Can basic income and good karma/credit system provide a way to cope with AI’s automation?

In 2017, a lot people and various parts of different countries are talking and experimenting with basic income.  Automation — comes naturally and intelligently through artificial intelligence — is the new thing that has gotten people worried.  Some people argue that AI’s automation will replace human beings with robots/programs in all sorts of jobs.  Dumb automation probably has already replaced humans in many cumbersome, repetitive jobs/functions.  Intelligent machines/programs through AI can probably replace many white collar jobs already.  When too many people are out of work, this could become a huge bother for many powerful people who carry important positions in our society.  Displaced people would want to be able to survive and strive in a society in which they’re no longer productive, but this could mean standing up against the factory owners, corporations, and even the governments.  If not careful, a world of full automation could mean a bloody revolution.  Thus, basic income becomes an urgent question for many leaders in any country in our time.

Nonetheless, in the West, we have a thing that was being taught since the fall of Soviet Union is that communism has failed utterly.  We look at China as if Chinese communistic society is the new capitalist society.  How can basic income fit into a Western society in which communism has been taught to be disgusted upon?  After all, basic income is about rationing, splitting equal income for everyone in a single society.  Isn’t communism is also about rationing and splitting equal things for a community, a society, and in biggest case a country?  I guess, we could argue a mix of basic income with capitalistic values won’t lead to new communism, but it could morph into an entirely different beast.  I guess we should ask, can a strong supportive basic income be an uplifting element for the despondent citizens?  I guess we should consider the humming capitalistic tunes of the middle class in this situation.  Can basic income give the despondent ones a chance to reach the middle and eventually the upper classes within this beastly creation?

Perhaps, basic income may not be the only solution.  Perhaps, we require many more parts of a larger, more creative solution in order for us to tackle the AI’s automation revolution.  Imagine in a society in which doing good things promotes good karma, and this karma translates into real monetary credits.  Can this route take us to a Nirvana?  Basic income to support a crumpling foundation, and on the top of this reparable foundation we decorate it with good karma.  The double edge sword of a good karma/credit system is that the implementation of punishments, punishing the good people who have bad karma/credits.  Then the question should be asked such as what could be the punishments for the people who have bad karma/credits?  This won’t be a good thing if new harsh punishments are there to wreck havoc in lives of good citizens.  It could literally lead to a society in which looks very much like a Nazi one.  Perhaps, karma/credit system should be used for the implementation of a positive, credit/monetary system only and not much more, and no punishment should come along with this very system.  This way, good folks won’t be affected by stupid punishments.  Just imagine good karma/credit system provides even more basic income on the top of the basic income?

I couldn’t let this go. Imagine a society in which isn’t too different from a fantastical Star Trek’s one, because a replicator alone could conjure any item out of the thin air.  Perhaps, a replicator could replace basic income and money and credits altogether?  If such a society and technology exist, this could mean the end of being desperate in a more intelligent universe.  Perhaps, if this to occur, people won’t have the need for ancient money/credit system, because a replicator alone could conjure up anything.  It’s magical.  Anyhow, the summation of all is that an interesting time is upon us, and AI’s automation may be replacing us humans in all sorts of jobs.  The old system isn’t providing an answer to how to create new jobs in an AI universe.  A jobless society would be very different in nature, because people need money to survive.  Without providing jobs to a hungry population, a society could face an upheaval of all sorts.  Can basic income and good karma/credit system provide a way to cope with AI’s automation?

Advertisements

Why Are The Chinese Flourishing Under An Authoritarian Regime?

Why isn’t the Chinese government allowing the Chinese to elect the country’s leaders and yet China is still flourishing?  Western people like us are often wondering why this is the case.  Some people from the United States and other western states have believed that once the Chinese are wealthier, they would demand a full blown democracy sort of governmental regime.  Nonetheless, I think this sort of belief is kind of make believe.

Chinese history had recorded many Chinese historical dynasties that were able to provide prosperity that had no equal in historical time periods, and so the ancient Chinese were able to flourish and get wealthy in all sorts of manners.  Yet, in those time, the Chinese were all ruled by a king or an emperor.  The modern Chinese regime is similar yet different than the past dynasties in several ways.

Basically, the modern Chinese regime is an authoritarian body, because the Chinese cannot elect their leaders.  This is very similar to how past ancient dynasties had ruled China.  Nonetheless, Chinese modern regime is different than the past ancient Chinese regimes/dynasties in a sense that Chinese modern leaders are not likely to be able to pass their positions down to their children as if their positions could be inherited.  Instead, there is a process within one party system that would weed out the bad and pick the good to govern an institution within China.  Nonetheless, this process is very similar to how the ancient Chinese dynasties had done in promoting meritocracy.

Anyway, as historical periods in China has shown us that the Chinese can unite and operate just fine under one party system, and so we in the West should not expect China to emulate the Western democratic systems.  Nobody knows the future, perhaps China may emulate the West in the future, but in my opinion I don’t think this will likely to occur at all.  Instead, I think China would still be one party state in foreseeable future, and yet the Chinese will be able to flourish in this particular environment.

Chaos Will Ensue If Internal Issues Cannot Be Solved

If a country is weakening, internal and external problems will exacerbate.  When internal issues cannot be addressed, chaos ensues, and this in turn weakens the external defensive measures.  Internal chaos can open up a hole which may allow external forces to infiltrate.  At first, benign problems may occur such as immigration, but the longer a country stays weaken, the problems will only grow worse and may lead to even more problems.

A weak country may lose resources in protecting one’s border.  As a border becomes lawless, crimes from neighboring countries will pour in.  As foreign criminals take root in a weakened country, such a country will have to deploy even more resources to combat growing crimes.  Since the country is already internally weakened, resources will not be easily deployed, and so the internal issues won’t be effectively confronted.

The longer the country cannot address internal issues, the influences and abilities of such a country can only grow weaker, because external forces will most likely to attack the weaknesses of such a country.  In my opinion, if diplomacy cannot be used to solve external issues in near term, it’s wiser to address the internal issues immediately.  Only when internal issues are no longer the problems, then the country can confidently face external issues with more resolves.

Afterthought:  I think it’s very important to keep the border tight, and only allowing legal immigrants to apply for stays within a country.  Tight border can prevent foreign crimes to pour in, thus helping a country to save resources for other internal issues.

People’s Bank of China Creates Chinese Digital Currency To Hedge Against Upcoming Collapses of Fiat Currencies

According to various news sources and Simon Dixon, People’s Bank of China has announced China’s own digital currency.  According to Mr. Simon Dixon, China is buying up gold and announcing digital currency to hedge against the upcoming biggest collapse of most fiat currencies in the world.  Near the end of his video, Mr.  Simon Dixon says people may adopt China’s digital currency, but this will encourage many more people to use Bitcoin.  Mr.  Simon Dixon thinks that Bitcoin is more attractive to people since it got no governments’ censures.

In my opinion, any government has the ability to outlaw Bitcoin.  I think Bitcoin might not have such a bright future when China herself is creating a brand new digital currency.  If China is going to be successful in convincing her own people and other peoples to use her digital currency, she can totally outlaw Bitcoin.  Once Bitcoin is being outlawed in China, China’s own digital currency will continue on to be one of the future, central crypto currencies.

Of course, any other government besides Chinese government can follow China’s playbook and come up with another government’s digital currency.  Thus, I don’t think China will be the only country that would create a government sanction digital currency.  I guess it would be fun to see a government sanctions another with outlawing another government digital currency within one’s own territory.

In the video, Mr.  Simon Dixon suggests that China may use the brand new digital currency to implement quantitative easing.  Instead of printing more fiat currency, China may as well create the second tier monetary system such as digital currency to help ease the many debt related bubbles that fiat currency has been creating.  It’s an interesting idea for sure, but I think only China would know what she will do with her brand new digital currency.  I guess time will tell.

Check out Mr.  Simon Dixon’s video on People’s Bank of China creates a Chinese digital currency in the video right after the break.  Enjoy!

Cashless Society Encourages Monopoly Money

I’m not an economist, because I’m a nobody.  Thus, my experience in trained economics is a zero.  As a human being, I do have opinions.  By staying informed with everyday experiences, I do form opinions on facts that, I think, are real.  From these opinions and ideas, I can draw some non-expert conclusions.  In fact, right now I like to talk about one or two conclusions I have on cashless society.

I think cashless society is wonderful for governments, bankers, and whatever associations that have control over a society, because electronic traces are available 24/7.  What is scarier is that anybody in the position of power or any hacker who has enough knowledge can just shut you out of a cashless society by changing your electronic numbers.  This is very real, because without any cash on hand, your only option is to rely on the credit system and other electronic monetary forms.  When such a system cuts you out, you are basically helpless and powerless and cashless.  In such a situation, surviving becomes impossible!

Cashless society can also be wonderful for you, but as long the illusion of real efforts and real transactions are actually taking place.  I think bankers can just enter any number of money into a bank account for just about anybody, and the money will form instantly by the electronic means.  You could say money seem to be appearing out of thin air!  Growing on tree, or however you want to phrase this illusion.  I think cashless society will enhance this ability by an infinite time more.  What do I meant by an infinite time more?  Cashless society won’t use cash, because cash cannot be legal.  Thus, cashless society is all about the electronic, monetary numbers, and anybody who has the authorization to form these numbers can just make them out of nothing.  Or they can just delete these numbers whenever!

What makes cashless society humming brilliantly is the illusion of convincing people that real efforts and transactions are actually taking place.  Let’s say, if a doctor who got paid very well by treating his patients in exemplary manner would probably quit his job if the bank could instantly form any amount of money, into the infinity, without any effort.  Why even bother to go to work when you can just go to the bank for an easy loan, and the bank won’t care if you can pay the money back or not since the bank can form infinite amount of credits.  In the cashless society, if the bank isn’t going to lend you any credit, you have to acquire these credits by working for a job or doing whatever to acquire more credits.  But will you be working with a happy smile on your face knowing the bank can form any amount of credits out of thin air?  Demand and supply formula won’t be a good gauge anymore in cashless society, because unlimited amount of credits can flood the system forever.

Even better, why don’t you just form a bank where you, yourself, can electronically form infinite amount of credits?  Wouldn’t this make you an infinite-air?  Why would you bother with taking out someone else’s trashes and problems for a wage/fee when you can just hallucinating yourself with infinite credits of your own bank?  If everyone is into this, then the system got a problem.  The problem is not lacking of credits or money, but the problem is about — nothing will ever get done.  Because nobody will give any real effort in any exchange since credit is created out of thin air without any real effort.  This means the producers see no reason to produce products, because the infinite bank is giving out easy credits freely.  Basically, why produce when you can obtain free credits, right?  Without producers in the equation, the consumers won’t have anything real to consume.  The whole economic system would become meaningless, and so the system collapses.

I guess, the only real demand for cashless society is the demand for more credits, and the easy credits are plentiful available so the demand for more credits could be fulfilled.  Of course, the government and the powerful bankers can just create laws that make the illusion works for awhile.  An example would be you have to pay back the loan you want to borrow, or else you may suffer a consequence of being shutout of the cashless society system.   Knowing being shut out, it means you are not going to be able to buy the most necessities such as foods, and so you know you’re doom for good.

Nonetheless, in a cashless society — a shutout mandate or whatever rules a cashless society wants to impose on the people — the atmosphere can become very toxic for the powerful people.  How come?  If a society can only get poorer while the banks have unlimited amount of credits, the poor people will see this as the greatest injustice of all time.  This means if there is large amount of poor people who are thinking this way will have a king’s head rolls.  Thus, a cashless society needs to uphold not only the illusion of real efforts and transactions, but it also needs to uphold the income equality for the whole society.  As long the majority (e.g., 65%, or 75%, or 80% of the general population) is wealthier than a small percentage of the whole population, then nobody would be able to form a big enough movement to have a king’s head rolls.

If you’ve read thus far, I think you would probably have a notion that cashless society is the same thing as a credit society we’re living in today.  I would agree, but cashless society is more draconian since it outlaws the tangible cash.  With cash in the equation, people can still feel that transactions are real, because something gets sold something gets paid with hard, cold cash (i.e., it’s real).  Even with cash in the system, it’s all about maintaining the illusion that credits are properly distributed.  Taking the cash out of the current credit system to make a complete cashless society, the illusion of proper distribution and exchange will be harder to uphold when the going gets really tough.  Few good examples would be unemployment goes skyrocket, income inequality goes skyrocket, debts go skyrocket and so forth.

Of course, you can argue, when the going gets really tough, with cash in the economic system or not, the whole bubble is going to pop and a king’s head rolls anyway.  Nonetheless, with cash in the system, at least new problems of cashless society won’t be introduced to the general population.  Once cashless society is in place, some traditional problems plus new problems are going to continuously rain down on the whole society, especially when people can be cut off from the system altogether since only credit-like means are acceptable and real.

Cashless society would definitely help the controllers to see the nuts and bolts of the whole system more clearly, because electronic transactions are going to leave electronic traces behind.  Nonetheless, in bad time, this would aggravate people rather easily, because they feel their privacy are being invaded all the time.  When it comes to money, privacy matters!

I think people won’t mind sharing who they’re having sex with, but when it comes down to money people are not that willing to share.  Thus, money is rather private!  So, cashless society is going to have a problem of allowing people to have some privacy with their money.  For an example, if everything is so connected in the cashless society, everyone would know how much credits you have available.  This would mean your local pizza parlor would refuse you a slice of pizza for they know your whole worth is zero or negative credit.  In a cash society, you can just hand over the cash, the local pizza parlor would careless if you have any credit, and off you go with a delicious slice of pizza.  In a cashless society, your shame would be revealed instantly.  Even worse, you will not be able to fill up your stomach when nobody is going to accept cash.  After all, it’s a cashless society!

In summary, I think cashless society can make bad economics worse, because new problems would be introduced to the general population.  These problems may become apparent rather quickly when the economy goes bad.  An example would be people may become less cooperative in making a living, because there are less incentives to encourage people to earn money the hardy way.  People may try to scheme the infinite credit/cashless society to make money the easy way, and economic bubbles would form into gigantic ones till they burst and collapse the economic system altogether.  Instead of really solving the problems of society such as poverty and whatnot, cashless society can only enhance the paranoia of lacking privacy.  Money is a very private matter to many people, and so these people are not going to be very happy about having to live in a cashless society when every known businesses and services out there know how much you are worth 24/7.  At least with cash, people can hide their shame of having less worth.  Basically, any society with a lot of insecurity can collapse, and so the same goes with cashless society.

 

Should China and the United States Go To War?

The United States stated she will sail her warships within China’s manmade island’s or islands’ 12 nautical mile, and China openly replied that it would not allow any country to violate its territory.  In coming days, if United States indeed will sail within China’s manmade islands’ 12 nautical mile and if China is indeed going to use force to stop the American warships from entering the area, we may have an uncontrollable situation in which it’s insane just to fathom about the possibility of a situation like this to occur in the first place.  The biggest question is what will happen after if China indeed sinks a ship or two that belong to the United States?  Will the United States go to war with China if such an aftermath would occur?  Who will push the red nuclear button first?  We cannot take China as Iraq, because China got so much more capabilities than Iraq could ever wish for.  China knows United States, although economically weaker by days and months, still has a very strong military and so facing the United States won’t be a walk in the park either.  It just happens that Intelligence Squared Debates program got a debate show in which it asks the debaters to actively debate on the question of “Are China and U.S. long term enemies?”  The video is right after the break.

The long term enemies part the video may get it wrong, because countries don’t look at each other as buddies but potential competitors or pawns or necessary evils or enemies.  It isn’t strange when I stated like that, because it’s true.  Basically, nobody knows how the United States and China will behave toward each other in a much longer term.  Nonetheless, at the present time, United States and China are clearly on the verge of starting a dangerous proposition in which neither country may want to back down, consequently leading to a global war.  If China and United States are at war, the war environment won’t be a vacuum space in which the participants are only China and the United States.  In fact, I believe that a war between these two giants will pull in all sorts of countries that choose sides.  Even a country wants to be neutral in such a scenario may not have a choice to do so, because geographical reason or whatever, one or both giants may want to push such a country into war anyway.

We can have a debate all we want on how long U.S. and China would be enemies, but if someone is crazy enough to think that it’s sensible to have China and United States go to war, we cannot rule out a situation in which nuclear weapons would fall off from the sky in both directions toward both countries.  By the way, Russia is China’s neighbor.  If Russia sees nuclear missiles from the United States heading toward the east, what do you think Russia will do?  If I’m a Russian leader, I would definitely think that the nuclear missiles are heading my way, and so I must reply in kind with my own nuclear missiles.  Meanwhile China too would be in panic and push the red nuclear button.  From my understanding, both China and Russia together have more nuclear weapons than the United States.  It’s not a situation I like to see for sure, because I don’t want to see my life and countless other people lives to be wasted away in seconds for power politics in geopolitical common sense.

In my opinion, geopolitical common sense is opposite from treating thy neighbor the way you want to be treated common sense, because geopolitical common sense is about not having to lose one’s position, power, and so on.  To put it bluntly, nobody wants to be a little guy, because being a king is always better.  A king can have his way, and a little guy will often have to swallow a hurtful pride.  Nonetheless, whenever we include nuclear weapons into the equation, it’s hard for a sane person to think it would be possible for United States and China to go to an all out war.  Perhaps, one side likes to think that such an all out war is insane, and so a controllable war would be possible.  One side may think that at some point, a situation got to a point that nuclear weapons may be used, they could negotiate deals to unwind down the war and nuclear weapons will not be used.  Unfortunately, in a war, I don’t think it’s that easy to control or wish a situation to occur the way we like it.  Thus, we may want to unwind the war down in a war in which nuclear weapons would be used, the enemy may not know our best intention and misread the intention somehow and nuclear weapons would be used anyway.

It’s scary to see the biggest boys on the block with nuclear weapons are about to strangle each other out.  Right after 9/11 of 2001 terrorist attack on World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York, time had become ever more dangerous.  It’s cliche to say that we are living in an interesting time, but I think cliche or not we are actually witnessing a time in which humanity is at risk of losing the sanity of it all.  What is even crazier?  It is that in a time in which I attended middle school, a time in which it was way before 9/11 of 2001, I had read something from a book in which a title I totally have now forgotten, and this something predicted the explosion of a major landmark in New York.  On 9/11 of 2001, I could not believe of what I’d witnessed on that day, and it reminded me a prediction I’d read in a book way back then.  How could a prediction be so true even though prediction is purely a fiction?  In my opinion, prediction is a fiction unless it becomes real.  Today, some people like to use bible prophecy which had been written eons ago to predict a war between China and the United States.  I want to say this, be careful of what you wish for!  A prediction may come true if we believe it and allow it to happen.