(you can keep your “math magic” to yourself)
The biggest divide between “Left and Right”, economically, is the ability to work.
The Right believes, if you are disabled, and physically cannot work, then you should receive NO money.
The Left believes, if you are disabled, and physically cannot work, then you SHOULD receive money.
This is the fundamental rift between left & right economics.
Furthermore, the SOLUTION, of the Right, is that disabled people should depend on family, friends, church, God, when it comes to disability. But “the government”, and taxpayers, are NOT responsible for others fundamentally. “It’s not my fault that you’re disabled, single-mother, injured veteran, etc.”
The SOLUTION of the Left, is redistribution of taxes. The Left claim, that if you do not or will not “redistribute”, according to their discretion and control, then it is a matter of injustice. This spills over immediately into “Healthcare”, which also symbolizes, clearly, the division between left & right economically.
Are you truly “entitled” to healthcare, just for being born? Or must you work for it? What if you can’t work? And how hard should you work, how many hours? Should “the government” be in charge of health?
Right says “No.” Left says “Yes.”
Forget about left and right.
This proposal is interesting because it eliminates taxes and allows for maximum spending on the state nonetheless.
Why are all the extremely rich liberal idiots? Because they feel guilty. They have too much money to understand what they’re supposed to do with it.
If this is regulated with some intelligence, such people can basically pay for all the things taxpayers normally pay for,- provided, that the military is included in Silhouettes plan.
There are two concerns that do need to be addressed in our economy:
-growing deficits
-growing waste
this is because value of money and value of value aren’t properly connected.
an agent was missing from the math; a dimension, namely: humanity. Aka free will.
Freedom of enterprise would be guaranteed here. I don’t see a downside yet.
Every idea of “this is better” is what every fucking debate in the world is about! You mean to tell me that silhouette hates debates.
Honestly! You don’t know Silhouette at all!
Your posts are absurd to me.
Tax free systems only pave roads for the super rich. I have actually (when I was much younger) had the distinction of living on a private road. It’s the twilight zone of America !! All the houses on this road paid for the upkeep of this road.
If taxes are eliminated … the poorest roads would never be maintained! Hell! Without taxes Eisenhower couldn’t have built all the transcontinental highway system we all take for granted (also corporate welfare!).
What would happen if all roads were suddenly privatized? A fucking shit show! Taxes matter! Public roads matter! How would you like to be going down interstate 5, and the road owner decides they don’t like red cars, so their private security forces pull you over and shoot you for trespassing!
People don’t think this shit through!
Public land is awesome!
That’s what tax dollars do for us
A system that fostered indefinite economic stability, low taxation, a realistic living wage for grown people working full time jobs to support their families, affordable essential goods produce and services, and other such essential consumer needs, would be more than well-met I’m sure.
The only tax-free countries I know of are those who have oil bolstering their economies, so what would be the bolster for countries that don’t?
Have you tried running a SIM on it Sil, to see how it would fare over time? now that would be interesting.
Basically what this amounts to is the formation of a spiritual aristocracy from a monetary one.
What I like about Silhouette is that he so proud that he has to prove he is objectively worth something as a philosopher from time to time. This is what philosophy is made of, proud men, and some very proud women as well. There never was a humble teacher. Just smart enough to act humbly here and there so people might be more inclined to take his teachings to heart, and think about them honestly.
What the dude is proposing her is momentous, as it is a discontinuation of “A” = “A” -
and a possible re-connect through “A” ><“A”.
Entitlement Vs. Labor
Let’s hear the “solution”.
Tax brackets are already well-established. The political battle rages onward. Where is a single bridge between left & right? Show me.
Entitlement vs. Labor ?
If only the people who worked the hardest got the most money! Wouldn’t that be beautiful?!
Do you really think the ultra rich work as hard as a coal miner?
Fuck no they don’t!
Do you think their innovations are better than what a coal miner does? Fuck no their not!!
And this is the thing when analyzing economics, who deserves what?
Thought:
the disconnect between “$” and “$”, where “$”><“$” links in with the christian “forgiveness of sin” - the structure of the debt is not allowed be the standard for the sequence of events.
Because of our current debt in the US, other countries actually own half of the total economic value of our country.
Nobody has quite called in that debt because we’re selling that this is an investment world… in a bizarre twist of economics, we’re telling people, “your investment in the US is worth more than 20 trillion dollars”. It’s basically like the stock market.
The US itself forgives tons of debts. So they are seen (because of this) as a good investment.
as annoying as ecmandu is, I agree with him on the following
we don’t we hear the wealthy boast about being the ones paying the highest taxes of all
you’d think that they’d throw this number around all over the media
“I paid x millions in tax this year! y% of my income!”
instead they keep their tax returns under lock and key
because they are scamming the people out of their taxes due in every possible way that they can
because fuck taxes
i can see this working in a sort of science fiction utopic flick, with a different species entirely, that evolved with those values built into their physiology. not us apes.
if i have to pay $300 for a pound of rice which costs $3 to my housekeeper, I’m going to pay her $10 to go buy me a pound of rice, and she is going to take it
Phoneutria,
I’ll take a backhanded compliment over nothing at all.
I did indeed start programming a simulation for this very purpose. My C++ skills ought to be adequate, though not long ago I found myself getting bogged down with the syntax of adapting certain functions to my needs and the whole thing was put on hold for a bit - it’s hard enough to structure and systematise a sufficiently complex simulation of a society as it is without adapting it to my model, but hopefully I’ll find myself able to resume my efforts in the near future. The effect should meet all of the above requirements - but who knows? Maybe it’ll all amount to nothing. I’m just offering a preview at this point to gauge the reactions of people who might be interested in such a project, and should simulated practice back up the theory I’ve glossed over, I’ll see about presenting it in a more official capacity.
Not quite my MO. I’m a little beyond having anything to prove at this point - I’ve already made several original breakthroughs across several fields, including theology (categorically disproving God), mathematics (disproving Cantor’s diagonal argument), philosophy (Experientialism) and now economics. You’re correctly identifying that I’m proud of my achievements, but my stating of their existence and quality is simple fact - I seek no personal acknowledgement nor to gain any sense of social worth, my pride is for me and contingent upon my successes rather than a general personality trait. From ye olde Zarathustra: “Man is something that is to be surpassed” - when I gather too much honey, I perform a “down-going” to serve like an alpha or beta test. That’s all this is, and I’m sure the style of my contributions and what I’m saying here can come across as pride or even arrogance - which is fine, I don’t mind how people think of me as a person, I just have an aesthetic preference for correcting things.
Yes, you do appear to be one of only a few so far who “has understood this thing”. You also offer some interesting insights reading “around” my solution in way I hadn’t begun to consider, and it’s not without interest that you see overlap with your Value Ontology. I’d say Phoneutria has also addressed some of the particulars, which is very welcome, in predictable stark contrast to this guy:
How do you think you are coming across here?
That you need to “guess” what my solution is, and that you guess very poorly, proves that you have failed to even begin to read anything I’ve written before deciding what to say about it. Your subsequent posts show that you’ve maybe made it as far as the first line.
Your immediate dismissal on these grounds alone indicates that you’ve already resolved to disagree regardless of what I have to offer, and your subsequent assertions confirm my initial suspicions that you intend to disagree merely on the grounds of arguments I’ve already heard from you ad nauseum.
What then is my motivation to engage with you when any possible discussion is already pre-determined? It’s not without irony that there is no possible freedom to any interaction with you.
I’ll keep a look out for any signs that you’ve attempted to open your mind and impartially consider what I’ve actually said, instead of simply taking the opportunity to reel off the usual pre-prepared sentiments - but we both know exactly where this is going to go.
With the housekeeping out of the way, onto some content:
I’m willing to grant Ecmandu’s cynical evaluation of the wealthy, even in its extreme form, and it would still overlook a certain subtlty that I briefly mentioned in an earlier post.
Let’s say that the wealthy really do have absolutely no interest whatsoever in publically declaring or even participating in any philanthropy - that’s not the only factor at play here. Maximum dedication to the “bottom line” of profits depends also on the appearance that there is more to it than that. This is what Zizek would refer to as “ideology”. He demonstrates this better than I can, with various often humorous examples, that cold hard material facts alone don’t complete the entire human picture - that in cultures all over the world we find the underlying mechanisms of society functioning only with a kind of narrative to mask it and make it palatable. It’s not the least charm of history that we can look back at all the quaint rituals and mythologies of the past from which we have now (mostly) grown too sophisticated to take seriously - instead adopting new ideologies that are yet to become noticed by the general public and then sufficiently questioned, as they always eventually will be. Philosophers tend to be at the forefront of such “progressions”, with pscyhologists close behind to ease the emotional transition. For example, we used to be professionally counselled for enjoying ourselves too much and now we are professionally counselled for not feeling we’re enjoying ourselves enough. Without ideology, sex would just be a biological chore consisting only of the mechanical actions to pragmatically achieve the continuation of the species - without all the flirtation, suggestive innuendos and suspense. It appears to be a psychological necessity for humans to unconsciously participate in ideology, which always takes the form of pretending that we’re all doing good, which currently involves the mutually agreed flattering perception that profits aren’t actually the only thing that matter to employers.
Apologies if you’re already familiar with ideology, but you see how this means that any potential cognitive dissonance that might result from doubting this ideology must be proven to be unfounded through token demonstrations of altruism like charity. It doesn’t take much to realise that if we were truly charitable, we’d fix the systems that afford us enough disposable income to give to charity in the first place, which are the same systems that result in the existence of those who need charity in the first place. But obviously that’d kinda fuck you over and who are these charity cases to deserve what we’ve worked hard to earn for ourselves anyway? Ideology. The wealthy need to believe they’re good people and we see everywhere the effects of market forces causing companies to present themselves as environmentally friendly (greenwashing) etc. - to maintain and hopefully increase their share of the market and competitive advantage.
All it takes is a few early adopters of my solution to try and grab some quick initial fame and recognition that they would otherwise not get, and the competition soon realises they are losing out relatively, making them feel the need to at least appear to give a shit whether or not they “really” do, and sign up to participate in contemporary ideology (and not incidentally reap the benefits of doing so).
It’s not as simple as “fuck taxes”, even if that’s how one really feels.
It’s obvious why companies all keep their tax records secret in just the way you explain - but it’s not so obvious why you’d want to stay off the radar by refusing to participate in my solution, which is entirely voluntary don’t forget.
Silhouette,
Your last reply made me realize that you think your system is so much better, that anyone who comes on board will immediately crush the competition.
Also, I disproved cantors diagonalization argument as well! I wonder if we have the same disproof. Mine is super simple! Just make new lists for all the diagonals! (Duh). Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to figure out!
It’s not even necessary for my system to be “so much better” than what we have, it is sufficient to merely introduce a new valuable way for people to derive competitive advantage that also happens to benefit society, and market forces do the rest.
Don’t worry, I’ve not forgotten - you tend to remind me of this every time I bring it up. I was just mentioning my achievements, feel free to list yours but your achievements won’t be on my list of achievements because they’re yours and not mine.
I seem to remember that we don’t have the same disproof - mine simply shows that his proof is only conditionally true dependent on the numeral system being used, and that it is false in e.g. unary. His diagonalisation method requires a list of sets such that the list is as long as the size of the sets (in order to make a square across which a diagonal set can be constructed). The possible length of the list of sets will always be equal to the numerical base being used to the power of the size of the sets, which for bases more than 1 will always mean a longer possible list than the size of the sets, leaving plenty of “other” combinations to be constructed from a list that’s only as long as the size of the sets. But since this isn’t always the case, depending on the base system used, his proof fails when it comes to number bases like unary.
I’ve suggested before that “new lists for all the diagonals” would presumably require extra dimensions than just the 2 used in Cantor’s argument, along which to construct these new lists - I think you agreed.
But back to the topic of the thread…
Yes, I always add much value when I consider an idea seriously, “lets see if I can make this kitty purr” is my general attitude when someone has put some work in something but it doesn’t quite run yet.
Not that Ive gotten it road-ready, to be fair. I merely handed you a set of tools to develop it.
You could really have something here. It depends entirely on whether you can make it into a model.
Note: considering that this porto-idea might very well not become a full fledged idea, Ill revert back to my default of a 20 percent flat yearly revenue tax on companies above a certain market cap and no private taxes.
Thats a simple idea, and it is guaranteed to work in the ways I think a society should work; it alleviates pressure from people in general and it is a big hurdle for companies on the road to hegemonic positions.
it creates lots of problems, but
(Side thread in this thread)
Fuck silhouette!! Ok, there’s the deal with math. Every fucking operation is a new dimension.
You cannot do unary without the space or enter bars. That’s 3 dimensions. Nothing can be done without 3 dimensions! My technique is just making a new list (actually) an infinite number of them (to subsume all possible diagonals from the first list). I’m still using 3 dimensional logic. end rant
NOW!!! About this thread!!! If you don’t have a system that defeats the competition, you’re going to have to force people to do it. Just like my system.
So then it becomes a matter of which system is best to force on people.
It runs, it just hasn’t “been run” yet - it’s road-ready to the extent that it could most certainly be driven, though “road-ready” presumably also entails knowledge of “how” to drive it and “how good” it would look being actually driven. To those ends, details still need to be ironed out.
The philosophy “around it” could of course be worth exploring, as you have begun to do and I have not (for which you “offer tools”) - but it’s not really my concern at the moment as I’m more interested in seeing it be driven first.
It already is a model, cohesive and clear in its foundations, just not a completed one with all the details worked out. That’s more what I’m interested in exploring at the moment.
It’s an interesting reflex to side with “the devil you know”, having been shown that “the grass is greener on the other side”. Of course the ultimate evaluation lies in real application, but consider that this is by default a rejection of anything new - unless you’re simply siding with caution preliminarily, subject to further evidence: “on the fence”, so to speak, but perhaps leaning more towards getting off on the side of the “tried and flawed” than “the new and potentially less flawed”. An entrepreneurial spirit, perhaps, is what’s needed to commit to exploring a “porto-idea” over a “full fledged idea”.
To briefly comment on your “default”, any “market caps” inherently divide society and create tension either side of the cut-off point: it’s arguable that your default creates a lack of incentive to want to progress beyond the “market cap” where suddenly a fifth of your earnings is taken away from you by threat of the force of law, making the higher bound of non-taxpayers considerably more rich than the lower bound of taxpayers, incentivising the lower bound of taxpayers to “earn less to earn more”. People will divide themselves into being clearly one or the other to avoid that awkward middle ground, and on a social level a stigma will be created dividing the “social contributors” from those who don’t contribute to society. To avoid all this, I believe tax systems often resort to only taxing revenue above the market cap at the higher rate, and taxing the revenue below that market cap at the lower rate, but this is why I side with a continuous function (the 80-20 curve) and completely avoid these issues altogether. Additionally, I apply my solution specifically to “expenditure” and not “revenue”, because I do not want to even go near any potential penalisation of working to create revenue. If anything, it’s “taking” from society for yourself that has grounds to be interfered with, but giving to society ought to be encouraged - and my solution allows this explicitly through the mechanism of creating a “disconnect in the continuous flow of currency around the whole economy”: allowing a temporary disjunct between the price paid and price received (ultimately fully accounted for by paying off the deficits with the surpluses with mathematical precision).
All of this, as well as the arguments I’ve made thus far - and more that I’ve so far neglected to mention - is why my solution is so more sophisticated than the comparatively much more blunt instruments of “tax this in this way, but don’t tax that in that way” which is the mental box within which the overwhelming majority tend to prefer to remain inside.
Yes, for lack of a better approach than using force, you’re going to have to either force people in some way like in your system, or simply throw out force altogether and do nothing - as in the much more simplistic Libertarian “laissez faire” anti-solution.
That’s why I resolved to create a better approach than either “using force” or “doing nothing”. Turn to the carrot - not the stick. Some sticks are better than others as you say, such as your “maximum wage” system, but my intention is to think outside of this “tax box” and instead explore the realm of incentives rather than duke it out in the seemingly endless fight over which is the “least bad” way to lessen iniquities. Ultimately that fight is always won by those in power in the same way: the negative effects are largely passed down to those with the least power, and those with the most power remain largely unaffected. The only way to resolve this is to come up with a mechanism that incentivises those in power to genuinely want to lessen iniquities, by tying this in with their self-interest (which was always all they were going to follow anyway) - with or without any of these impotent attempts to “tax them” that don’t providing any incentive for them to not simply decide “nah, not gonna do that” as they’ve always done so far.
That’s why I went ahead and solved economics.
people already voluntarily donate to charitable foundations and greenwash their businesses, for reputation
what am I missing?