LifeEconomy

develop a positive vision of the future!

after the “great Trump induced divide” the USA need to reform it’s system, but does it need a revolution?

the problem with revolutions often is:

  1. what is for sure: people are angry for a reason (vote does not feel counted, reps in Washington “too far away” = lost connection to the problems of Jill & Joe, many small business had to close down & loads of lives and jobs lost)
    1. the anger at the current system is for real and it “the negative” to stay
  2. what about the positive? what shall be after the revolution? (the far harder question)
    1. define what shall be, before removal of status quo, the “anything is better than that” approach is Hitler-kind-of-dangerous (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) there is good reason to divide sate powers into:
      1. legislative (laws) (the gov)
      2. judiciary (judges)
      3. executive (police & military, no, not the president and “executive orders” (this is somewhat defined different in the US and EU))

this gov-by-finance system is broken & unsustainable, anyone agrees on that, how to fix it?

some suggestions: (imho small but very important changes that can have great effect)

  • how to fight corruption: with great power comes great responsibility
    • thus: MAXIMUM transparency for the powerful
      • people have to know what politicians are doing
      • every single dollar they or their family earns need to be transparent to the public
    • privacy for the weak:
      • let’s say that 99% of the population are neither criminals nor terrorists
  • how to fight Corona-crisis induced unemployment:
    • state paid jobs!
    • it was done in the US before and it ain’t socialism! it just tries to fix a broken (private ownership zero responsibility) system and help people step back from violence and revolution. all central bankers should agree on that.
    • after the great depression of 1929 massive amounts of people become unemployed (it was not their fault, rather the system’s fault)
      • the state paid group A to dig holes in the morning
      • the state paid group B to fill the holes again in the evening
      • just this time: maybe the US gov can think of more useful jobs
      • Hoover established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) to make emergency loans to businesses in danger of default. At first the RFC lent money only to banks, railroads, and certain agricultural organizations, but the scope of its operations was later expanded, and it proved to be an effective tool for stabilizing business and industry” (source January 22, 1932) (unfortunately the RFC was canceled in 1957, because it was deemed not needed anymore, well guess what, would have been better to keep it in place, more crisis were to come, state-owned European banks for reconstruction created after WW2  LUCKILY STILL EXISTS and they are needed very much to counter all the instabilities of private & reckless banking system, a new RFC would also be essential for financing a desperately needed US “Green New Deal”)

what is good about capitalism?

what made it so powerful?

that it has/had some self organizing effect

a sort of “crowd intelligence”:

“get a job or die”

“make a product that sells or die”

“yes this job is unhealthy and pollutes the air but get it done or your family dies”

it forced every single human being to contribute something to society

conceptual problem: it all starts with banks, loans and debt (or not, because banks don’t give loans to innovation anymore afraid of their own collapse).

not only that a lot individuals have dedicated themselves to negative = destructive to society “contributions” (crime) because it generates the most money for the least effort of work.

even worse capitalism (largely computerized) does not even care about survival of mankind or any form of life.

(imho capitalism will die with mankind, capitalism without mankind is like a screwdriver without a mechanic, it just sits there doing nothing (unless AI robots also want to shop for parts at Amazon)).

the current concept of capitalism (or what it has become) has no build-in-responsibility.

it does not know responsibility.

it just assumes: people will always behave responsible (because otherwise they simply die).

well not if those behaving responsible are paid less than the financial criminals.

thus current form of capitalism is working on self destruction.

(here comes again the appealing idea of the Chinese 1984 social credit system paired with AI to mind…

the question is: has it stopped financial like crime tax avoidance and money laundering or not?

1984 goes completely against all that democracy stands for, BigBrother: controlled by who?

who supervises those in charge and makes sure they do not exploit their power?

In China there seems to be still a kind of feeling of responsibility of the leadership for everyone, a thing that feels almost completely eroded by the psychology of money in Western societies.

because: absolute power corrupts absolutely (1887)

massive massive self-destructive sideffects: if the criminals are paid best and too often get away, then capitalism produces a pretty good growing ground for crime, with the state often being so corrupted/failed state, that it can not/does not want to prevent the crime, this is when the state fails.

“yes our product Made in (country far away) is of bad quality, exploits workers, wastes resources, pollutes the planet and contains toxic chemicals but hey… the people want (to die) cheap (on cancer)” (no they do not)

or financial service like:

“you are rich? you need money from illegal sources to be laundered?”

“we are well trained lawyers that help you avoid tax” (effectively stealing from a nation, stealing from a state)

The Greek people when asked why every single one of them steals taxes says: “the government is the mafia, why should i give my money to the mafia?”

the big question of our times:

are there alternative ways of crowd intelligence

that can work more intelligent? (not destroying = destabilize the habitat planet, not intoxicating children and animals, without stealing)

there is not question IF there is only the question WHEN because anything else would be fatal for all mankind

would need for a crowd of humans:

  1. to inform each other correctly and truthfully
  2. to act upon the information gathered in an intelligent non-violent but society-evolving way
https://www.scribd.com/document/398577681/Giovanna-Di-Marzo-Serugendo-Noria-Foukia-Salima-B-ok-org
https://www.scribd.com/document/398577681/Giovanna-Di-Marzo-Serugendo-Noria-Foukia-Salima-B-ok-org

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/9/3072/htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Why is that incredible unawareness or “blindness” of women when it comes to probably the most important task/decision making process on how to pick the right mate.

actually… “decision making” judging far reaching decisions, has never been the strong suit of humans, but humans do way better than this than apes.

The human brain is different from the ape brain, especially in the pre frontal cortex:

  • “Area 10 is one of the cortical areas of the frontal lobe involved in higher cognitive functions such as the undertaking of initiatives and the planning of future actions…”
  • “in the human brain is larger relative to the rest of the brain than it is in the apes”
  • “and its supragranular layers have more space available for connections with other higher-order association areas.”
  • “suggests that the neural substrates supporting cognitive functions associated with this part of the cortex enlarged and became specialized during hominid evolution.” (source)

Making mistakes here could endanger not only whole nations, but the very survival of all of mankind, the species of “homo” sapiens.

In other words: has nature “forgotten” to update the human’s brain on “how to pick a suitable mate” to the modern world? (where muscles and big breasts are still nice to have, but should not be the deciding factor)

We (mankind as long as it has brains) consider some truths to be self evident such as 1 plus 1 equals 2.

in the same category of “self evident” truths fall the following:

  1. men and women are both humans
  2. all humans have a psychology
  3. nature “designed” humans
    1. in a way, that nature “thinks” will ensure the survival of the species the best
      1. massive biodiversity (every human is unique in his genes = biodiversity = someone will have the right genes for the right immune system to survive the next pandemic)
    2. installed programs on humans, that nature “thinks” will serve it’s aims for maximum probability of survival
    3. ensure the best biodiversity, preserve “the individual” (!) human, the individual couple, the individual family…
  4. men have to be best at everything especially football and soccer (run fast, throw far, so when they ever encounter a lion they are the ones to (probably) survive the best)
  5. women have the very challenging task to identify the traits  in men that are “probably” best suited for survival (of herself, the kids = the genes)
  6. this is exactly the reason women favor men that drive expensive big cars, because big expensive car “look like” this dude is “surviving well” in the currently rule set of capitalism
    1. So men are always under the pressure to drive the biggest best most expensive car or at least advertise themselves like “the best”
    2. women are under constant pressure to select the best man from this massive amount of (largely fake) and “make believe” and “where are the traps?” advertisement
  7. almost needless to say
    1. men often cheat in the advertisement process
    2. women often enough fall for the fake ads and fail to identify the cheaters early enough (before marriage and before kids) for various reasons
      1. whatever “looks” good on the outside, is not necessarily “good” on the inside
      2. if the package had “ashole” written all over it, it is irresponsible and unreasonable to still open the package, but women do anyway and then complain that what they picked is indeed an “ashole” completely unaware of the consequences (endless trauma, divorce and so on))

The psychology of money is also counterproductive in this, because brain scientists found, if humans center to much around money or the idea of money they tend to become reckless egoistic asholes.

But if women even encourage men to become asholes than we got:

moneysystem says: you should become an ashole

+

women say: you should become an ashole

= planet full of chaos & destruction by asholes

so why is it, that an expensive big car is STILL for (stupid) women enough “positive signal” to marry someone?

Even when it turns out expensive big cars can only be bought (not by hard fair labor) but also by:

  1. drug trafficking
  2. prostitution
  3. corruption

So capitalism is pretty clever in tricking the program nature installed on women.

A direct result of this, is the enormous amount of

  1. singles unable to find a suitable mate
  2. women pick “the wrong guy” (the asholes) thus actively encouraging more men to become asholes
  3. unlike 100 years ago (almost 100% of couples marry) to the year 2020 (almost 0% of couples marry) to almost 0% of couples want to have kids (breed more asholes)

Solutions for the dilemma please?

So the task for men and women (mankind) is to come up with a financial economic system that incentives positive human traits.

If parents do not care about the probability of survival of their kids – needless to say, the survival of mankind is at stake (exactly NOT what nature wanted).

to Women:

  1. ignore the Porsche
  2. build and train awareness what, REALLY makes a good mate fit for family & survival of the family and mankind (and even if that dude never will drive a Porsche, stick with it)
  3. if women fail to encourage men to become good humans (anything but psychopathic asholes) mankind is f***ed