Maximum inequalities ensue from free markets

[Padawanbater2]

No it wouldn't have become easier. What motivation would I have had to meditate for two hours every day? You sit there, it's boring, and takes YEARS and even DECADES.. Let's go have sex instead. Nope, while fun an easy, is lazy. You even mocked me once about meditation and said you'd rather live life. Yeah, some life bitching rather than making your dream come true. It's people like you why people fail. Life isn't fair, true. It's the only thing we agree about, but it's all we have. Go grab your dream, too, bro.

I doubt I ever mocked you about meditation, I likely said something like I believe meditation is a waste of time, like praying.

Why shouldn't we work towards a more equal society? I'm having a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I kind of agree though, since corporations are nothing more than associations made up of individuals, they shouldn't be treated too dissimilarly. Would the same apply to a labor union, I think so.

Corporations are made up of individuals, who ultimately submits a political campaign contribution (bribe) is made up of a very small group of individuals. If every person in said corporation cast a vote to determine said political contribution, I'd have less of a problem with it. But ultimately, what it is is a lot of money going to one political party under the guise of free speech. No different than 5 rich people getting together and deciding that the 5,000 or 10,000 limit or whatever it is is just too small, they'd like to give 5 million each, totaling 25 million when in today's election process, whoever has more money to contribute to their campaign usually wins, and those with much less don't even get the chance to compete.

So why would someone be against legal bribery?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I doubt I ever mocked you about meditation, I likely said something like I believe meditation is a waste of time, like praying.

Why shouldn't we work towards a more equal society? I'm having a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to that.

If life is equal, where do our adversaries come from? There is an eastern way of thinking, "I don't envy the warrior who has defeated all his enemies"

 

[Padawanbater2]

If life is equal, where do our adversaries come from? There is an eastern way of thinking, "I don't envy the warrior who has defeated all his enemies"

Life isn't equal, if it was, I believe our adversaries would come from within.

A man who strives for happiness always sees himself today as a worse representation of himself tomorrow. You are your own worst critic, after all.

 

[BigNBushy]

Corporations are made up of individuals, who ultimately submits a political campaign contribution (bribe) is made up of a very small group of individuals. If every person in said corporation cast a vote to determine said political contribution, I'd have less of a problem with it. But ultimately, what it is is a lot of money going to one political party under the guise of free speech. No different than 5 rich people getting together and deciding that the 5,000 or 10,000 limit or whatever it is is just too small, they'd like to give 5 million each, totaling 25 million when in today's election process, whoever has more money to contribute to their campaign usually wins, and those with much less don't even get the chance to compete.

So why would someone be against legal bribery?

I don't think it's a good thing, but I don't think the constitution forbids it.

Basically what you described happens. Each share of a corporation has a vote. So if a CEO/president and the board decide to do so, the shareholders can reprimand or replace them for it.

Unless you were saying the vote needed to be unanimous. That would be too tough a standard.

If unions can throw political support and finances around, corporations should be able to also. Their structures aren't very different. Both are groups of individuals with a common purpose. Political expression is a protected right.

I almost think we might be better off if we just did away with presidential elections. Have the executive appointed by congress somehow. Presidential elections have turned into a circus, and the candidates are under so much scrutiny, that the best for the job don't want it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I don't think it's a good thing, but I don't think the constitution forbids it.

Basically what you described happens. Each share of a corporation has a vote. So if a CEO/president and the board decide to do so, the shareholders can reprimand or replace them for it.

Unless you were saying the vote needed to be unanimous. That would be too tough a standard.

If unions can throw political support and finances around, corporations should be able to also. Their structures aren't very different. Both are groups of individuals with a common purpose. Political expression is a protected right.

I think what you said is somewhat disingenuous as it wouldn't really matter if the shareholders reprimanded or replaced them, the damage would have already been done and impeaching a president is next to impossible.

I believe only individuals should have the right to vote. Corporations present a huge issue, like I said, when I can donate the maximum of $5,000 for the candidate I support, you can donate an unlimited amount, and for a few select corporations, "unlimited" means UNLIMITED! And when presidential elections come down to how much campaign contributions you can raise, the ability to exceed the $5,000 becomes defined as corruption. There is literally no other way to define it, it is blatant corruption. There is no good reason available why multinational corporations should have the ability to decide our elections in a free, democratic society.

I almost think we might be better off if we just did away with presidential elections. Have the executive appointed by congress somehow. Presidential elections have turned into a circus, and the candidates are under so much scrutiny, that the best for the job don't want it.

I completely disagree. I think we should decrease the amount of time elected representatives stay in office to one year. Senators, congressmen/women, executives, everyone gets 1 year. We have elections every single year, they fuck up, we vote them out of office, simple as that. They have no time to run campaigns and garner bribes, they get equal tv/ad coverage on ONLY publicly funded networks, and they receive campaign contributions from only individual American citizens.

As is, we get the best of worst worlds, for a guaranteed 4 years minimum. Fantastic system. /s

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Life isn't equal, if it was, I believe our adversaries would come from within.

A man who strives for happiness always sees himself today as a worse representation of himself tomorrow. You are your own worst critic, after all.

Are you an Apple Mac person? I'm thinking, you aren't. But just making sure. Besides your posts, I don't think color in your life is very important.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Two Brazilian physicists have shown that wealth concentration invariably stems from a particular type of market exchange rules -- where agents cannot receive more income than their own capital. The authors concluded that maximum inequalities ensue from free markets, which are governed by such seemingly fair rules.

This study, published in European Physical Journal B, was conducted by J. Roberto Iglesias and Rita de Almeida from the Brazilian National Institute of Science and Technology of Complex Systems, based in Porto Alegre. This Brazilian city is famous for hosting the World Social Forum, which is designed to find alternatives to economic liberalism.

To study free market models, the authors used statistical mechanics methods focusing on the dynamic of wealth exchange over time. These methods were inspired by Boltzmann's theory of kinetic energy exchange between gas molecules during collisions. They found that over time, all the available wealth is concentrated among only a few agents. This is represented by a tail-shaped graph that confirms previous studies showing that wealth distribution follows a power law.

As a result, the free market is stalled with no subsequent possible exchanges of wealth, even if wealth were distributed evenly from the start. The authors concluded that regulations for the rules of wealth exchange are necessary to avoid concentration of wealth and stalling of market exchange. For example, systems in which regulations and taxes give the poorest agent a probability of wealth gain of over 50 percent may prevent wealth concentration and decrease inequalities.

Also, the possibility of gains exceeding their own capital is crucial to permit a recovery of the poorer agents and to circumvent market stagnancy. Although such models analyse only an incomplete representation of the market and trade, further research could contribute to defining exchange rules that may help avoid future wealth concentration.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307112614.htm


Thoughts on this?

these mathematical models assume rational choices, and equal exchanges.

that which is "fair" is not always equal.

two identical Robot Gardeners start with the same resources:

1/2 acre of good land, adjacent to each other, ample water, fertilizer, a complete array of tools, an identical packet of seeds and the same programming on growing dope.

each robot prepares his plot, lays his fetilizers, plants his dope, waters it well, and tends it exactly as instructed.

logically, both would get exactly the same yield of exactly the same quality dope.

only an idiot would assume this to be the case.

natural variations would favour one robot over the other in each season, and eventually over time.

i guess DopeBot A is part of the 1% and stole his success from the oppressed DopeBot B.

Solution: Smash both robots, burn their fields and salt the earth so that nothing may grow, thus ensuring there is no further Robo-inequality.

 

[desert dude]

So, George Bush was looking for a solution to the economic downturn and called in Alan Greenspan and asked, "How many economists would it take to figure out a fair economic system?"

Greenspan replied dryly, "A brazillion of 'em". Bush cried.

 

[NoDrama]

A fair Economic system is Impossible.

Know why fools are easily separated from their money? Because they are fools.

Smart people are always going to be able to game the system.

 

[krrrap]

So, George Bush was looking for a solution to the economic downturn and called in Alan Greenspan and asked, "How many economists would it take to figure out a fair economic system?"

Greenspan replied dryly, "A brazillion of 'em". Bush cried.

Oh my GOD that caught me so off gaurd. I'm laughing my ass off in a McD's... funny sh_t.

I think if you look at global finance. The majority of wealth has already been accumulated. Look at the British empire and the Roman Catholic Church. They have the longest raining thrones on earth. They have been fleecing wealth from the poor for thousands of years. And one pays homage to the other. So this ship has sailed long ago. We are all economic slaves rich and poor alike.

Sent from my DROID4 using Rollitup mobile app

 

[NLXSK1]

Two Brazilian physicists have shown that wealth concentration invariably stems from a particular type of market exchange rules -- where agents cannot receive more income than their own capital. The authors concluded that maximum inequalities ensue from free markets, which are governed by such seemingly fair rules.

This study, published in European Physical Journal B, was conducted by J. Roberto Iglesias and Rita de Almeida from the Brazilian National Institute of Science and Technology of Complex Systems, based in Porto Alegre. This Brazilian city is famous for hosting the World Social Forum, which is designed to find alternatives to economic liberalism.

To study free market models, the authors used statistical mechanics methods focusing on the dynamic of wealth exchange over time. These methods were inspired by Boltzmann's theory of kinetic energy exchange between gas molecules during collisions. They found that over time, all the available wealth is concentrated among only a few agents. This is represented by a tail-shaped graph that confirms previous studies showing that wealth distribution follows a power law.

As a result, the free market is stalled with no subsequent possible exchanges of wealth, even if wealth were distributed evenly from the start. The authors concluded that regulations for the rules of wealth exchange are necessary to avoid concentration of wealth and stalling of market exchange. For example, systems in which regulations and taxes give the poorest agent a probability of wealth gain of over 50 percent may prevent wealth concentration and decrease inequalities.

Also, the possibility of gains exceeding their own capital is crucial to permit a recovery of the poorer agents and to circumvent market stagnancy. Although such models analyse only an incomplete representation of the market and trade, further research could contribute to defining exchange rules that may help avoid future wealth concentration.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307112614.htm


Thoughts on this?

There is no accounting for expansion of the market in their theory.

If wealth is constantly increasing then there can not be an end result that they predict.

Their hypothesis is hopelessly flawed. Why are a bunch of physicists working on economic and social theory by applying it to a chemical process??

I wonder how much they got paid and by who.....

 

[NLXSK1]

• These methods were inspired by Boltzmann's theory of kinetic energy exchange between gas molecules during collisions. They found that over time, all the available wealth is concentrated among only a few agents.​
  
  
  
  

This is the fatal flaw. In physics energy cannot be created, it is always transformed into another lower form of energy. In economics, wealth can be created which is why this model is so completely inappropriate to test the hypothesis.

 

[tokeprep]

Two Brazilian physicists have shown that wealth concentration invariably stems from a particular type of market exchange rules -- where agents cannot receive more income than their own capital. The authors concluded that maximum inequalities ensue from free markets, which are governed by such seemingly fair rules.

This study, published in European Physical Journal B, was conducted by J. Roberto Iglesias and Rita de Almeida from the Brazilian National Institute of Science and Technology of Complex Systems, based in Porto Alegre. This Brazilian city is famous for hosting the World Social Forum, which is designed to find alternatives to economic liberalism.

To study free market models, the authors used statistical mechanics methods focusing on the dynamic of wealth exchange over time. These methods were inspired by Boltzmann's theory of kinetic energy exchange between gas molecules during collisions. They found that over time, all the available wealth is concentrated among only a few agents. This is represented by a tail-shaped graph that confirms previous studies showing that wealth distribution follows a power law.

As a result, the free market is stalled with no subsequent possible exchanges of wealth, even if wealth were distributed evenly from the start. The authors concluded that regulations for the rules of wealth exchange are necessary to avoid concentration of wealth and stalling of market exchange. For example, systems in which regulations and taxes give the poorest agent a probability of wealth gain of over 50 percent may prevent wealth concentration and decrease inequalities.

Also, the possibility of gains exceeding their own capital is crucial to permit a recovery of the poorer agents and to circumvent market stagnancy. Although such models analyse only an incomplete representation of the market and trade, further research could contribute to defining exchange rules that may help avoid future wealth concentration.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307112614.htm


Thoughts on this?

1) Wealth isn't fixed. If you disrupt the source of another person's wealth, you gain wealth and they lose it. Phone book advertising was a huge and very valuable business before the internet; the not wealthy founders of Google destroyed that wealth by building a better advertising system, and now they're wealthy. The owners of phone book advertising lost everything in bankruptcy.

2) People more interested in consumption than saving obviously will never maintain any wealth. Whether you're worth $100,000 or $100 million, if you spend it all you've got nothing. The most significant problem most people have is that they consume, consume, consume instead of saving and investing. You don't need that much to live, in reality; if you think you need a $30,000 car, a 3,000 square foot house, $250 jeans, a new iPhone and Macbook every time a new model comes out, etc., building wealth is going to be a challenge. I see poor people wasting their money all the time on empty consumption, partly because Americans believe that more/more expensive stuff means more happiness. Everyone wants to live like they're wealthy even when they aren't, which prevents them from ever building any wealth!

 

[NoDrama]

1) Wealth isn't fixed. If you disrupt the source of another person's wealth, you gain wealth and they lose it. Phone book advertising was a huge and very valuable business before the internet; the not wealthy founders of Google destroyed that wealth by building a better advertising system, and now they're wealthy. The owners of phone book advertising lost everything in bankruptcy.

2) People more interested in consumption than saving obviously will never maintain any wealth. Whether you're worth $100,000 or $100 million, if you spend it all you've got nothing. The most significant problem most people have is that they consume, consume, consume instead of saving and investing. You don't need that much to live, in reality; if you think you need a $30,000 car, a 3,000 square foot house, $250 jeans, a new iPhone and Macbook every time a new model comes out, etc., building wealth is going to be a challenge. I see poor people wasting their money all the time on empty consumption, partly because Americans believe that more/more expensive stuff means more happiness. Everyone wants to live like they're wealthy even when they aren't, which prevents them from ever building any wealth!

1) So You are saying that it is a zero sum game?

2) I couldn't agree more when it comes to consumption, but to each his own. Without fools to spend their money, the rest of us would have a much harder time saving and investing it.

I would also add that without that empty consumption, the rate of innovation would slow IMO. Without people willing to spend that money we would be at the LISA stage of Apple development currently and the internet would be called Compuserve. You could dial into it and do awesome stuff, like electronic bulletin boards and shit at 1400 baud. woot woot , Uber leet.

 

[tokeprep]

I think what you said is somewhat disingenuous as it wouldn't really matter if the shareholders reprimanded or replaced them, the damage would have already been done and impeaching a president is next to impossible.

I believe only individuals should have the right to vote. Corporations present a huge issue, like I said, when I can donate the maximum of $5,000 for the candidate I support, you can donate an unlimited amount, and for a few select corporations, "unlimited" means UNLIMITED! And when presidential elections come down to how much campaign contributions you can raise, the ability to exceed the $5,000 becomes defined as corruption. There is literally no other way to define it, it is blatant corruption. There is no good reason available why multinational corporations should have the ability to decide our elections in a free, democratic society.

Corporations can't make donations to candidates. A corporate or labor union PAC raises money from individuals and donates that money to candidates. Individuals cannot donate unlimited amounts of money to PACs that give money to candidates.

As for the unlimited donations you speak of: if people have the right to free speech, that certainly includes the right to buy political speech. If I loved Mitt Romney and desperately wanted him to be elected president and I have the right to free speech, how can you argue that I shouldn't be allowed to produce and air ads supporting him? How is that any different from my right to write this post in this forum? Given that most of the independent spending in 2012 was by individuals and not corporations, I don't think it makes much sense to focus on corporations.

I completely disagree. I think we should decrease the amount of time elected representatives stay in office to one year. Senators, congressmen/women, executives, everyone gets 1 year. We have elections every single year, they fuck up, we vote them out of office, simple as that. They have no time to run campaigns and garner bribes, they get equal tv/ad coverage on ONLY publicly funded networks, and they receive campaign contributions from only individual American citizens.

As is, we get the best of worst worlds, for a guaranteed 4 years minimum. Fantastic system. /s

That's quite a substantial limit on free speech...

 

[tokeprep]

1) So You are saying that it is a zero sum game?

Oh no, definitely not. The amount of wealth in the world is constantly increasing. My point was that someone who has $5 billion in wealth today can lose it if someone else creates sufficient disruption. For most of the wealthy, their wealth is not permanently in their hands, which is what this model seems to suggest--it can be wrenched away by a poor person.

2) I couldn't agree more when it comes to consumption, but to each his own. Without fools to spend their money, the rest of us would have a much harder time saving and investing it.

I would also add that without that empty consumption, the rate of innovation would slow IMO. Without people willing to spend that money we would be at the LISA stage of Apple development currently and the internet would be called Compuserve. You could dial into it and do awesome stuff, like electronic bulletin boards and shit at 1400 baud. woot woot , Uber leet.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. People can spend their money as they please. What they shouldn't do is complain about being poor given the choices they made with their money, especially if they're demanding that the people they willingly handed their money to give some of it back. If you don't want other people to have your money, don't give it to them.

We vote with dollars. If you shop at Walmart you are necessarily supporting the way Walmart treats its workers, because Walmart couldn't exist without your spending; if you buy coffee at Starbucks or click Google search ads you are making the owners worth billions, because they couldn't exist without buyers and users. We don't need government to solve these problems because we are already completely capable of solving them--we just don't really want to do it.

 

[Rob Roy]

So you offer the same solution, sit on your hands and do nothing

How exactly do you think we ended up with "the whores and traitors in office"...?

The individual "whores and traitors" will come and go. As soon as one dies or is caught or retires another comes along. The ROOT problem isn't the individual whores and traitors, they are the RESULT of the problem. The "problem" is as long as their is a system that they can gain power in, they will always exist.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The individual "whores and traitors" will come and go. As soon as one dies or is caught or retires another comes along. The ROOT problem isn't the individual whores and traitors, they are the RESULT of the problem. The "problem" is as long as their is a system that they can gain power in, they will always exist.

 

[Red1966]

Two Brazilian physicists have shown that wealth concentration invariably stems from a particular type of market exchange rules -- where agents cannot receive more income than their own capital. The authors concluded that maximum inequalities ensue from free markets, which are governed by such seemingly fair rules. This study, published in European Physical Journal B, was conducted by J. Roberto Iglesias and Rita de Almeida from the Brazilian National Institute of Science and Technology of Complex Systems, based in Porto Alegre. This Brazilian city is famous for hosting the World Social Forum, which is designed to find alternatives to economic liberalism. To study free market models, the authors used statistical mechanics methods focusing on the dynamic of wealth exchange over time. These methods were inspired by Boltzmann's theory of kinetic energy exchange between gas molecules during collisions. They found that over time, all the available wealth is concentrated among only a few agents. This is represented by a tail-shaped graph that confirms previous studies showing that wealth distribution follows a power law. As a result, the free market is stalled with no subsequent possible exchanges of wealth, even if wealth were distributed evenly from the start. The authors concluded that regulations for the rules of wealth exchange are necessary to avoid concentration of wealth and stalling of market exchange. For example, systems in which regulations and taxes give the poorest agent a probability of wealth gain of over 50 percent may prevent wealth concentration and decrease inequalities. Also, the possibility of gains exceeding their own capital is crucial to permit a recovery of the poorer agents and to circumvent market stagnancy. Although such models analyse only an incomplete representation of the market and trade, further research could contribute to defining exchange rules that may help avoid future wealth concentration. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307112614.htm Thoughts on this?

"These methods were inspired by Boltzmann's theory of kinetic energy exchange between gas molecules during collisions" Yeah. Sounds like that's a valid economic theory.