makes your argument against Type One invalid somehow. If you then argue against the Type they retorted with they retort with either of the other two Types again, as if your first argument against Type One was invalidated.
Quite frankly, I’m tired of meeting this phenomenon every time I argue for rejuvenation biotechnology. People want to force people to die of repairable decay because of three reasons they don’t notice have been proven to be bad reasons. They hop from Type to Type and in-doing so maintain the delusion of not being argued wrong.
I can imagine people that try to get people to stop climate change and cure AIDS and Religion and so forth also could do without this fundamental flaw in human being’s self-proclaimed rationality.
It can be summarized as such;
For something to be done it must be considered feasible, desirable and undeferable.
And subsequently, if it is not considered to be feasible, desirable and undeferable, it will not be done.
There is what I know I know, what I know I don’t know, but what people in high places must ask themselves is: What knowledge do I need but don’t I know I don’t know? Because that is where the problem lay. Politicians are all certain they know enough to perform the task of fixing their nation’s economy, but there may exist knowledge that is necessary to fix their nation’s economy which they don’t know they don’t know.
There are tasks where:
-You know enough to perform the task sufficiently well.
-You don’t know enough to perform the task sufficiently well.
But they are indistinguishable from each other, because you have things you don’t know you don’t know, so any number of the things you don’t don’t you don’t know can be a piece of knowledge you need to perform the task.
So as a rule of thumb, always assume you don’t know enough to perform the task sufficiently well.
If you are an economist it just means what you don’t know is not likely to be grouped in the economy curriculum, its in behavioral psychology or neuroscience or boolean algebra for all you know. There are people that have devoted their lives to thinking about one particular problem, and for all you know they thought about the problem you’re trying to solve.
Finding some of the things you don’t know you don’t know, but that you need to know, takes a long time, I suggest you hire someone for that.
Open markets are considered a good way to improve a service or product, but there are plenty of ways to make it not work as intended. Same with carrots (rewards) and sticks (punishments).
For one, if you add a price or punishment in tasks where some ounce of brainpower is needed, you cut performance instead of increase it. The carrot and stick only works in algorithmic tasks where extremely little cognitive work is needed.
Political parties often argue that “if two hospitals compete, they will produce better quality services”, but its not always true that competition improves performance. Carrots and sticks ONLY improve performance when it involves algorithmic skill. Example; If you tell a runner he gets more money for every tenth of a second he takes away from his time, he will probably increase in performance. But if you tell someone to do something that requires ANY cognitive skill, more reward LOWERS performance. This is hard data in several experiments, its over 4 year old scientific results that can’t be dismissed no matter how counter-intuitive it sounds or how much you think you know better. If you ignore this fact you can not work in economic administration without being at a huge risk of crashing a business or crashing a country.
Prices and competition motivates and improves performance, in certain conditions. If cognitive skill is required you only pay enough to take the subject of money off the table, and you don’t stress them with carrots and sticks. If you add more carrots and/or sticks where cognitive work is needed you lobotomise the worker. If you want to see it in action, watch a couple of minutes from this video .
If you would like to ignore this fact about how human cognitive ability works under stress I would ask you to remove whatever is stressing you and making you lobotomised (I’m laughing out loud as I write this, with a large hint of seriousness).
Under even small stress like the boss mentioning the deadline of work you are in the process of doing can make you lose your concentration and make your frontal lobe suffuciently lobotimised to make your work have substandard quality.
That politicians and others who want to improve economies do NOT know this fact about human cognitive ability means we should avoid introduction of free markets in public services as the plague. Because nothing will prevent them from accidentally making a system which lobotomise thousands of public workers.
Sources: See Dan Pink on motivation vs performance .
(and what he refers to, can’t be bothered to find links to all the sources he talks about, this is not a scientific peer-reviewed article, but an article that points out well-known facts for the layman)
There are many theories that try to explain observed economic phenomenons, but this I posit is a more accurate one.
Intro: There’s many theories about how to improve the economy. But to improve something it must be defined first. If I want more of something, I need to know what it is I must produce. To improve health we define health, to improve color we define color, to improve something we define what is an improvement. Here I will define what economy is and subsequently begin the path of discussing how to improve it.
Economy is needs being met. In a good economy the value of needs being met per capita is high. To better economy more value worth of needs per capita needs to be met. Needs are defined as that which a person is willing to give needs to receive. For example, a wheat farmer does not need wheat himself, but is willing to give wheat, which are needs to others, in order to have his own needs fulfilled. Needs change hands from A to B, AND simultaneously B to A, in all transactions except theft and slavery. Even when A donate money to B, B provides A with a need, otherwise A would not hand over need-currency to B. I’ll let psychologists discuss what need B provides to A, but we can be sure there is a need B provides to A. How many needs a person can have has an upper limit, for those wishing to calculate this new definition. It is limited due to limited hours in every life. But the number of needs a person can have has a lower limit, because certain needs must be met to keep the person physically and psychologically healthy. Time must be a part of the calculation, an economy can not just be defined as good based on the best millisecond that year. So the unit of economy will be the value of needs met on average per capita per day. Additional needs have value in inverse proportion to how many needs are met. You meet the most important needs first, so by definition those after that are less important and less valuable. One can argue about where in value the line to “luxuries” lay. Need number one will have 1/1 value, need number two will have 1/2 value, need number three has 1/3 value need number four will have 1/4 value, together the value of these needs met will be 1/1+1/2+1/3+1/4 = 25/12 (2.083333…). Work out Value of Needs Met (VNM) by the rule 1/n. Though different ones can exist, like 10/n or similar ones which treats the first few needs as essential to life. This value of needs explains much behavior very accurately. But more additions to the equation can be made to increase accuracy and model more situations. The total value of needs met per capita is abbreviated as VNM per capita (Value of Needs Met).
The problems in today’s financial crisis has arisen from a collapse in high-value NM (Needs Met) while low-value needs are still being met. The financial stimulus packages have largely only been intended to increase the amount of low-value needs being met (not low value in the sense of GDP).
The healthy economies in the world are always the ones that have the highest value of needs being met, and due to the value of the first few needs it is a practical impossibility to have a high VNM without the first few needs being consistently met for more or less all of the inhabitants.
There is a phenomenon in economics. If you need something, and do not have the means to make it, the easiest way to get it is to offer need-currency to get it. If you need low unemployment you only have to offer need-currency and those that can start businesses and hire people will take your need-currency and turn it into what they need. I need to live as long as possible through rejuvenation biotechnology, since I do not have the skill or wealth to make that happen myself I need only offer need-currency, and others will make it happen for me. They will do this because they need something else, and to get what they need they need need-currency. For me to get need-currency to buy my needs I must make things others need. I could try to make people need what I need by arguing they need it also, and make them produce what I need that way, but that’s more difficult and frankly like starting in the wrong end.
The value of needs is more or less inversely proportional to their GDP value (High-value needs are small portions of GDP, low-value needs have large portions of GDP).
Therefore government should be the main supplier of the highest value needs because the high-value needs have so low GDP-value, and such a high value to the health of the economy. Without the high-value needs that only make up a few percents of GDP, the rest of the GDP no longer happens. An unchanging predictable cost of high-value needs from state owned monopolies is less risky than privatized supply of these high-value needs. To prevent times of surplus production in financial decline these high-value needs should be paid through taxes by ability, and given to everyone who needs them. For example healthcare, dental care, pension, roads, indoor plumbing (water and sewage), electricity (enough to heat food and home and cool food in refrigerators, and some lights, entertainment (TV/computer)), information (library, TV, radio, internet), education, food, clothes, a home (apartment with paint on the walls, air-tight windows and doors, some furniture, no mold or water damage or pests etc). Each in moderation of course, not lobsters for food or a walk-in closet of tailored suits. In times of declining GDP the taxes must go up in order to continue the delivery of high-value needs without going into debt, simple arithmetic say the least VNM is lost by taxing the rich more than the poor. Debt works as a tool to get the needs of tomorrow met today, and provide a negative sum benefit for the loan taker, but the short lifetime of the individual loan taker must be taken into account in accurate modelling efforts, because people take loans as if getting something now and paying more later is better than saving now, getting interest on interest, and getting the thing later without loans. This behavior should never be reflected by governments, governments should act better than individuals would. The government and its people is timeless, and thus do not benefit from loans, but instead benefit from saving up and then buying it.
PS: Needs are not defined as physical objects. Needs can be anything people are willing to give needs to get. Be that words of praise from someone, or a car.
PPS: I will probably fill in more details later. For now I think its important to put this bit out there, as it holds the main concept. Note that I do not suggest rationality has anything to do with economy. If the fifth need a human meets is a car and the sixth is a boat then that was what was fifth and sixth most valuable needs to that brain at that time due to genes, experiences and circumstances. It does not mean a car is always a more rational need to meet than a boat, or that a car is a more rational need than a boat in such a circumstance, with such genes, and with such experiences. Rationality can not be the basis of an economic theory to explain observed economic behavior, because rationality has yet to be observed in any species (we call this and that rational, but if we were irrational, we would call lots of things rational, the two possibilities, rational and irrational, is indistinguishable from each other, until we define rationality so well we have it as a feature in our laptops (same as with free will, before we define free will so well we have it as a feature in our laptops, free will has yet to be observed)).
PPPS: This theory reflects the well-recognized fact that an economy with 99% employment is likely to be more healthy than an economy with 98% employment. Because the first is likely to have a better VNM (total average per capita Value of needs met). And it shows us how to improve the economy directly with a better effect than interest rate adjustments and tax cuts. The way to improve the VNM is simply by taxing low-value high cost products and services (luxury cars, airplanes, liquor, tobacco, etc), and use the money to hire people and equipment to produce high value low cost products and services (healthcare, education, public buildings, bureaucrats, research, waste disposal, recycling, laws and regulations to protect the people and wildlife and enforcement agents to enforce those laws and regulations, etc).
Bureaucrats are under-estimated in terms of value for money. When you have enough bureaucrats its difficult to cheat the government out of tax dollars by for example putting road projects across your own land or to award the contract to a friend’s construction company. And with enough bureaucrats its difficult to build things that aren’t needed, like new highways that end up being empty, new airports that have to close down a few years after opening, and some nations upgrade military bases that are closed down after few years. All because not enough people had to sign off on it, and not enough questions had to be answered well, and not enough forms had to be filled out.
To stigmatize is in no way a good thing, but there are far too many bogus myths about why people do it for people to be efficiently made to not do it anymore.
Reasons people stigmatize is commonly: Believing millions of people have chosen to be evil, or that a group want something bad to happen to millions of people. Sprinkled by reasons to stigmatize that consist of negative attributes, like any “bad people” you see in Star Trek (that the Vulcans are logical might be enough reason for some groups to stigmatize them). But free will does not exist, it is a clever illusion that has evolved in humans (and many other animals and possibly even insects and fish). So we do not choose anything as such.
Here is how free will can not exist within the laws of physics, and here is the closest thing to free will we can get in a deterministic universe.
We can no more blame people for their actions as we could blame a stone for falling on our foot. But if you try to make them do something, or not do something, and you fail, trying the same method/argument twice expecting a different result is your fault. Peoples behavior is dictated by the laws of physics.
People have evolutionistic behavior patterns, behavior that often helped survival and reproduction. In the case of stigmatization it has evolved into group forming behavior that aid in getting entrance and acceptance into groups. And it aids in keeping groups together (you might have some idea of how much time can be spent laughing talking about some other group your social group likes to stigmatize). Someone with a walking cane are stigmatized by a person from a certain group, lets say someone with glasses, then the stigmatized person is more likely to want to stigmatize people with glasses. People with glasses then are more likely to stigmatize people with walking canes. And then when we run through all the variations, long hair, short hair, dark skin, light skin, tall, short, fat, skinny, left politically, right politically, Norwegian, Swede, Ferrari driver, Volvo driver, owner of a big house, owner of an apartment, young people, old people, employed people, unemployed, sick people, retired people, etc. Then we have tons of groups of people who stigmatize other groups, exactly as would be the case in our hunter-gatherer ancestral life. In the hunter-gatherer life other groups must have been stigmatized by the group in order for the group to continually have an emotional driver that spurs on fighting to keep their hunting territory. Those that did not think their neighbors were evil and bad in numerous ways would not continue to successfully prevent their neighbors from wiping them out. It only takes one day to wipe out a tribe completely, largely removing it from the gene-pool, therefore this has shaped our genes a lot. And it also remains a powerful behavior we inherit all the time (very few exceptions). When we inherit our DNA we also inherit our brain and senses. What our senses do and how they function is dictated before we are born, and how our brain reacts to what we sense is out of our first-hand control.
Only after we feel something, only after we think something, only after our brain decides something to do, can we have the option of stepping in and stopping ourselves.
Stopping ourselves from acting on feelings, stopping ourselves from striking out in anger.
Stopping ourselves from doing what our brain decided is the right action that split-second.
Stopping ourselves from striking back because someone’s brain did something against us.
Stopping ourselves from striking back because a stone landed on our foot, a human stone we have evolved to sense and react to as if it has free will.