-
...
Monday, 1 June 2020
Saturday, 15 February 2020
Home | DBTV Live
Home | DBTV Live: [bt_bb_section layout="wide" show_sticky="show-top" show_previous_posts="show" order_by="default" top_spacing="" bottom_spacing="" full_screen="" vertical_align="top" color_scheme="dark-skin" background_col ...
Thursday, 16 January 2020
Saturday, 28 December 2019
China National Interest
China has developed an app called human behavior. China is monitoring all mobile phone users through this app. The data generated through this app goes into a huge data base. Top genius data analyst are working on that data base and then developing narratives for national policy narratives. National policy is developed based on such narratives.
The objective of national policy are two
1. To become No. 1 economic power on earth.
2. Distribute the economic well being to entire population.
Policy makers then design certain incentives for population that is transmitted back to population to score points. These score points are reported to population through the same behavior app.
A gentleman score high points and a criminal scores low points. These high scores helps the person to acquire licenses for business and government contracts.
In other words, a gentleman become a rich person and a criminal or corrupt person goes into the deep marshes of poverty.
The leader of China Xin has placed these policy principles in the constitution.
Every leader can rule China for 10 years.
After Xin retires, the new leader will have to follow these principles in constitution unless changed by hundreds of thousands of community leaders which is very very difficult to change.
Therefore now these policy notations are embedded in the Chinese constitution.
Now only Allah can stop China to become No.1 Economic power on earth.
Sent from my iPhone
The objective of national policy are two
1. To become No. 1 economic power on earth.
2. Distribute the economic well being to entire population.
Policy makers then design certain incentives for population that is transmitted back to population to score points. These score points are reported to population through the same behavior app.
A gentleman score high points and a criminal scores low points. These high scores helps the person to acquire licenses for business and government contracts.
In other words, a gentleman become a rich person and a criminal or corrupt person goes into the deep marshes of poverty.
The leader of China Xin has placed these policy principles in the constitution.
Every leader can rule China for 10 years.
After Xin retires, the new leader will have to follow these principles in constitution unless changed by hundreds of thousands of community leaders which is very very difficult to change.
Therefore now these policy notations are embedded in the Chinese constitution.
Now only Allah can stop China to become No.1 Economic power on earth.
Sent from my iPhone
Saturday, 12 October 2019
FW: INEVITABLE FACT OF LIFE / REALITY OF INEQUALITY
Inevitable fact of life ;
REALITY OF INEQUALITY–
FREE-MARKET ECONOMY MEANS INCOME INEQUALITY:
Observers routinely argue that the growth of 'income inequality' has robbed the poor and middle class of their rightful share of the economic pie, and even that inequality has shrunk the pie itself… But despite the claims– more inequality leads to lower living standards, the patterns across the developed nations of the world suggest that if anything, higher inequality is accompanied by– higher standards of living for both the middle-class and the poor… According to Anne Bradley; an attempt to understand the economic implications of income inequality and the basic facts of economic life reveal that some level of income inequality is inevitable…
In other words, a fact of economic life is that workers will not all make the same income, i.e.; there is no preexisting pot of income that gets divided within the population… According to Howard Barbanel; in any free market society there are always going to be some folks who do better financially than others… Part of getting into top 10% is the combination of– hard work, education, talent, luck… not everyone has the passion, persistent, or patience to get there…
Unfortunately the meaning of 'equality' as applied to human rights has become fuzzy; it traditionally stood for– equality before the law, or equality of opportunity, or equality of dignity… But it's never stood for– equality of income, or equality of outcome… The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights only guarantees the right to pursue happiness, but not happiness itself… Similarly the American dream provides for the opportunity to become a 1%er, but not as entitlement…
In the article Economic Inequality by Paul Graham writes: Since the 1970s, economic inequality in the U.S. has increased dramatically– the rich have gotten a lot richer… Nearly everyone who writes about the topic says that economic inequality is– unfair, unjust, and must be remedied… And most people would agree, but first it's important to understand that economic inequality is not just one thing; it consists of things that are 'bad', e.g.; limiting education, discrimination, and all the 'isms'… But there are things that are 'good', e.g.; entrepreneurship, talent development, and all the self-helps that elevate people to take risks, work hard, start new companies…
In the real world, there are people who create wealth, they create value, and yes, they create income inequality… because they have special talents, they take risks, work hard, often fail… but they still carry-on…However, when people just– take wealth, they scam wealth, they transfer wealth… without creating value, then that's a degenerate form of economic inequality… But there are so-called well-intended activists who don't differentiate and are averse to acknowledge the productive-side of inequality… So they give very precise numbers about inequality and the variation in wealth and income, and follow it with the most naive speculation about the underlying causes…
In the article Case 'For' Economic Inequality by Carlos Alvarenga writes: There are some interesting argument in favor of a certain type economic inequality… This is not a common position these days, but according to Paul Graham's argument he has four basic points:
· Economic inequality comes in two forms, i.e.; wealth creation and wealth transfer…
· Where wealth creation is good and wealth transfer is bad…
· Society cannot afford to eliminate, discourage wealth creation…
· Society can and should eliminate, discourage wealth transfer…
The foundation of Graham's argument is that economic inequality has two forms, each with opposite moral and social consequences. As he notes: Google's founders did not directly make anyone poorer by inventing Google. It was the market that rewarded them financially for their invention…The same is true for thousands of entrepreneurs who take personal and financial risks to start business in the hope that their ideas will make them wealthy…
According to Graham; entrepreneurship, with its occasionally amazing rewards, is a necessary and desirable social mechanisms that provide the best and brightest an outlet for their talents… what people should really focus on is not income inequality but poverty… In other words, society should worry more about raising the floor, so to speak, than lowering the ceiling…
Then there are the ideas of Thomas Piketty in his book; 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century', which makes the case for rising income inequality, and proposes extensive global tax redistribution to remedy the problem… Ironically, Graham's ideas, although seemingly contradictory, don't negate Piketty's central thesis, which primarily focuses on the 'bad' kind of income inequality. According to Piketty; many great fortunes are accumulated through unproductive means– through self-perpetuating wealth transfer… Which according to Graham is the dark side of income inequality…
In other words, there is nothing wrong with Bill Gates amassing a great fortune (Graham's argument), but there is something very wrong with his heirs inheriting that fortunate, they have not created any value to earn it (Picketty's argument)… Even if one can reconcile two views; Graham's argument needs much further refinement, e.g.; while he says 'bad' inequality must be decreased, he does not really describe how this should be done…
However in the end, the most important point amid all the noise about income inequality is that it deserves a thoughtful, realistic and insightful discussion…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)